| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| California to vote on Same Sex Marriage | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 19 2008, 08:45 PM (2,084 Views) | |
| QuirtEvans | Jul 21 2008, 01:57 AM Post #51 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Then it's part of the Constitution. Something that is part of the Constitution cannot be contrary to that Constitution. The document could have internal inconsistencies, of course, but in that case the later and the more specific language would control the earlier and more general language. That's a crappy way to amend a Constitution ... typically, Constitutional amendments require some sort of supermajority ... but, if that's the method the creators chose, you're stuck with it unless it's changed. Democracy at work. There's lots of direct democracy in New England, too, on a smaller scale (town meetings). I'm not all that impressed, but I'm not impressed with local representative government either. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 21 2008, 02:20 AM Post #52 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I am not the least bit ignorant when it comes to observing neurotic behavior or irrational attacks, Daniel. *That* was the subject of my comments, not homosexuality. You seem too emotionally bound even to realize that. I have no idea why you act as you do. However it seems that you are deeply unhappy with yourself, and you take it out on everyone else. You make people into enemies. The problem is not everyone else, Daniel. It never is.
Where? I did not comment on your homosexuality, I commented on your behavior. Stop the behavior, especially directed against me, and I'll stop commenting on your behavior.
I don't generally use the term twit, and don't recall calling you one -- though I do seem to recall others calling you a twit. I'l refrain from it in the future. I don't think I've really questioned your sanity, but I do worry about your emotional health. Your behavior is episodic, and you seem to take turns selecting your target for taking offense. Given that your name is not really Daniel, I don't see "Danny Boy" as an opprobrious term. I will however refrain from it.
Daniel -- you decided to call into question my character with your very first post in this thread. It was way out of line, and numerous people pointed that out to you. I think you act neurotically and you attack people irrationally. That is not character assassination. It is an adverse judgment, but it is the only observation I can make given your behavior.
You don't need to pretend to like me, Daniel. You should however refrain from attack me personally. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 21 2008, 02:35 AM Post #53 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I'm going to guess that telling Daniel what he should and shouldn't do isn't going to be a successful strategy, |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 21 2008, 02:42 AM Post #54 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You are probably right, Quirt, but I would be remiss if I did not at least point out to him the choice to not attack people who disagree with him. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 21 2008, 02:50 AM Post #55 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Well, there's remiss and then there's remiss. If you were truly trying to encourage a particular sort of behavior, it might have been more fruitful to use less inflammatory language.
Of course, that could apply to me as much as to you. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 21 2008, 02:54 AM Post #56 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You right, of course. "Dear Jerk" letters rarely work. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jul 21 2008, 04:07 AM Post #57 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Dear Mr. Jones, Fcuk you. Strong letter to follow. Sincerly, John Smith |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jul 21 2008, 04:57 AM Post #58 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Yeah but unless the sender's a total idiot, the point of the Dear Jerk letter is to satisfy the writer, not the one who receives it. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 21 2008, 07:25 AM Post #59 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
IT never said a single negative thing about Daniel because of his sexual perversion. He was remarking about Daniel's debilitating mental illnesses. Daniel is just not smart enough to sort it out - sort of like that black city commissioner a week ago who got offended when another city commissioner referred to their budget as a "black hole"..... he hears the words, but he can't make normal sense out of them. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jul 21 2008, 07:34 AM Post #60 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Hi, IT, I did not miss it. I read what Daniel wrote (up to my post that you quoted above), consciously analyzed what Daniel wrote, and came to the conclusion that Daniel has not committed a personal attack. Had he wrote "you're a hypocrite (or an adulterer), IT," I would have called Daniel on it, but he has not. He simply asked: "Aren't you divorced?" I do not consider than an attack, as explained in my two other posts following the one you quoted. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 21 2008, 07:37 AM Post #61 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
But you commonly analyze things to the point of ridiculousness and then come up with the wrong conclusion. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jul 21 2008, 07:40 AM Post #62 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I agree with the above. Personally, I ultimately want the government be out of the marriage business. I support homosexual's right to marry. I set the bar merely at "informed consent." But, as a matter of process, I'll also support letting people vote on the issue, if they want to make this a Constitutional amendment. I will simply vote in a manner that will support same-sex couple's right to marry when it comes my turn to vote on such an issue. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Jul 21 2008, 07:52 AM Post #63 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
