Posted 1 year, 3 months ago in 
Loading ...
“David Silverman, a spokesman for American Atheists, based in New Jersey, said the county commission invoking the name of Jesus during invocation is ‘borderline treason’ and a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
“When it comes right down to it, they know they are breaking the law,” he said. “If they want to keep doing it, we will sue, we will win and they will stop, and they will go to jail.”
From www.GJSentinel.com.
I guess that says it all. Although Mr. Silverman refers to elected officials, where will the atheists stop?
Military service members have selected their choice of faith for decades. Our vets, lying on hallowed federal ground, may now also guilty of treason for their faith being displayed above their remains if we continue to limit freedom of speech to be politically correct. Vets chose the cross, menorahs, wicca, etc., symbols for their monuments on federal and state lands. That they sacrificed so American Atheists can have someone thrown in jail over free speech is the real violation of our Constitution.
Some gave all, all gave some. Only death will finally settle the argument for some. Until then, faith, hope and love should still be a public official’s right too. And our vets’ right.
GREG MERSCHEL
Grand Junction
185 Responses to “Where will the atheists stop?”
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
For those of you who don’t know, Greg Merschel was the guy in the Marine Uniform standing tall in support of our troops at 4th and Rood, when the anti-troop types were holding their protest demonstrations, and I am proud to have stood beside him. Freedom has a different meaning to those who have fought for it.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 12:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Altough I think Mr. Silverman’s rhetoric is over the top and not representative of most of those in sympathy of the local atheists, Mr. Merschel’s examples are all beside the point. It isn’t free specch at issue nor is it the implied patriotism. A government sponsored meeting open to the public and for the purpose of doing the busines of ALL the public is not an appropriate place for sectarian prayer. It is also not a matter for majority rule. I agree with Ms. Landman that only a silent moment of contemplation or prayer is appropriate. The law, as indicated by precedents, allows for more than that as long as pure sectarian practices and beliefs are not part of the ceremony. Atheists as a group do not hate those with religious beliefs. I don’t understand the uproar from people of faith and their apparent hatred of those who do not hold their beliefs. The only place where sectarian prayer is not appropriate or legal is on government property, in some cases, and in government meetings . The fact that there are lots of instances where it happens does not make it right.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 12:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Merschel,
Your sacrifice is what makes it possible for those who were demonstrating, able to demostrate. Unfortunately, they are too naive or too self serving or too easily swayed or too “something” to understand or make the connection. Please know that there are more of us in the valley who do understand it and appreciate it. I salute you and whole heartedly thank you!
P.S. You, too, AP!
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 12:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Merschel obviously does not understand the Constitution either. To compare prayer in tax supported government meetings to the particular faith displayed on a cemetery marker is absurd and irrelevant to the question. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. A marine uniform obviously does not guarantee understanding of the issues.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 12:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And of course to people like Class, protecting the Constitution means nothing, unless the individual accepts his interpretation of what the Constitution means. Did Class say he was fighting for freedom? Is that his interpretation?
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 12:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
On second thought Class, what have you done to earn the right to criticize the man or the uniform? Would you like a suggestion as to where you can stow your attitude, so it doesn’t get Sun burned?
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 12:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I criticised neither the man nor his uniform, merely his obvious lack of understanding of the issue. Quite different, flag waver.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 12:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s just funny to me how far - and how long - issues like this can go on.
The fight over the Mount Soledad cross in San Diego has been going on since 1989.
“The dispute dates back to 1989, and at one point the arguments included an order for San Diego to take the cross down. But in 1998 the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, a move that again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.
Then Proposition A, passed by 76 percent of the voters in July 2005, called for the city to donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of the veterans memorial. Finally, Congress stepped and ordered the ownership of the land transferred to the federal government, a plan signed into law last year by President Bush.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71003
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 12:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah, Class, but the difference between you and I is the flag that we wave. Your’s is red, mine is Red, White and Blue. And yes, you did criticize the man and the uniform. You ungrateful pencil neck.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Odd, My Discharge from the United States Navy quite plainly says “HONORABLE”.
What does your say gene?
You claimed military service, but have steadfastly refused to submit facts and details.
Why is that gene? No service, or no Honorable Discharge certificate?
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Where will the Atheists Stop?
Two paces past the gates of Hell!!!
AP: Yeah, Class, but the difference between you and I is the flag that we wave. Your’s is red, mine is Red, White and Blue. And yes, you did criticize the man and the uniform. You ungrateful pencil neck.
I’m right behind you AP.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP/Willyman - It’s obvious that both of you continue to be upset about the City Council’s decision (6-1) to modify their invocation policy to comply with current law. At this point you have three realistic options:
1) File a lawsuit in district court challenging the new policy.
2) Begin the process of recalling all councilpersons who voted to modify the old policy.
3) Live with the decision of your elected representatives and “move on.”
Since options 1 and 2 require “action” on your parts, the chances of either one of them happening are about as great as the “rapture” prophesy being fulfilled. The only choice left is “moving on.”
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tasha53 - The fear of going to Hell exists for for those who believe Hell exists. Rational thinking people are not burdened with that superstition.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 1:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GjBubba,
I can think of one more option that has a real good chance of succeeding. And wouldn’t be subject to recall. It sounded a little to me like you missed one of the people on your list. That is a match up I’d give five bucks to watch. Why don’t you phone Greg Merschel and tell him exactly how you feel? But wait an hour or so, he is in a class/meeting right now.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 2:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ:Why is that gene? No service, or no Honorable Discharge certificate?
Isn’t there some real truth to the widely circulated rumor that you served jail time for spousal abuse? (Two can play your slimy little game of innuendo WLJ)
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 2:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now gene, YOU claimed military service, I did not assign that to you.
On the other hand, this little blurb you tossed out is just another unsubstantiated lie that you created inside your pathetic little mind in hopes of deflecting the truth away from your own inability to operate in the real world without resorting to lies.
There is no ’slimy little game of innuendo’ Mr. J.E. Fox. Just you trying to slide out from under another unsubstantiated claim that YOU made when YOU claimed service in the United States Military.
Prove your claim.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 2:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
APYeah, Class, but the difference between you and I(sic) is the flag that we wave. Your’s is red, mine is Red, White and Blue. And yes, you did criticize the man and the uniform. You ungrateful pencil neck.
Anybody who posts an idea on this public forum is subject to having his ideas criticised. It is called freedom of speech Unamerican patriot. I suggest you learn something about the Constitution so you can truly become a citizen of this great country. Despite your absurd assertion, you can not find a single sentence where I criticised the man or his uniform personally, only his lack of understanding. You on the other hand continue to insult me personally with every posting. Can’t stand the heat of intellectual discourse? Or the rules of grammar?
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Freedom of Speech does not extend to the ‘freedom’ to lie.
I know Mr. Merschel, and there is not a doubt that he more aware of the Constitution than you are capable of learning gene.
Now, about your military service you claimed?
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 2:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “Just you trying to slide out from under another unsubstantiated claim that YOU made when YOU claimed service in the United States Military.
Prove your claim.”
Which claim would that be? Quote me the sentence you are referring to please.
I don’t have to prove anything to you! Who do you think you are demanding to know my private business? You are a non-entity hiding behind what you think is an anonymous electronic personna (even though several of us now know who you really are). You have no claim on any information from me whatsoever. If you confess your true identity in this public forum and tell us where you supposedly got a college degree, I might think about responding to some of your questions. Otherwise, forget it.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 3:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry gene, you made a claim of military service, and have been running from it since you posted it.
Either you served, or you did not serve.
By your own posts you went from highschool, to college, to graduate studies, to professorship, to private industry.
No 2, 4 or 6 year lapse for military service.
Now the question seems to be, why lie about it in the first place? What did you expect to gain from creating the lie?
And why continue the lie now that it is out in the open? What do you have to gain?
Other than giving me the opportunity to slam you for all the lies you keep telling on this site?
Utopia was created fro you and your ilk on the freep, but yet you remain here to spew forth your hatred of America.
Why is that gene?
Are you afraid that some people may like to log on for decent conversation and discussion of events without your belittle them?
What do you gain from that gene?
Is it an ego trip?
You are about the most pitiful excuse for a human as I have ever met.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 3:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: Sorry gene, you made a claim of military service, and have been running from it since you posted it.
Well if that is true, then you should have no trouble reminding us all of exactly what I posted. Put up or shut up.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 3:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey!!! What a swell idea gene, why don’t you shut up and go to the utopia where you don’t have to put up with the constant barrage of being caught in your lies?
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 3:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: Either you served, or you did not serve.
By your own posts you went from highschool, to college, to graduate studies, to professorship, to private industry.
No 2, 4 or 6 year lapse for military service.
You are entirely ignorant of my career. You do not have the vaguest notion of what you are talking about. So quit lying about what I have posted and stop trying to pry into my private business. No amount of taunting or insults are going to do you any good. Coming from you, about the most worthless poster on the forum, they are just water off a duck’s back.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 3:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - I’m curious, what option, “that has a real good chance of succeeding. And wouldn’t be subject to recall” did I miss? Please elucidate.
Oh, did I mention that 5 of the 6 Grand Junction City Councilpersons who voted for the invocation policy modifications are registered Mesa County Republicans. Suing or recalling your own people, now that would endear you guys with the party stalwarts.
The time for cheap talk is over, it’s “nut cutting” time - sue, recall, or shut up!
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 3:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor class.
Constantly being caught in lies, and screams in frustration, but always with the underlying suspicion that I can prove my claims.
Call my bluff little buddy.
As to my ‘ignorance’ of your career, I’m just going by what YOU actually posted.
Remember way back when you moaned about the poverty your father, unable to properly support his family caused you to have to work your own way through college, and you ‘athletic scholarship’?
You have made a lot of claims little feller since you have been posting on here little feller.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
I guess it is because you are such an easy target, Class. Everything that comes out of your mouth is an insult to discourse. Unfortunately it is your lack of understanding that precipitates your convulsive public displays. The only positions that you adopt are those you feel might provide some self gratification.
The words duty, honor, country are as foreign to your mentality as the flag that you wave is to our thinking. What perverse mental virus is this that has eaten it’s way into your soul, and compels you against all things of your own nation, and God? Are you then bent upon destruction as a result of some real or imagined slight? You attack others deeply held beliefs with a zealousness of a man killing snakes. Is that your perception of Christians? You fancy yourself a defender of the Constitution. I think sir, that you do not know the meaning of that term. You judge all harshly that would stand against your destructive rage. But you judge yourself not at all. You act and speak as a man without conscience. You justify the unjustifiable, and lay claim to Hades with a doubtless resolve of one who has abandoned all hope of redemption. You blaspheme with the ease of a cretin, unmindful of the pillage in your words. I don’t believe I have ever met a man so in love with himself, and that is the uniqueness of it. You rush to look into the abyss, without consciousness that when you do so, the abyss looks into you. Pity the man who tarries where Angels fear to tread.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
Actually that was your first scenario of choice. I believe as you explained it before we were supposed to turn on our own and that would benefit your atheist agenda. I am ever amazed at how you atheist work against yourself. Do you think that we do not know the progression of your agenda? Didn’t it occur to you that you furnished the issue that will put true Republicans over the top in this election.
Your stalwart defense of Mr. Kearsley was the catalyst for his exposure as being the atheist candidate of choice. Do you think that helped his position? Politically, your problem is situational awareness.
Contrary to what you may believe, we are not in the habit of eating our young nor are we in the habit of making novice political mistakes.
It is just people such as yourself, those who feel compelled to put their business on the street and lean towards bravado and bragging that will doom your agenda in the political arena.
But we on the other side appreciate you very much. Keep up the good work.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 8:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Merschel - your statement “Military service members have selected their choice of faith for decades. Our vets, lying on hallowed federal ground, may now also guilty of treason for their faith being displayed above their remains if we continue to limit freedom of speech to be politically correct. Vets chose the cross, menorahs, wicca, etc., symbols for their monuments on federal and state lands. That they sacrificed so American Atheists can have someone thrown in jail over free speech is the real violation of our Constitution.” deserves a modicum of response.
Military members are generally not offered a ‘choice’ of religion. It is quite simply force-fed early on and is invariably Christian. Hey, its a captive audience and, in the military, acceptance and belonging is paramount. So, please don’t dare refer to this as a choice.
The veterans don’t really have a choice in what is displayed above their remains. Others do that for them, whether they would have agreed or not. Get it straight.
The vets, of which I am one, did not sacrifice for anyone’s religious preference. I did not, during my service in Nam or any other place think for one moment that my actions would help or hinder anyone who was Catholic, Pentecostal, LDS, or Pastafarian! My service was about my country, not somebody’s religion, or lack thereof. Please don’t defend your own narrow-minded beliefs by trying to cloak them as being linked to the honoring of our veterans.
BTW - A_P - you once again display not only your ignorance of history and the law, but also your obvious lack of standing in both experience and education. Please, take some night courses! Also, your continued vitriolic attacks on others in this forum are, at the least, unwelcome and do not say much about your ‘patriotic’ civility.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 8:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, damoron once again proves his inability to understand the military.
ALL members of the military are given free rein in the choosing of their religious preferences, and no stigma is placed on any person for their choice.
The military doe not care.
Only to the extent that if, in the case of death, their religious, or other, preferences are treated accordingly.
Reality check fool.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 8:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Congratulations to Incumbent County Commissioner Janet Rowland on her big win. And I would like to personally thank all the atheists who did so much to make that possible.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 8:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Woo hoo!
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 9:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
2008 Primary Election (unofficial) results.
County Commissioner District 3
Janet Rowland 5684 63.9%
Dave Kearsley 3138 35.3%
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 10:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, the next few months should be very entertaining.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 7:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, the dentists should make a killing with all the grinding of teeth going on….
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 7:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Found where I said I’d never read the Constitution yet Willis? Or are you just trying to let it drop and hope people forget you once again couldn’t support one of your accusations?
You said you had it. Where is it?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 8:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yup, did you go looking yet?
I know which file I have it in.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 8:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Janet Rowland’s landslide victory, if anything, is a commentary on the flash in the pan atheist agenda and strategy. Their political miscalculations have resulted in the opposite effect of what they intended. Their first mistake was placing themselves in an adversarial position to the Christian community. It is inconceivable that their leadership would make such an obvious political blunder. The only possible explanation is that Anne Landman and semi-retired attorney Bill Hugenberg, in their gadfly attempts for personal recognition and the limelight lost track of the fact that they came to drain the swamp, and consequently found themselves up to their necks in a pond full of alligators.
As so often happens in political matters, the atheist strategy did not survive its first contact with the public. What should follow for the atheists is a period of introspection and reassessment of their strategies and goals. Predictably, with such a radical group, that will not happen. It is more likely that they will busy themselves with the blame game and an internal power struggle, and dependant on the outcome, a new leadership and strategy will emerge. Or on the other hand, the old failed leadership will renew their efforts in headline grabbing in their search for self importance.
The most probable occurrence is the later, and that means we can expect even greater demands backed by threat of litigation and lawsuit, with little or no efforts to solicit public support to their issue. It is too late to turn back now. With their first veiled hints of lawsuits, the atheists burned the bridge of community support behind them. They lost any moral high ground they may have attained through their “we are the victims” mantra.
That strategy transition was the beginning of the end. By relinquishing their quest for public support, in favor of the power play, they also relinquished their most effective tool and placed themselves on a path that will eventually and inevitably lead to the loss of their second most powerful tool; the threat of litigation.
Local elected officials, with public support behind them, can now call the atheist litigation bluff. And to be credible the atheists will be forced to carry through with litigation or drop their agenda. Either way, what we will have is a whole new political poker game. Got a hunch, bet a bunch.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 8:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, kearsley can always run on the newly formed atheist party platform.
With the original 13 atheists and ‘free(?)thinkers’, fawks and friends, huggieberg, and everybody else that hates Christianity, he could probably amass a total of 3 votes.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 8:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The reaction of the local ‘theocrats’ such as Sue and AP was fully predictable. Unfortunately, their previous arguments in the cause of Ms. Rowland, and they are by no means the only ones, chose to prostitute their ‘religion’ in the cause of materialism; i.e. political power and influence.
Such individuals will undoubtedly engage in heated denial but, that does not negate the true nature of their behavior.
Now that they have, by their own choice, opened the door between church and state, the people of the polity have every right to enter the churches or other places of worship of such individuals and to begin, not only questioning, but influencing and dictating what its members are taught, believe and how they worship. If it does not serve the ‘interests of the state’, the ‘majority’ of the people have every right to demand that they be changed.
And that is true, not only in Mesa County, but throughout the Grand Valley and beyond.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 8:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Why would I look for something that doesn’t exist? You claim you have it, post it. It was your claim in the forst place.
You won’t, because you don’t have it. You don’t have it because I never said that. My bet is that you will simply continue to dance around, tossing insults but never actually supporting your claim, even though you say you can. Just another lie.
Prove me wrong.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 8:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
You keep saying that the atheists have lost, that their agenda has failed.
Why do you say this? They asked the city council to change what they were doing, and the city council did. Seems like a victory to me. You are simply assuming there is more to it.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 8:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Um, Robert? You live in Delta. Why, pray tell, do you care how Mesa county voters vote?
Janet Rowland got my vote (and will in November) because I live and work in Mesa County. In my opinion, there is no reason to believe she isn’t the person to do the job in the future. I don’t see that voting for her to remain in office has opened the door between church and state, I see it as a testament to the job she has already done and is expected to continue to do.
Tell you what, since this is a democracy, I’ll vote for whomever I feel is the best choice for office and you do the same. I don’t have to agree with your choice and you don’t have to agree with mine. Deal?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 8:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue asks: “Um, Robert? You live in Delta. Why, pray tell, do you care how Mesa county voters vote?”
It is a valid question but the real issue is not Janet Rowland, now is it? She is merely a symptom of a much larger issue. The real question is, and the one that needs to be the separation of church and state, a barrier which some wish to demolish. Something that, when some of us look at, are reminded of the old admonition that “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”.
Perhaps Sue and others do not have a sufficient knowledge of history to understand what has always happened when church and state were combined. They have laid the foundations for the biggest disasters ever to have befallen humanity, and the most horendous violence against individuals.
When combining two or more forces that should be kept separate, one will inevitably serving the purpose(s) of the other. Therefore, it is best not to join together in the first place.
Sue also says: “I’ll vote for whomever I feel is the best choice for office and you do the same.”
Which is absolutely true and I will defend her right to do so. What is often lacking in far too many is that they really do not take the time to consider all the consequences of their vote.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 9:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Atta boy, Scott, sho you right, right on. You just keep thinking that.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 9:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, since I am in a position to know what the atheist agenda really is, I will.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 9:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
So you are giving your word that the atheists have no intention, no plans or no agenda to make a request/demand of the Mesa County Commissioners similar or the same as the one they made of the City Council.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 9:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m glad that Mrs. Rowlands won her election. She makes more sense than the other guy that couldn’t answer easy questions on the budget or the energy problems.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 9:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, I am not saying that. Quite the contrary.
I am saying that you are quite wrong in your assumption that there is an atheist agenda, at least at this point, that extends beyond the invocations held at the city council and county commissioner meetings. There is no Sierra Club connection, no long range plan to repeal the Second Amendment. That this happens to be an election year never entered the discussion. The atheists are simply a group of citizens who have seen a problem in how our local government is conducting its business, and are attempting to rectify that situation. At this time there are no plans to do anything beyond that. I’m sure they will do something, but they have not decided, determined or even discussed what that will be.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 10:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander - As part of your ongoing eduction, you should spell Janet’s name correctly. It’s Mrs. Rowland, NOT Mrs. Rowland(s)
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 10:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Then it would appear Scott, contrary to what you stated in your prior post, there is more to it. Either that or you do not, as you claim, have knowledge of the atheist agenda. And that is what is known as an agenda. Your leadership cannot afford to be without an agenda. They will continue to make issues where there are none. Without them, there is no need for the group and hence no need for the leadership.
I will agree with you that your leadership’s miscalculation in pushing their agenda in an election year was the result of lack of forethought, and there also appears to be a major disconnect between some of the atheist proponents (GJBubba) and your version of the atheist strategy. He has repeatedly declared that it is the atheist’s agenda to take over. You will recall his statement that Meis and Rowland must go down. Are you now saying that Commissioner Rowland’s landslide victory was an intended consequence, and your group considers their contribution to her victory a win for the atheists? If so, I am wondering how many more such victories you have planned? We’ll take all you got, with thanks.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 10:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If there is any more to it than what I stated, it only what you have imagined. The atheists are a group of non-believers who get together on occasion to discuss issues relevant to atheism. If possible, they’d like to show the general public that atheists are not the demon-possessed monsters that many think them to be. It was brought up at one of those gatherings that the city council invocations were in violation of Supreme Court rulings and it was decided to send them a letter. The same will no doubt be done with the county commissioners. Janet Rowland’s victory was never a consideration, nor was it ever considered as it is irrelevant, although had she lost the primary the problem may well have solved itself after November.
Do you think the invocation issue is what won her the election? What do you think the result would have been without that issue? I think you overestimate the influence the invocation issue had on the voting.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 10:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
How about that citation? You’ve claimed you have it at least twice now. You wouldn’t want your supporters to think you’re just blowing smoke now, would you?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 11:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Not me little buddy. My ’supporters’ have a clue.
But, back to the subject, class claimed military service and never gave any details, yet you never questioned him on the subject.
Double standard scott?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 11:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - I think you’re putting the “cart before the horse” regarding Rowland’s “victory” in the primary.
There is absolutely no data whatsoever indicating how much, if any, influence the invocation controversy had on Rowland’s victory over Dave Kearsley. None whatsoever.
Janet’s victory in the primary is not a valid indicator of how “Mrs. Bestiality” will do in the general election. Kearsley garnered nearly 40 percent of the Republican primary vote. It’s reasonable to expect that a number of his supporters will not support Rowland in November, but will either not vote at all for the position or vote for Dickie Lewis, the Democratic candidate.
Speaking of Dickie Lewis.
In case you don’t know, Lewis is a trial lawyer. I’ve seen him work in the courtroom, and I can guarantee you he will eviscerate Janet in any open debate (there will be at least 3 public debates). It’s not even going to be close!
Your statement that, “He (GJB) has repeatedly declared that it is the atheist’s agenda to take over” is simply not true.
What I actually said was that the atheists had “won” the controversy when the Grand Junction City Council voted 6-1 (with 5 of the 6 votes coming from registered Mesa County Republicans!) voted to modify their existing invocation policy.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 12:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
I have no reason to doubt Classof52’s claim. I do have reason to doubt yours. You have repeatedly said you have the cite to support your claim. You have refused to produce it. One can only assume that you cannot.
I personally KNOW you can’t produce it becasue it doesn’t exist. I’m making a definite claim, and all you would have to do to prove me a liar is to show where I said I’d never read the Constitution. Yet you haven’t. Your supporters have a clue, WIllis. They have a clue you’re blowing smoke once again.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 1:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. GJBubba. Did somebody make you the spelling cop? Each time I have placed a message here, you have found some reason to correct me. Do you get corrected by other people everytime you make a mistake?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 2:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GjBubba
With the exception of you, there is no data indicating that anyone who voted for Dave Kearsley will not vote for Janet Rowland in the general election. You see, most of them are real Republicans, not some radical left wing Democrat who changed party affiliations so he could make an ass of himself. And I’m afraid your memory is as faulty as your predictions. You might drop one or two of your alter egos.
Then you might be able to remember what you said. Otherwise your candidate wouldn’t have gone home with his tail between his legs. He was an attorney too, and an investment banker, and to hear you tell it over the last couple of months he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. But he went down hard, didn’t he? You might try glancing at the scoreboard once in a while. Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear weapons.
There is no second place in politics. There is a winner and there is a loser, and your boy was a loser. And your new boy will be a loser in November. Who would vote for a Dickie attorney anyway? Remember back when all the bragging was going on about how Kearsley had gotten the endorsement of the local newspaper. Do you have any idea how often they have been wrong? There is an old saying; all politics are local. And to understand Western Slope politics, you need to be local. Seems like every other year there is some Johnny come lately transplant trying to tell us his version of how politics works. We listen politely and then send him home with his tail between his legs.
Just a couple of weeks ago, there was speculation on how well Kearsley would do in a debate. You might want to attend in the future. I did, and your boy fell flat on his face. And I suspect there will be room enough for your new guy, down there on the floor.
And just what would you know about the truth. That is why you have to keep changing your handle, because you have been caught in one lie after another. You might check with your psychiatrist and see how he feels about that. Your credibility was used up long ago. And if you really believe that the atheist agenda really had nothing to do with the election, then you won’t mind if we rewind it and play it again for the general election. You need to take your Meis and Rowland are going down prediction, put it in your back pocket or there-bouts, and get on with your bad self. I think you would do a lot better if you tried to peddle your papers elsewhere.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 2:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Well, Scott, I’m sure you are right that the invocation issue had nothing to do with the election. That being the case, you won’t mind if we rewind it and play it again for the general election. Where else but Western Slope politics do you have the opportunity to learn the same lesson twice.
As for your atheist group, they just happened to be talking one day and decide it would help their cause to piss off about 90% of the population on the Western Slope. I guess the only way you could describe that would be to call is an executive decision.
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Before the primary, I laid it right out in the open for you. Told you what the result would be, and even gave you advice on how to keep it from happening. I did that in the sure and certain knowledge that no one on your side would look at the facts objectively. No doubt you know what you want to do, you just have no idea how to do it. And that my friend makes all the difference in the world. And I will make a prediction that your group will keep right on reinforcing it’s mistakes, and placing the blame everywhere but where it belongs. Why, because it is predictable
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 2:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - Having a bad day, are we Tonto? As for the November election, we’ll just have to wait and see, won’t we?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 2:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Blame for what? What went wrong? You haven’t demonstrated that anything the atheists have done has gone wrong in any way. The atheists didn’t expect to be beloved for asking that the invocations be changed. They did expect the city council to take them seriously, and they did. They did expect the city council to recognize what they were doing needed to be changed and change it, and they did.
As far as I can see, everything is going quite well for the atheists. Just because things aren’t playing out the way you imagine the atheists want them has nothing to do with reality. Things are going quite well, thank you.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 2:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Did you see the story in todays Sentinel about the County Commissioners voting not to not pursue legal action against Delta Petroleum? I don’t know the details but it seemed like a flagrant violation by Delta Petroleum, starting construction 2 1/2 months before they received any permits. If nothing else fining them would serve as a warning to others to obey the law. Commissioner Rowland voted against granting the permits and they were issued over her objections. Note that Commissioner Acquafresca who cast the deciding vote said: “I’m not happy with pursuing criminal charges” Commissioner Meis refused to recluse himself even though his company Cordillian has multiple dealings with Delta Petroleum. Do you see something fishy here? Are we seeing a new Commissioner Rowland?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 2:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander - If you are the naive teenager you claim to be (which everyone seriously doubts), you’d welcome correction from your elders.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 2:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just curious. The Sentinel is up for sale, any takers?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 3:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm - You said, “Are we seeing a new Commissioner Rowland?”
No, we’re not seeing a “new” Commissioner Rowland, we’re seeing a “scared” Commissioner Rowland. She knows that a lot of people (including many Republicans)vehemently resent her handing her vote on all energy issues to Craig Meis four years ago. She knows that this fact will be used against her in the upcoming campaign. The bitch is running scared, and she should be!
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 3:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Geez, maybe she just did the right thing. It can happen, you know.
Look, I don’t agree with Ms. Rowland on 99.99% of her opinions, and while I think she’s far too chummy with the likes of Craig Meis (Who could be Dick Cheney’s Mini-Me), and I find the whole “invocation” issue pretty damn stupid on both sides, she won fair and square. A large majority of her constituents decided she was more in line with their views than her opponent was. Maybe it *was* about religion. If so, that’s why they voted the way they did. That’s what Representative Democracy is all about, isn’t it?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 3:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
You need to tell all of that to Kearsley. He’s the one that paid for it. It sounds to me like you are saying, we can see the bottom from here, but we ain’t there yet? But if you are happy with it, I’m tickled pink. I am just kicking myself because I should have thought of it before you guys did. But like I always say “The Lord works in mysterious ways, his miracles to perform”. Go for it.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 3:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What is “it”? What did Dave Kearsley pay for? What are we happy with? What should you have thought of?
I really have no idea what you’re on about. Too many conspiracy theories colliding, I think.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 3:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
My, My, Proteus, aka GJBubba. I don’t mind so much you losing your temper, but you really do need to get control of that alligator mouth, before it gets your canary butt in a legal sling.
rm,
I am afraid we have always had the same Commissioner Rowland. The problem has been that the atheists and freethinkers have always refused to recognize her objectivity. Seems it didn’t fit in their agenda, especially the free thinker side. For a definition of that see GJBubba. And I’ll bet all this time, he’s been under the misapprehension that his good buddy Tonto didn’t know. Just take a look at his candidate of choice in the general election. Yeah, he’s a free thinker all right.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 3:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Try reading it like it was written. No conspiracy theories, just fact, or you can ask Mr. Kearsley, I’ll bet he knows. Why is it every time you get into a bind, Scott, you start acting like you don’t understand. You have got to know by now that I am aware of your intelligence. If it were any other way, you wouldn’t have been useful to me at all.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 3:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“The problem has been that the atheists and freethinkers have always refused to recognize her objectivity.”
Ok she is being objective. She is recognizing the flagrant dereliction of duty of Commissioners Meis and Acquafresca why aren’t you jumping all over their case?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 3:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba, I know not whether you are male of female, but I do know that your language is deplorable. Whatever your personal feelings towards Mrs. Rowland are, she IS more of a Lady, than you could ever hope to be either a gentleman or lady. I suggest you sleep under the back step for a few weeks until you learn some proper manners and speak well of others in spite of your differences
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJB … your manners ARE slipping, friend. I am probably not one to talk, but I do not like to hear any woman referred to by the “B” word.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 3:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm,
Gee whiz, I thought that is what you guys did. Surely you don’t expect me to do your work for you. I’m quite happy with their representation. That is the problem, you guys just never know where to take your complaints. But maybe I can help, the address you have been looking for is 6th and Rood. I would use the East door. It is closer to the elevator, but be careful when you go down there, you might find out what goes into those decisions, and that might affect your value judgments.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - You said, “I don’t mind so much you losing your temper, but you really do need to get control of that alligator mouth, before it gets your canary butt in a legal sling.”
AP - I can’t tell you how petrified I am to your threat of legal action - I assume for my referring to you as “Tonto.” Should I be concerned enough to start a legal defense fund? Please advise.
For those who are not familiar with the fictional character of Tonto, following is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
“Tonto is a fictional character, the American Indian companion of The Lone Ranger, a popular American Western character created by George W. Trendle and Fran Striker. He has appeared in radio and television series and other presentations of the characters’ adventures righting wrongs in 19th century western America.
This Native American was portrayed as an intelligent character, almost an equal partner to the Ranger in his work. Together, they seem to be capable of righting almost any wrong within the half-hour time frame.
The radio series identified Tonto as a chief’s son in the Potawatomi nation. His name translates as ‘wild one’ in his own language. For the most part, the Potawatomi did not live in the Southwestern states, and their cultural costume is different from that worn by Tonto. The choice to make Tonto a Potawatomi seems to come from station owner George Trendle’s youth in Michigan. This is the traditional territory of the Potawatomi, and many local institutions use Potawatomi names. The phrase kemo sabe, however, was coined not by Trendle but by James Jewell, co-creator and director of the radio series; according to Jewell, his father-in-law ran a camp named Ke-Moh-Sah-Bee in Michigan, and he understood the word to mean “trusty scout”. Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope confirmed with linguists that “kemosabe” could plausibly be an Ojibwe word (giimoozaabi) for “scout” [2].
Tonto’s name, according to an NPR story on the Lone Ranger, was inspired by the name of Tonto Basin, Arizona.”
It will be interesting to see how far you get in court after the judge stops laughing, but if you insist on pursuing the matter, my reaction, in the immortal words of your idiot president:
“Bring it on!”
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is interesting to note the criticism of ‘freethinkers’. What would be any other valid type of thinking? I know of none. Perhaps it is up to those who criticize ‘freethinking’ as wrong, would care to propose another type. Dare we hope that they will>
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash/Alphalpha - You’re both partially correct. However, if you have ever met Rowland and talked to her for more than a few minutes, I don’t know many (males, at least) who wouldn’t refer to her in the manner I did.
However, in the spirit of gender harmony, I hereby change the “b” word to “Ms. Bestiality,” a term the accuracy of which is well-documented.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I do not mind “Ms. Bestiality” at all. That is very accurate.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
I have told you this before, but you must have been over medicated at the time. I don’t make threats and I don’t give warnings. If something comes from me it will come suddenly and out of nowhere. I guess you can call me anything you want, you are going to anyway. I don’t take it too seriously. You see Jay Silverheels is one of my heroes. Second to Richard Milhouse Nixon. UH OH, I’ll bet I pushed another one of those buttons.
But as for your alligator mouth, I certainly can’t speak for Janet Rowland’s husband or her attorney, but next time I talk to her, I’ll try to get an answer for you, just because I like you.
Are you trying to say that George Bush isn’t your President? My Goodness, what planet are you from? And are you expecting the Mother ship soon?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have visited with the Lady in question, and the “Ms. Bestiality” label is categorically WRONG. The only reason I can see for someone taking her comments and trying to turn it into something disgusting is if they really do have intimate relationships with their pets.
The “accuracy” of which you speak is not accurate, but a bunch of lies based on statements taken out of context. I noticed a letter to the Editor based on taking things out of context. Do the same rules no apply here?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
What I don’t understand, AP, is your use of “it” in your post #66. Are you referring to what I said, the atheist agenda, your wild conspiracies or what? When you use “it” with nothing specifying what “it” is, it gets confusing.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
I told you he was a freethinker, not to be confused with someone who thinks freely for themselves. Yup, GJBubba just bubbles over with harmony. Well I guess it is harmony he is full of. Isn’t that some kind of exploded corn or something.
Yeah, a true Gentleman that GJBubba. I like him a lot. I just try to keep him away from the little farm animals.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP posts: “I don’t make threats and I don’t give warnings. If something comes from me it will come suddenly and out of nowhere.” Undoubtedly true but, he may have added “…, and without any thinking on my part”, as such might have given us the true nature of his reactionary thought process.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I believe it may be too late to keep this person away from small animals. His comments indicate a support of bestiality, and the possible marriage to animals. And that concerns me about Ash, because she seems like an intelligent, modern woman, secure in her marriage.
But she agrees with the assessment of another Lady.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alphalpha, post 79 … The term “Ms. Bestiality” refers to Rowland’s hideous, extremely bigoted comparison of homosexuality to bestiality during an interview in 2006. Thus I assure you that particular nickname is VERY accurate and well deserved.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
It refers to the atheist agenda or if you prefer it was a small mop impersonation on the old Adam’s Family TV show, often referred to as cousin It. I think possibly a descendant from Gomez’s side of the family or perhaps related in some weird way to Learch. I don’t know, ask GJBubba? He knows about genetics you know, DNA and twisted chromosomes, things like that.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alphaalpha,
I knew it. I know my sheep and they don’t lie.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - You said, “I don’t make threats and I don’t give warnings. If something comes from me it will come suddenly and out of nowhere.”
AP - I assume you mean that, “If something comes from me it will come suddenly and out of nowhere,” means one of your “Stormtroopers for Christ” (AKA, The Baby Jesus Brigade”) being recruited for the planned boycott of Grand Junction atheists and their businesses. I’m not worried, they should be easy to identify in their jackboots and crusader crosses emblazoned on their armbands.
You also said,”Are you trying to say that George Bush isn’t your President?”
On that point you are entirely correct. Along with millions of others, I have never recognized George W. Bush as my president.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The interview that Ash is referring to was about same sex marriage, and Ms. Rowlands answer was and this is a quote.
ROWLAND: I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, that doesn’t make it a marriage. Some people have group sex — should we allow two men and three women to marry? Should we allow polygamy with one man and five wives? For some people, the alternative lifestyle is bestiality — do we allow a man to marry a sheep? I mean, at some point, you have to draw a line.”
As you can see, Ash’s interpretation isn’t exactly what was said.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash I am well aware of the origin of the name. Your use of the name indicates to me that you do not understand what she was discussing. Or you choose to not know for political reasons.
Do you support the right of some people to marry animals and use them in intimate ways?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK, busted. I have intimate relationship with my pets. I let them kiss me on the lips (though I use the sani-wipes after when they aren’t looking)
… and sometimes I nuzzle them on their bellies.
But if you knew my pets you would do it too!
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In other words you feel if a person desires to use an animal for sexual pleasures, the act should be allowed, even to the extent of allowing a marriage. Your allowing your pets to lick your face is hardly the same and you should feel ashamed for pretending there is no difference.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alphalpha, post 89 … it is you who does not understand what she was discussing. She clearly equated homosexual relationships to bestiality (not to mention incest and pedophilia).
As far as whether I support a man marrying livestock, no I do not.
I do support a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman. I suspect you do not. I imagine, the idea repulses you, as obviously it does Ms. Rowland.
… Just as the idea of interracial marriage repulsed some people decades ago (and no doubt some bigots still feel the same today; they just don’t dare come out and say it).
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJ Bubba,
My, you do have an imagination don’t you? Try to think positive thoughts. Now why would you want to compare Christians to Nazis. Isn’t that sort of thing a little out of style. And here I thought you were a modern, progressive, freethinker type. I am dismayed that you would crawl back into the gutter again. But I am sure Jesus forgives you. Well, come to think of it, like I can’t speak for Janet Rowland’s husband and attorney, I can’t speak for Jesus either. Maybe you should be worried. I hear he is all grown up now.
Again I am shocked and dismayed. But I am also confused. Which one is not your President, George Herbert Walker or as I refer to him GW? But I know how you feel. My President just died. Maybe you just heard about him? Chuck Heston, of from my cold dead fingers fame. Did you hear he could part the waters. With just a little help from that guy you may have made angry at you. Boy, I sure hope not. That would be a terrible thing to behold. Take my advice. Don’t take any chances. If we get thunder storms, just stay inside. That’s a good boy.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
alphalpha: “In other words you feel if a person desires to use an animal for sexual pleasures, the act should be allowed, even to the extent of allowing a marriage.”
WHAT?!
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
Oh my gosh, Ash, don’t you know what your pet was licking just before you kissed them. Get the iodine, get the alcohol. Ash has been kissed by dog lips.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 5:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, madam, since you seem to be of the mind that there should be no lines drawn anywhere, and since you tried to laugh off my “intimate relationship” question as the same as your pets licking your face, you basically agreed that there be no limits on any sexual relationships, including relations with animals. I think the Ms. Beastiality label is somehow misplaced.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - You’re beginning to bore me - time for me to join some friends for hors d’oeuvres, cocktails and genteel conversation at the Country Club. Talk to you later.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alphalpha, you are just dead wrong. Your logic skills are a zero on a scale of 1-10 if the above is any indication.
AP — too funny! I think of Lucy in Peanuts when Snoopy kissed her too.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 5:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No ma’am, you placed a label on a Lady. Yet your own comments indicate that there should be no lines anywhere, and THAT was the point Mrs. Rowland was making. There should be lines drawn, but obviously, in your opinion, somewhere past sexual relations with animals. Did you label her as Ms. Polygamist? That was mentioned first. Or Ms. group sex?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 5:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Because I think a man in a loving relationship with another man should be able to marry, I therefore also believe there are no lines anywhere? Wrong, alpha. That is YOUR putrid reasoning. Not mine.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 5:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Madam, you chose to slander another human being for taking a position against unlimited marriage of any type with any number of participants.
Your own remarks indicated that you have no problems with any type of relationship. YOU are the true “Ms. Bestiality”!
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK to make it clear for alphalpha, who apparently has a need to fabricate and declare what I personally believe:
I am adamantly opposed to polygamy, incest, bestilality, pedophelia, necrophelia, etc.
Unlike Ms. Rowland, however, I DO NOT equate gay marriage with all or any of the above.
You can keep making up and declaring what I believe if it amuses you, but I am done. I do not have time to argue with a glob of play-doh.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So? I take it that it’s ok to play the name calling game as long as it never comes back to haunt you? I find that to be so true, call somebody a name, but when the same name is shown to fit, it’s suddenly a bad thing. Is Ash what is generally referred to as a liberal?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey Ash,
Wanna make a bet that a_p and alphaalpha are sitting at the same keyboard?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, that’s alphalpha, sorry.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc-
Wrong. Dead Wrong. I disagree with A_P on a lot of things. Hell, most things. But he is not the type to make up a new name to fight his battles.
Guess again. And the first two that don’t rhyme with “Phyllis” don’t count.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, an astute observation. AP has cloned himself. That is the only logical explanation.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
Hey Ash. Take the bet. I’ll split the money with you. Sorry dc, but it ain’t me.
And a word to Ash, I read Janet’s quote entirely differently than you do. I don’t think she was equating anything. I think she was just saying that she couldn’t figure out a way of doing one without doing the other, legally. I have never discussed this particular issue with her, but I will bet that was her thinking. I am not sure how it would work legally, but I am pretty sure someone would come along and press the issue, but what do I know. I am just a hate-monger.
PS I know there are ways around it, but I will try to calm the speculation by being up at the same time as alphaalpha.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, you do seem to have a better sense of humor than alpha — I was just thinking it might be a rude, mush-brained alter ego … sorry
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nope, wasn’t me.
I do see the humor in it though.
Alfalpha left out a few mr bestialities though.
I wouldn’t have.
I agree with American_Patriots version.
If you allow one thing to happen, eventually, you are going to get stuck with a whole bunch of stuff going on.
Marriage doesn’t belong to the government anyway.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon,
It isn’t me Curmie, I give you my word. But I will have to say this. I considered it a compliment that some thought it was. That was a piece of work. I don’t know if alpha is for real. I hope so, I could use the help. My first thought was it was Proteus again, but I ruled that out right away. That is the problem. You never know who the hell you are talking to. That is except for you, Curmie. Have I ever told you that I find myself somehow strangely attracted to you.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
I am in favor of shacking up. It is hard on the kids, but just look at all the legal turmoil and strife we could avoid.
And what happens to GJBubba in the sheep pen should stay in the sheep pen. I sure as hell don’t want to hear about it.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A_P-
I knew it wasn’t you. Not your style.
And don’t feel weird; most people who are attracted to me find it strange.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
For those who say “if you allow a man to marry a man, where does it stop?”
Well it stops where it always stopped! At two committed, consenting, non-related adults.
I don’t see how one can reason that gay marriage negates all of the laws against marrying your sheep, or your cousin, or your 12-year old neighbor, or six of your best friends …
UNLESS one thinks gay marriage is immoral and equates it with all of the latter examples.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AlphaAlpha - Be cautious about the names. The way you are going, you may just overtake Willis for the title of Village Idiot. Now, if the Village Idiot were to cross-breed with Ms. Bestiality, what would that produce?
On a more serious note, just what do you believe? Are you against gay marriage, abortion, equality for women, you know, all those insidious liberal ideas that threaten the very fabric of our ‘christian nation’? And, of course, racial equality might even be a subject upon which you could weigh in. Go for it, show us what you really are and quit the pedantic sniping.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey Ash. damoron is wanting you to bear his child.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
blubberboy already has the village idiot title sewn up solid.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Everybody just calm down, while Willis goes and..uh…lets Alphalpha in. Yeah, that’s the ticket….
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I didn’t do it Curmie.
Whoever it is has a bead on Ash for some reason. Or that’s what it looks like to me.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 6:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This s getting too weird.
It would be great if my “detractors” could just address my post #114
But I am not holding my breath.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 7:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ok, I’m not a detractor, but I’ll try to get us back on task….
I have no problem with gay marriage. Let them get married. Make it legal and binding, and a royal pain in the ass to get out of, and slam them with tax penalties for being married, just like we are. Let them fight over custody and property, just like we do. Why should we have all the fun?
And, as for gay marriage “threatening the future of the family”, who was that preacher doing meth with the gay hooker in motel room, again? Or was it just the gay hooker who was the threat?
Homosexuality is not natural, nor is it biologically mandated. Neither is monogamy. Thankfully, we adapted.
I don’t care what someone does in their own bedroom with another consenting adult. Life is too hard to have to take crap over who you love.
And giving people crap about who they love means you don’t have enough to do in your spare time.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 7:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One just has to love the ‘double’ and ‘triple’ standards applied all over the place when it comes time to discuss such a mundane issue as sex. Supposedly the most intelligent creature on earth (there is serious doubt), everyone wonders who is doing what to whom and in what way. Then of course, we have those who like to say “I don’t care, but…”, and of course, as Curmudgeon who says “Homosexuality is not natural, nor is it biologically mandated.” We must therefore assume that Curmudgeon ‘knows’ why one person is bisexual, one homosexual, and another bi-sexual. And, not meaning to insult curmudgeon, but I would like to hear how he has determined that it is ‘not natual’.
As far as the sexual preferences or behavior of others, I consider it absolutely none of my business. Those who get all worked up about things which is actually none of their busines have way too much time on their hands, and are totally bored. And, being totally boring themselves, all they can do is bore others. To put it another way; if they did not have such a boring personality, they would have no personality at all.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 7:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
I am not one of your detractors, or at least not the one you are thinking of, but I think I can address your concern. The problem is the equal protection clause. And before you go off on me, hear what I have to say.
Right now, marriage is between a man and a woman, at least in some places. If you change that with another law then somebody is going to come along with a different morality than yours or mine or someone elses, and they are going into court and proclaim that if two people can get married then why not three. Are you denying the third person the right to marry? Now, I know what you are thinking. We have laws against polygamy, but remember we also have laws against same sex marriage (or at least a law that defines it) and if you can change one, you can change the other. And then you may have the cocoa-puff who comes along and proclaims that laws against racial marriages, or same sex marriages exhibit the same bias against someone who wants to marry outside their species. Say to a primate. After all, we share 98% of the same genetics. And according to a lot of people on this forum, they are descended from monkeys. Which brings up the third person who comes along and wants to marry his first cousin, and I think we all know why there is prohibition against that. But this person argues, wait a minute, my first cousin is the same sex I am, and therefore there will be no offspring. So that is not a legitimate argument against first cousins marrying. That is all well and good and logical. Until you get two more people who come along and they just happen to be first cousins of the opposite sex. Now here is where equal protection kicks in. Their shyster lawyer takes up the argument that if you allow the two same sex cousins to marry and you deny the same right to two other first cousins, who just happen to be of different sexes, well, clearly that is gender bias, but he would probably claim that it was also discrimination based on sexual orientation. Now we have a full blown can of worms and the genie ain’t never going back in the bottle. And if you try to write the law too narrow, it will probably be found to be unconstitutional and discriminatory. And the law suits keep coming, age discrimination, species discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, and sooner or later, I am sure someone would want to marry a robot, which I personally have no objections to. The problem would be figuring what sex the robot was, so that there would be no allegation of discrimination. Now all of this is just a crude country boys way of saying; If you are getting the milk free, why buy the cow? I think that the statistics prove in about another 50 years, ain’t nobody going to be married anyway.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 7:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres:
I was speaking in the most general of terms, and trying to make a point, which you missed, of course, in your haste to show how much smarter you are, even smarter than the people who agree with you. Point taken. Did you bother reading to the end of my comment, or were you to busy firing off your reply to notice I’m on exactly the same side? I guess some
How’s this? In my *opinion*, it’s not ‘natural’, or ‘biological’, because the machinery involved in the act itself is not designed (by God, by the process of evolution, or by Mattel, inc) for the purpose it is used for. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Some men don’t find Angelina Jolie attractive. Some people like ketchup on their hot dogs. To me, that’s not natural, either.
I don’t recall saying I knew anything about why anyone is the way they are. Because I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone else.
And, simple minded cretin that I am, I *am* insulted. Even though I agree with you. I suppose I just didn’t agree with you in the right way.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 8:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “If you change that with another law then somebody is going to come along with a different morality than yours or mine or someone elses, and they are going into court and proclaim that if two people can get married then why not three.”
you said it, not me! “… they are going into court and proclaim that if two people can get married then why not three.”
So we should not allow a man and woman by your logic to get married eiither, because that is “two people,” (YOUR WORDS AP, and quite true at that!) … and you say by golly if we allow two people to marry that can only lead to three and who knows what else!
So by that logic AP, we better outlaw heterosexual marriage. Can’t be too careful after all. Think of the children!
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 8:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “But maybe I can help, the address you have been looking for is 6th and Rood. I would use the East door. It is closer to the elevator, but be careful when you go down there, you might find out what goes into those decisions, and that might affect your value judgments.’
FYI: response to message #73
Better yet; I went back and watched the webcast of the Delta Petroleum permit proceedings. Delta did not deny they were in violation. They started construction 2 1/2 months before they applied for a permit. Also they did not obtain building permits for 4 buildings. Why this happened did not come out in the hearing, other then the CEO saying he took responsibility. Delta had a fine presentation with their CEO, compliance officer, project manager, and excellent lawyer. They mentioned all of the charitable contributions they had made, their good compliance record, how excellent the design of the compressor station was, e.t.c. The county commissioners had no problem with issuing the Conditional Use Permit(CUP) based on the appropriateness of the compressor station design. The problem was with the law being broken and future deterrence. Even Commissioner Aquafresca wrestled with the deterrent issue. If criminal proceedings were to be initiated the CUP could not be issued until the Criminal issue was resolved. The criminal issue only involved a fine of around 47k $’s but the project would be held up until it worked its way through the court system. So two of the three commissioners became mister nice guy and left Delta off the hook. By the way, Commissioner Acquafrescas main reason he did not want to file proceeding against Delta was because he did not want to appear punitive. I think he meant vindictive.
PS: I realize that this is not as interesting as sheep marrying goats or whatever the last 20 messages have been about.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
We probably have two totally ideas of what marriage is about. That doesn’t mean that I am right and you are wrong. It simply means that we think differently. I see the institution of marriage as an outgrowth from procreation. It was the answer to a lot of problems. And I believe that is the reason that marriage between a man and a woman has gained almost universal acceptance around the world, and yes, I know there are exceptions. It created a legal basis for the assumption of lineage, rightly or wrongly. I’m not trying to be crude, but before DNA testing was available, the legal rule of thumb was that if you were a man, it was yours if it was caught in your trap. Now a lot of men would be the first to tell you that was not fair or equitable, but then life isn’t fair or equitable, and the idea was to fix responsibility, if not moral, then at least legal responsibility. And I may be showing my age here, but there was no welfare system to fall back on. It was expected that a man would accept responsibility for the support of any child that was born to his wife. And there were some pretty severe social penalties as well as criminal penalties for the man who did not follow those rules.
You have heard it said that funerals are for the living. I believe that marriage, as an institution, is for the children. There was an outgrowth of laws based on the institution of marriage. Not all of these laws followed the “for the children” dictate. Many took the form of treating women and chattel. Some took the form of protecting the institution of marriage, while others were to protect society from offenses related to marriage. All have some basis in protection.
Civilization and societies adopt laws and customs as remedies and the people see both of these things as their protection against harm. The longer a custom or law has been in existence, it follows that the longer people have accepted it, and it follows that the more acceptance, the more need. Laws and customs long held should not be tampered with or changed for transient reasons. To do so, creates a sense of instability, and instability is the enemy of civilizations and society. It lessens the worth of the young and the old and the disabled, while stability is more sought after by women. It is what they demand in choosing a life’s partner. Women date bad boys, but they marry stability. In truthfulness, if left to their own devices, many, if not most, young men could easily live without marriage as their thoughts do not run to a time when they will be old or fat or bald. Women, however, are more conscious of the passing of time. And since their commitment is more emotional than physical, the institution of marriage provides an insurance policy that they will be cared for, if not emotionally, at least monetarily. That they will be provided a home and protection and hopefully children and stability. What I have just presented to you is my life’s experience. I do not pretend to speak for women. I do, however, feel compelled to say that the institution of marriage is a good thing, and should not be tampered with unnecessarily. It is one of the oldest, most tested and accepted institutions of mankind. And I think the resistance that you witness is, by and large, the fear of changing marriage from it’s accepted form of one man and one woman; the fear of losing the institution entirely. People fear change. The young do not fear it, because they do not envision all of the consequences of change, but the older you get, the more you become aware of your own vulnerability, and the vulnerability of this thing we call civilization.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 9:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - Just got back from the club and found your post which includes the statement, “My first thought was it was Proteus again, but I ruled that out right away. That is the problem. You never know who the hell you are talking to.”
How true that is - when you’re talking to one of Walter Mitty’s alter egos you never really know who you’re speaking with. Mr. Mitty has been Proteus, Sugarfoot and GJBubba. But who else may he have been, or is?
He could be Kakuni, or Scott, or Tiag, or Valleyman, or Alphalpha, or Alexander, or Sue, or well, ANYONE! (Except WLJ - Mr. Mitty still hasn’t sunk that low - yet!)
Let’s face it, nobody on this forum can actually prove who they really are because we are all anonymous.
My God, AP - I could even be YOU!
As Sir Percy Blakeney, hero of the Scarlet Pimpernel (AP - in case you’re not familiar with the work, the Scarlet Pimpernel is a classic novel well-educated people read) so aptly puts it in his famous quatrain (Ash- you may have to explain to AP what a quatrain is)
“We seek him here, we seek him there, Those Frenchies seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven?–Is he in hell? That damned, elusive Pimpernel”
AP - I am everywhere, I am nowhere, I am your greatest nightmare.
Goodnight, and sleep tight - if you can.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 9:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm,
Unfortunately it appears that neither I nor you know the apparent reason for the violation. Was it intentional? Was it an oversight? Was there a nefarious reason involved? If I were to sit in judgment, those facts as well as; was there unnecessary damage? Were the things that were done, things that would have been done had the company had the proper permit? Was there anything on-site that couldn’t be inspected, because it had been covered? I think all of these things and more should be considered. At the end of the day, there is always the concern of deterrent, but whether of not fines or imprisonment are levied or whether the commissioners felt that the company being called on the carpet was adequate deterrent is exactly within their job description. While you may disagree with their decision, you are provided a remedy at the poll. We all make value judgments as to how we vote. You also have every right to present your facts to the public and try to influence their opinion. But it is important that when you place yourself in the position of judging them, that you do not act rashly or with nefarious purpose, but apply the same standard to yourself, that you would condemn them for lacking. Partisan politics notwithstanding, I know that I am not capable of applying that standard in it’s purest form. I don’t believe anybody is. So I try to make sure that the issue is an important one, and that I have not made it an important issue based on my agenda. It is not perfect, but it works for me.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 9:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GjBubba,
You can be anything you want to be, except me. And that is not a rule of my making, tis the law of nature. You named yourself proteus and assumed the persona of God, albeit it a lesser God than mine. But being a pretend God is only a fantasy and makes you no part a man. A God, nor a male does not a man make. In fact the title man is not made at all. It is earned. You do not wear it like a crown, rather it is a thing of burden, of duty done, of honor achieved. It is not branded on your forehead, but you see it in the way men acknowledge each other with a nod. It is not about conquest or glory or battles fought. It is found only in acceptance of a man among men. No proteus, you could never be me.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 9:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “We probably have two totally ideas of what marriage is about.”
Well, I believe that marriage is the most beautiful and sacred expression of love between two people.
And to qualify for the sickos out there, the two people I refer to would be of age, and not related to each other, and both “Homo sapiens” … am I leaving anything out?
For some reason you seem to include the requirement that married couples must have the complementary equipment to breed. One must have a penis and testicle(s), and the other a vagina and uterus. Well what about the couples who who can not or do not wish to bear children at their time of marriage? What if the woman has had a hysterectomy? What if they are past childbearing age? Is that not a lesser marriage, by your logic?
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 9:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
I agree with most of what you said in message #129 in fact that is what I mostly said in my post #126. I have this bad habit of trying to be as terse as possible leading to misunderstandings. My main message in blunt form is, If your or I were developers and built house in Mack without obtaining a building permit and were caught the book would be thrown at us. In fact in my case the judge would make an example out of me, because of my exemplary record, “I should know better”. Thats all for now; as GJBubba says it’s time for beddy-bye.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 10:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmedgeon replies: “I was speaking in the most general of terms, and trying to make a point, which you missed, of course, in your haste to show how much smarter you are, even smarter than the people who agree with you. Point taken. Did you bother reading to the end of my comment, or were you to busy firing off your reply to notice I’m on exactly the same side?”
First, let me reply that I recognize that we are on the same side, but probably for different reasons. Mine is based upon the conclusion that another person’s life, or relations between people (sexual or otherwise) is none of my danged business. If two people are happy in their chosen state, whatever that is, and it not harmful to someone else, it is none of my business, nor that of anyone else. Heck, personal relationships of any type are difficult enough without anyone else getting, or attempting to get their noses into it or pass judgment upon it.
There are some, I am not saying curmudgeon, who would do just that, and only because they don’t ‘approve’ and would use that as an excuse or rationale to interfere and attempt to define the lives of others. As I personally consider the ultimate property, and the most inviolable thing in this world, as being ‘the individuality of the person’, and the absolute right to make all choices for themselves, any interference with, or restriction of that choice,and from any outside source, the ultimate violation of another. Yet some, in their misguided sense of superioty (that they know better) are prepared to attempt it, and those individuals need not only to be disapproved of but actually and actively opposed. Anyone who fails to do so is failing in his duty to others and has no right to expect to receive any when comes his/her turn in needing assistance.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 10:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It does not at all surprise me that so many keep referring to marriage as ’sacred’ as many too frequently attach some ‘theocratic’ or ‘religious’ significance to it. As far as ‘the state’ is concerned, it is but another contract. That is something that has been recognized in this country, even prior to its formal organization and founding with a written constitution. I even posted a quote from a serious history book addressing that very issue. Strange that so many so quickly and conveniently forget it, choosing instead to apply their own standards to it. Perhaps, if we began doing what other countries do, require both a civil and then a religious one, it might help some to distinguish between the two.
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 11:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, for those averse to the religious ascription, sacred also means “entitled to reverence and respect” and “highly valued and important.”
That is how I feel about marriage, and that is why I used the word.
Also: all marriages in the U.S. ARE civil. All require a trip to the courthouse; the church part is optional.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 6:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So what are the non-religious reasons for denying those civil benefits to gays and lesbians?
Anyone?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 7:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
Why do you think someone is out to get you? What I wrote was simply the history of marriage and my opinion of why we have the institution. You seem to want to adapt marriage as the cure against someone feeling left out. Once again I believe marriage is related to procreation, because it protects children. You cite procreation as if it were a requirement for marriage. Under present law, it is not. Hence there is nothing to change. What you did not cite was whether you felt that marriage should be expanded to meet the demands of all those who feel discriminated against. It is easy to see that you have imposed limits on who the institution of marriage should apply to. The problem is that you are doing exactly the same thing that you are accusing the conservative heterosexual community of doing. You are arbitrarily setting your limits. You only wish to include those in marriage that you wish to include. What more evidence is needed that some other group or person may appear that wants to push the envelope even further, and no doubt will use the same discriminatory logic to advance the idea of marriage protection for polygamist. And be advised, that they no doubt they will cite equal protection under the law. Obviously an advocate for plural marriage (polygamy) would be asking the question: If marriage is the right of two homo-sapiens that are not related to each other, then how in fairness can you deny the same right to a third homo-sapien who is not related to the other two? What would be your answer to that individual? Would you say they are not entitled to the institution on marriage because I have set arbitrary limits that exclude you? Would your rules be any different than those who propose that marriage be between one man and one woman? You condemn Commissioner Janet Rowland for her wisdom in seeing just such a paradox, yet it is doubtful that you could provide an equitable solution, and that is exactly what she is called upon to do. While it is admirable that you adopt a position of alleviating discrimination, that is not enough. You should also consider the consequences to society and to the children of what you advocate. If you would substitute your morals and values for those of someone else, then you must expect another person to challenge the line that you draw based on their morals and values. The only result would be the opening of a can of worms that eventually would lead to the destruction of the protections of marriage and supplant the institution, only as a remedy to someones hurt feelings or claims of discrimination.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 7:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Funny, this is the exact same slippery-slope logic that the atheists used to argue against the invocations. As Willis put it “Its just a bunch of ‘could-happens.’”
The shoe is now on the other foot.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 7:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm,
Whether the book would be thrown at you or not, I am not in a position to judge. If I were, I would have to know the circumstances of your violation and then make a value judgement as to whether book throwing was an equitable solution. Whatever my decision, I am sure that someone would disagree with it. The real question is, could that individual show that my decision was wrong in anything other than opinion? If not, then it brings into question, what is the reason for the person’s disagreement? And what weight should be placed on their opinion? We all make value judgements every day, as do our elected officials. The difference is, those we elect seldom get the benefit of the doubt, something that you or I would insist upon if we were representing the combined opinions of a constituency. We do not elect them to represent their opinions, rather we elect them to represent the opinion of the people, and that is a very difficult, if not impossible task. The only requirement we should insist upon is not the result of a decision, but rather the good faith effort in reaching that decision, and we should use the same standard in our judgement of those we elect.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quoting AP “Ash, Why do you think someone is out to get you?”
Huh?! I think no such thing.
“What you did not cite was whether you felt that marriage should be expanded to meet the demands of all those who feel discriminated against.”
No, of course not. Supporting gay marriage has nothing to do with satisfying anyeone’s desire “to not be discriminated against.”
Let me try to explain:
I already stated that marriage is the most sacred expression of love between two people.
Despite some claims to the contrary, people are monogamous by nature; that means the desire to paired for life. Usually this pairing happens between a man and a woman, but may times it happens between people of the same sex, because a certain percentage of our species are born homosexual.
How many of us know gay couples who have been together 5,10,40-plus years? My uncle is almost to 50 years with his life partner. I have known dozens of such couples. They should be allowed to marry.
On the other hand I have never known anyone who was in love with a sheep, nor their sister, etcetera.
Societis does not tolerate bestiality, incest, pedophelia, etc. for many reasons; not only do these extreme anomolies usually exploit and victimize innocents but they threaten the fabric of society and they repulse us.
Gay marriage does none of the above. It is quite normal, it does not harm anyone, it does not threaten the fabric of society, and it is not repulsive.
Unless one are a bigot who can’t keep their minds out of other people’s bedrooms.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry about the grammar in the last sentence there. Typing too fast, editing on the fly, not checking things over before I hit “go.”
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Good morning, Ash
I didn’t notice the grammer, I was just very impressed with what you said.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
oops, I meant “grammar”.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJB … your manners ARE slipping, friend. I am probably not one to talk, but I do not like to hear any woman referred to by the “B” word.
Ash
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I do not mind “Ms. Bestiality” at all. That is very accurate.
Ash
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alphalpha, post 79 … The term “Ms. Bestiality” refers to Rowland’s hideous, extremely bigoted comparison of homosexuality to bestiality during an interview in 2006. Thus I assure you that particular nickname is VERY accurate and well deserved.
• Alphalpha
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash I am well aware of the origin of the name. Your use of the name indicates to me that you do not understand what she was discussing. Or you choose to not know for political reasons.
Do you support the right of some people to marry animals and use them in intimate ways?
________________________________________
• Ash
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK, busted. I have intimate relationship with my pets. I let them kiss me on the lips (though I use the sani-wipes after when they aren’t looking)
… and sometimes I nuzzle them on their bellies.
But if you knew my pets you would do it too!
Alphalpha
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In other words you feel if a person desires to use an animal for sexual pleasures, the act should be allowed, even to the extent of allowing a marriage. Your allowing your pets to lick your face is hardly the same and you should feel ashamed for pretending there is no difference.
Ash
Posted August 13th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alphalpha, post 89 … it is you who does not understand what she was discussing. She clearly equated homosexual relationships to bestiality (not to mention incest and pedophilia).
And, the direct quote from Mrs. Rowland.
ROWLAND: I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, that doesn’t make it a marriage. Some people have group sex — should we allow two men and three women to marry? Should we allow polygamy with one man and five wives? For some people, the alternative lifestyle is bestiality — do we allow a man to marry a sheep? I mean, at some point, you have to draw a line.”
No madam, she is clearly stating the natural progression of society into a morass of debauchery pushed by the deviants in the shadows of the society you desire to live, and possibly raise your children in.
You do not like the “B” word used against any woman, but if it is for a person with different political and societal views than you, anything goes.
From your own statements, you would support bestiality, whereas Mrs. Rowland would not.
The label properly belongs to you.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh no, it’s back.
Anyway … thanks dc (post 142). And I didn’t notice the speling
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
Once again you have written to explain your position. That is not necessary. I understand your position totally. I see what you are for and what you are against. What I am asking is how your position is any different from that of Janet Rowland? Certainly, you have expanded your line in the sand to include same sex marriage. But it is none the less a line in the sand. What reason do you give for not including plural marriage within your line in the sand? Since you have said that you would exclude bestiality, can we then assume that you are comparing plural marriage to bestiality, since both are outside your line in the sand? And isn’t that exactly what you were condemning Commissioner Rowland for doing? Why do you not recognize the double standard? What is important here is not what you reply to me, but how you will judge yourself. I am not out to get you. I am simply attempting to bring to your consciousness what Ms. Rowland’s thinking was, and whether your labeling her was an act of fairness or simply the result of not thinking the issue through to it’s logical conclusion? That is something we are all guilty of doing, and if that is the case, then you are presented with an opportunity to correct your error on the record. Whether you choose to do so is entirely up to you, but your answer will provide insight as to what weight should be given to your value judgments as well as perception into your sense of fairness.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
Don’t let these two bully you. Your point of view is perfectly OK with me, and I suspect, most of the folks on this blog.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dc,
Do you support plural marriage or bestiality? Or do you too have an arbitrary line that you would draw?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, It is astounding that you keep telling me what my position is, and getting it completely wrong, when I just laid it out in plain English repeatedly. I can not keep banging my head against this wall. Have a great day.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, I wouldn’t take the bait (post 148). It is useless.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
You also apparently can’t address the paradox presented by your line in the sand. And rather than attempting to do so, you ignore the question. Your lack of answer is noted, as is your position on the fairness issue.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 8:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
151 - AP, As I clearly explained in post 140, my line is not arbitrary at all. The only way it would be arbitrary is if one did equate gay relationships to bestiality, incest, etc.
I do not make that equation. Apparently you do, as does Ms. Rowland, aka Ms. Bestiality.
Case closed.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 9:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
get over yourself, a_p. Like Ash, I am not going to fall into your pointless argument. I am going to go do something more interesting, like watch some paint dry.
G’day.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 9:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Interesting.
I think it’s more about the name calling than anything else.
Ash is a liberal, and liberals are known for not wanting ‘mean spirited and hateful things’ to be uttered.
Ash tosses out a mean spirited and hurtful name, gets it back, and now she’s mad?
Very interesting.
Ash, we have been pretty much friendly from the beginning, and it is not me, but the person seems to have a point.
You throw out a derogatory name and you think that it is perfectly fine for you to do so, yet, when someone tosses the same name back with very pointed reasons for doing so, and you get all upset.
To the best of my knowledge, Janet Rowland has not posted on her and cannot defend herself against your unchecked name calling.
So, you can slam defenseless people around all you want? And nobody is allowed to call you on your own poor behavior?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 9:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
1. I am not “all upset” or even one tiny little bit upset. I have rather enjoyed myself, but now it is getting boring.
2. Ms. Rowland is a public figure and I’m sure she doesn’t give a hoot about the moniker. What she said in ‘06 was far more hurtful to people than the stupid nickname she earned in doing so.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 9:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
She made no reference to the two activities being related.
You heard the soundbite and decided that it was neat and fit your “HATE Janet Rowland” philosophy and went with it.
Ad what she said in ‘06 was accurate.
WHERE do YOU draw the line?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 9:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, Our discussion centered around what should be included in the institution of marriage. Clearly you included same sex marriage. Also clearly you excluded plural marriage and bestiality. What was presented was a legitimate issue as to whether your actions in excluding plural marriages and bestiality were discriminatory and whether there was a paradox posed by your position. Your third choice was to present evidence of how your thinking was different from Commissioner Rowland. Her choice was to support her position by addressing the paradox, while your choice appears to be to continue to advocate for your position, ignore the paradox, and to ignore the fact that by excluding bestiality and plural marriage in matrimony, you are saying exactly the same thing and making exactly the same comparison with all forms of marriage except same sex marriage. Hence you have become what you have condemned. You would deny the institution of marriage to some, while arbitrarily granting that right to your selected group. There is another comparison that must be made as a result of your answer. And that is the comparison between you and Commissioner Rowland. The difference appears to be only at where YOU draw the line.
Your hypocrisy is showing. And I feel no need to label you because that would make me hipocrytical. I also find it interesting that when you find yourself in an untenable position, intellectually, that you revert to labeling the issue “bait”. What makes that so interesting is that is exactly what has hooked you. Your own baiting and labeling. You have presented and then rejected the issue of fairness because it does not fit with your agenda. And now you wish to ignore the issue entirely, when you are the one that brought it up. I think you do protest too much.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 9:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“The difference is, those we elect seldom get the benefit of the doubt, something that you or I would insist upon if we were representing the combined opinions of a constituency.”
A wrap up: Delta Petroleum broke the law in a rather obvious manner. Delta and all three County Commissioners agreed on this. The hearing was to decide whether a CUP should be issued. All three Commissioners agreed it should be. Since the law was broken two out of three Commissioner thought that there should be some sort of penalty. If a penalty was applied the CUP could not be granted until the penalty was decided in court. Two out of three Commissioners voted to grant the CUP without penalty. My opinion is that the dynamics of the Mesa county BOCC are askew.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 10:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - post 157
AP, you continue to prove that you do not grasp a word I have said, so why should I continue to waste my time explaining the same thing over and over again?
If you must question my character because I decide to step off the stupid hamster wheel, so be it.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 10:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash - Thank you for coining a wonderful phrase to end the mostly seeming pointless conversations on this board. “Stepping off the stupid hamster wheel” is a classic!
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 10:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm,
No question that Delta Drilling broke the law. That still does not give me information as to whether it was deliberate or unintentional. In an earlier post about a week ago, I cited the fact that there was a plumbing company who had received a cease work order for exactly the same violation; starting work without a permit. They received no penalty, and are presently back at work. I suspect that this happens more often than not, but to be a judge of whether or not penalties should have been imposed in any of these cases, is simply beyond my jurisdiction, because of my lack of information. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I noticed you stated that in your opinion “the dynamics of the Mesa County BOCC are askew”. If you were referring to their decision, then your use of the plural was correct. But if you were referring to them as individuals, then your opposition would be only to two thirds of the commission. It is important to acknowledge when Commissioner Rowland meets your expectations, and not just when she doesn’t. To me it doesn’t matter who violates the law.
I have no bias for or against drilling companies, other than that which is inherent to us all, pertaining to the price of gasoline at the pump. I simply have no axe to grind against energy development. I do not see them as the boogie man, nor do I see environmentalists as the boogie man. I simply think there should be a balance between the two agendas, and I recognize the efforts of one to paint the other as the problem. And as long as the paint used is the truth, I have no problem with it.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 10:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Out of curiosity, why is there no question here that Delta Drilling broke the law? I thought you have been saying for months that a court trial is needed to determine this. I thought you have been saying that until a judge renders a decision in this jurisdiction, whether any law has been broken is simply a matter of opinion.
Can you clarify your position on this?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 10:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
At the hearing the people from Delta admitted their guilt. It was interesting that later in the hearing one of the Commissioners suggested that Delta plead guilty ahead of time to expedite the legal process. For some legal reason the BOCC lawyer, Lyle Dechant, did not think this was a good idea. Anyway it is a cut and dried case Delta Petroleum started construction of the compressor station 2 1/2 months before applying for a permit. As AP mentions there did not appear to be any information about why this was done during the hearing. The CEO said the company was going to revamp their permitting process to insure that this does not happen again. If there were a trial maybe the reasons would be revealed.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 11:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So would it be safe to say that the bulk of responsibility for thisd infraction lies with the Delta Petroleum compliance officer?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm,
I’m not saying I disagree but AP has, for several months now, been insisting that the city council cannot be said to actually be breaking the law until a local court decision determines so. In the case of the city council, they agreed from the start that what they were doing did not fall within established guidelines. It seem to be a very similar situation here, and I’m just wondering why AP agrees with the guilt in this case but not in the invocation issue.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 11:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I based my assertion on the fact that work had started and there was no evidence of a permit. If Delta Drilling had wished to contest whether they had a permit or not, then they would have been entitled to a hearing.
While the invocation issue is not nearly so clear cut, the city council is entitled to their opinion of whether or not they were breaking the law in the invocation issue. You were entitled to yours and I am entitled to mine. But having a permit or not is not open to interpretation and it is also case specific, where the invocation issue of litigation is not. If you feel that Janet Rowland was correct and the case of Delta Drilling should have been taken to court, then I will accept that as your opinion. I personally don’t care whether it was handled that way or this way. It is just not one of my priorities, Scott. You continuously make the same mistake of trying to force me into a position of something I could care less about. When an issue is important to me, and I adopt a position on that issue, I will be happy to tell you my reasons for doing so. But there is no hypocrisy in my position. Having a permit or not having a permit is a lot like being pregnant. Either you do or you don’t. There is no ambiguity as to the fact that a permit is required. Selective application of facts seems very much on which group is using them and who their boogie man is.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 11:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“I based my assertion on the fact that work had started and there was no evidence of a permit. If Delta Drilling had wished to contest whether they had a permit or not, then they would have been entitled to a hearing.”
And the city council did not contest that their invocation was unlawful.
“While the invocation issue is not nearly so clear cut, the city council is entitled to their opinion of whether or not they were breaking the law in the invocation issue.”
Actually, the invocation issue is that clear cut. And the city council agreed.
“You were entitled to yours and I am entitled to mine. But having a permit or not is not open to interpretation and it is also case specific, where the invocation issue of litigation is not.”
Why? Are you qualified to make that determination? Especially when numerous lawyers involved disagree with that position?
“If you feel that Janet Rowland was correct and the case of Delta Drilling should have been taken to court, then I will accept that as your opinion. I personally don’t care whether it was handled that way or this way. It is just not one of my priorities, Scott. You continuously make the same mistake of trying to force me into a position of something I could care less about. When an issue is important to me, and I adopt a position on that issue, I will be happy to tell you my reasons for doing so.”
I’m not trying to force you into anything. You have adopted different positions on two issues with similar characteristics, and I’m curious as to why.
“But there is no hypocrisy in my position. Having a permit or not having a permit is a lot like being pregnant. Either you do or you don’t. There is no ambiguity as to the fact that a permit is required. Selective application of facts seems very much on which group is using them and who their boogie man is.”
And having 90% Christian specific prayers is equally clear. It is not in line with established guideline, yet you repeatedly insisted that this could not be determined without a court case. In the Delta Drilling situation, you have accepted their guilt without a court case. This seems very hypocritical to me. That is my opinion.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 11:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
It would appear from your post that you would like to see Delta Drilling severely punished for their infraction. I would suggest to you that you take your concerns before the County Commissioners. As you so carefully explained to me in the case of the invocation issue with the City council, public opinion has nothing to do with it. In your words, it was between the atheists and the city council. Now you seem, once again to have reversed course, and believe that public opinion has everything to do with it. Your real problem in trying to influence me on this is I couldn’t agree with you more. Your concern for the environment is very similar to my concern for my beliefs. Neither is in the abstract, but very real concerns to very real individuals. And I would just hope in the future that you recognize that fact regardless of which side of the issue your opinion falls on.
Prayer in a public meeting offends you. Double standards offend me. The result, we are both offended. The difference is that I don’t try to force my remedy on you. I simply ask you to recognize that I can be offended the same as you. What remedy you want to apply is your choice and your choice alone.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 11:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
The why is because they are not similar at all. Once again, Scott, you are applying selective information and your interpretation of what the law is. Whether the City Council agrees with you or not was never my issue. My issue was, to be accepted the case should have been settled in court. Whether you accept the decision on Delta Drilling or not is based on whether you think it was the right decision. You have every right to an opinion that it should have gone to court, just as I did. I think anyone reading this can see the difference between these two cases, but if you prefer that the case be settled in court, then I am all for it, as apparently was Janet Rowland. Now step up to the plate and go and file your complaint as was your advice was to me. Or you have the option of fighting the Delta Drilling case in the court of public opinion. That is the course I have chosen in the invocation issue. And that is what you don’t like, because you know I am winning it in the court of public opinion. So you just keep doing your thing and I will keep doing mine. And any agreements or solutions that may have been found will continue to be irrelevant, but isn’t that the purpose of this forum? Even though it took me some time to realize that.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“It would appear from your post that you would like to see Delta Drilling severely punished for their infraction.”
Not at all. I’m merely curious as you your change of direction on what constitutes a determination of unlawful behavior.
“I would suggest to you that you take your concerns before the County Commissioners. As you so carefully explained to me in the case of the invocation issue with the City council, public opinion has nothing to do with it. In your words, it was between the atheists and the city council.”
True, and it is between Delta Drilling and the county commissioners. But neither situation stopped you from pronouncing whether guilt could be determined. It’s just that in one case you said it couldn’t, and in the other you said it could. I don’t see what makes the difference.
“Now you seem, once again to have reversed course, and believe that public opinion has everything to do with it.”
Not at all. I’m just trying to figure out why you could determine unlawfulness in one case but not the other.
“Your real problem in trying to influence me on this is I couldn’t agree with you more.”
Your real problem is that you think I’m trying to influence you. I’m only trying to get a straight answer.
“Your concern for the environment is very similar to my concern for my beliefs. Neither is in the abstract, but very real concerns to very real individuals. And I would just hope in the future that you recognize that fact regardless of which side of the issue your opinion falls on.”
My concern for the environment has nothing to do with it. I see what appears to be a double standard on your part, and I’m trying to determine if that is indeed what it is.
“Prayer in a public meeting offends you.”
No. You have entirely missed the point of the entire invocation issue.
“Double standards offend me.”
Apparently not.
“The result, we are both offended.”
Once again, you misunderstand. I’m not offended.
“The difference is that I don’t try to force my remedy on you.
Assuming you are referring to the invocation issue, why is complying with the US Constitution “forcing a remedy” on anyone?
“I simply ask you to recognize that I can be offended the same as you. What remedy you want to apply is your choice and your choice alone.”
Fine. Irrelevant, but fine.
“The why is because they are not similar at all. Once again, Scott, you are applying selective information and your interpretation of what the law is.”
It also happens to be the current interpretation of the US Supreme Court. Somehow you have never failed to avoid mentioning that.
“Whether the City Council agrees with you or not was never my issue. My issue was, to be accepted the case should have been settled in court.”
And you have never explained why, if there is no disagreement, should the case ever go to court.
“Whether you accept the decision on Delta Drilling or not is based on whether you think it was the right decision.”
I’m not questioning the Delta Drilling decision. I’m questioning how you determined that guilt could be determined without a court decision in this case, when you obviously feel it couldn’t be in the invocation case.
“You have every right to an opinion that it should have gone to court, just as I did.”
I’m not saying it should have gone to court. I’m asking why you don’t think it needed to.
“I think anyone reading this can see the difference between these two cases, but if you prefer that the case be settled in court, then I am all for it, as apparently was Janet Rowland. Now step up to the plate and go and file your complaint as was your advice was to me.”
My issue isn’t about the case. It is, and always has been about how you formed the opinion that they were guilty without a court case.
“Or you have the option of fighting the Delta Drilling case in the court of public opinion.”
As you pointed out, it is irrelevant.
“That is the course I have chosen in the invocation issue. And that is what you don’t like, because you know I am winning it in the court of public opinion.”
You can win all you want in the public’s eye. What matters is who wins in the legal battlefield, which the atheists have done, and that is what YOU don’t like.
“So you just keep doing your thing and I will keep doing mine. And any agreements or solutions that may have been found will continue to be irrelevant, but isn’t that the purpose of this forum? Even though it took me some time to realize that.”
You still haven’t answered my question.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 12:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc,
Daily Sentinel Editorial from August 4, 2008:
“Now it’s up to the county commissioners. For several years they have told the public they have little authority to regulate actual gas drilling in Mesa County. They have said they have much more control over ancillary activity of the sort Delta Petroleum was planning — compressor stations, gas lines and storage tanks.
We don’t have enough information to say whether Delta Petroleum should receive a conditional use permit for its project or not. But the company should face fines or other sanctions for jumping the gun on its service facility. If not, it would appear there are few teeth in any of the county’s gas-industry regulations.”
County Commissioner comments on the Delta Infraction from Aug 01 2008 Daily Sentinel:
County Commission candidate comments
• County Commissioner Craig Meis, Republican representing District 1: “I don’t rule from an emotional standpoint. From what I heard about the Planning Commission hearing, they tended to get very emotional, and I think that is unfortunate. I am willing to hear the facts and circumstances of the case and rule appropriately.”
• Commissioner Janet Rowland, Republican representing District 3: “I will handle this case like any other project that comes before us in our land use, and that is to look at the facts and decide based on the facts.”
Delta Petroleum Compliance Officer:
From RIGZONE.com Dec. 13, 2007: “Brian Macke has accepted the position of Regulatory Compliance Manager with Delta Petroleum. Macke was most recently director of the State of Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. His extensive experience and contacts that involve permitting, regulatory reporting, environmental assessment and other compliance issues should prove invaluable to the company’s continuing exploration and production activities.”
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I am glad to hear that you finally admitted to being a stupid hamster on a wheel. Did you step onto the smart hamster wheel?
Your name calling issue seems to indicate that, while you have no problems dishing out the insults, there is a severe reaction to the same treatment coming back to haunt you. Why is that? Have you always been protected from the theory of what goes around, comes around?
You called a very nice Lady a very bad name, and expected everybody to just laugh it off because you said it? Yet, when the same name is applied to you, and made to stick, you get mad.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
On the subject of bestiality.
This thread deteriorated into a slam fest on those who kept referring to Mr. Rowland as Miss bestiality for her remark on where one draws the line.
Her words came back to roost recently right here in this valley and nobody seems interested in mentioning it.
Why not folks?
Does this guy get a trial or a wedding date?
Bestiality.
“Man suspected of dog abuse; prosecutor shocked
Click-2-Listen
By AMY HAMILTON
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Allegations that a former Grand Junction man had sex with a dog while forcing a 7-year-old boy to watch has astounded even the county’s top prosecutor.
“I’ve never seen anything like this,” Pete Hautzinger, Mesa County’s District Attorney, said after the defendant’s first court hearing Thursday.
Jason Lee McRoberts, 30, posted a $1,000 cash bond from the Mesa County Jail on Thursday on a low-level felony charge of obscenity for alleged sexual incidents that occurred at his Grand Junction home between December 2007 and June 2008.
McRoberts, who now lives in Castle Rock and also was wanted on a Grand Junction Police Department warrant for indecent exposure, turned himself in for the obscenity charge.
Local authorities learned of the allegations from the boy’s mother, who lives in Texas. In an interview with Texas investigators, the boy said while he lived in Grand Junction he was made to watch McRoberts have sex with a dog, according to an arrest affidavit for McRoberts.
Hautzinger said it’s unclear whether McRoberts will face any child abuse charges.
McRoberts appears next in court Sept. 11.”
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alfalfa - The real question is, “Did he marry the dog before or after he committed the alleged act.” According to Ms. Rowland, Mr. McRoberts would be allowed to do so if the Democrats had their way.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
He gets a trial because bestiality is not the same thing as homosexuality, which was what Janet Rowland was trying to say.
You aren’t trying to say the same thing, are you?
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 5:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This extremely disgusting and disturbing story has nothing to do with Rowland’s nickname and why she deserves it.
But thanks for dredging it all up. I will try to explain why Rowland is Ms. Bestiality if you want to go around again.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 5:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I could have sworn that you thought the name was cute Ash.
The Lady indicated that sexual perversions would continue to vary and flourish and asked exactly where would society draw the line.
You and your friends tried to laugh it off a scare mongering, but the person with the court date is in exactly the same place the homosexual community was 40 years ago.
Is there going to be a line drawn, or are you going to learn to embrace it and grant the right to marry animals?
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 5:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh OK Alphalpha, I get it now. You and Ms. Rowland share the same awful prejudice against homosexuals. You both think being gay equals having intercourse with animals, and now you have both said it.
No need to discuss this anymore.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 6:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash - I think you’ve just “outed” a homophobe. Thank you.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 6:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s not that’s been ‘outed’, I think.
Some people just can’t control themselves.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 6:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah …
It is funny Alphapha mentions “40 years ago.”
40 years ago a large segment of the American population were bigoted about interracial marriage. That’s where society is now in the prevailing attitude about gays.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 6:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is important to remember that some individuals ‘need’ an outlet or target for their fears and yes, hate. If it is not one group, it has to be another. That provides them with an excuse for what is most often their own failures. For some, it has to be someone else’s fault. Perish the thought that they should look at themselves first, and their own culpabilities.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 7:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, someone has made repeated attempts to hijack a thread, so that they may insult, belittle, and demean another commenter? Fascinating.
Welcome back, our old friend.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 7:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whom do you refer to as “our old friend”?
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 7:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t get what MiniVan is talking about either. All I know is, I walked away from a cheap shot in this thread over a month ago but apparently that wasn’t good enough for Alphalpha and he/she resurrected it.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.