IT, I'm not reading your posts. Seriously, I kind of/ sort of skimmed your last post. One day you might understand that when one says enough offensive things, whether one considers them personal attacks or not, the people about whom one is speaking might get offended. I'm not ignoring you as Quirt once did but I'd simply prefer it if you and I took a break from talking to each other at least about this subject. You've always been one of my favorite people here. Maybe we can reconnect some other time. |
![]() |
|
| VPG | Jul 21 2008, 08:00 AM Post #64 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
I read and re read this entire thread. I came up with one conclusion: Larry, you are completly wrong, THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS "TWITNESS"! |
|
I'M NOT YELLING.........I'M ITALIAN...........THAT'S HOW WE TALK! "People say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." Ronald Reagan, Inaugural, 1971 | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 21 2008, 08:04 AM Post #65 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Daniel, most of us would prefer it if you took a break from talking period. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 21 2008, 08:05 AM Post #66 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Ah, but the democrats are in charge, and that means we get to make things up!! |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jul 21 2008, 08:23 AM Post #67 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
In a TNCR poll that asked how many marriages/divorces people have had, ivorythumper himself publicly posted that he has had an "annulment," something that a non-Catholic (I assume Daniel is one) would reasonably characterize as a "divorce." With that in mind, I do not believe it fair to accuse Daniel of posting falsehood. Link: http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_New_Coffee...dpost&p=2423187
|
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 21 2008, 08:31 AM Post #68 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
If he was in fact married, in order to marry MS in the Catholic Church, he'd have to get an annulment. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce. Therefore, in order to re-marry, you have to go through the fiction of pretending the marriage never existed in the first place. It's possible, on limited grounds, to get a legal annulment, but that's not what the Catholic Church requires. It requires a church-granted annulment (although a legal annulment, while harder to get, might suffice ... I really don't know). Many Catholics get a legal divorce, then petition the Church for an annulment. It used to be quite hard to get the Church to grant an annulment. Now, it's just a matter of |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| LadyElton | Jul 21 2008, 08:34 AM Post #69 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Ya'll wonder why we get defensive when it comes to this stuff. How would you feel if a core part of who you are is under attack? Imagine being told that who you are is an abomination? Then imagine being told you can't marry the person you love. You talk about gays sleeping around and such, well heteros ain't exactly the most faithful people either. The divorce rate is, what, 50%? Oh, and I know gay people who have been with their partners longer than many straights. BTW - my parents (hetero) have been married for 41 years. Ya'll need to take a good look at yourselves before you start pointing the finger at others. |
| Hilary aka LadyElton | |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | Jul 21 2008, 08:49 AM Post #70 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
But not everyone who doesn't support gay marriage is calling you an abomination or attacking a core part of who you are. It's not an issue of heteros walking around instigating trouble with gays. Gays raised the social issue of same-sex marriage, and that is the issue that is being discussed. Yes, sometimes personal attacks are made, but that's not the same as opposing gay marriage on non-personal grounds. I've not wanted to participate in this thread because I think I tend to get a bit carried away (and I've already said everything in the past that I'd say here), and I'd prefer to not to participate farther than this. But I do want to point this out. When a person opposes gay marriage, that doesn't necessarily mean he opposes gays or homosexuality, and it is offensive when people assume otherwise. |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 21 2008, 08:51 AM Post #71 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
You have completely missed the point. This isn't an issue over the technical fine points of whether or not an annulment is a divorce. It isn't an issue of Daniel simply wanting information. It is an issue of Daniel not liking what IT posted, having a desire to make a personal dig at him, and asking the question for the purpose of slinging mud at him. If you don't see that, you're an idiot. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| musicasacra | Jul 21 2008, 09:00 AM Post #72 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I agree with that. And as far as where this thread is going, I'm not interested in having my personal life debated here, thank you. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jul 21 2008, 09:01 AM Post #73 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
YOU missed the point. I saw that Quirt and Jeffrey have a misunderstanding of the facts, so I made to post to correct that misunderstanding. That's the point of my post. Regarding Daniel making a dig at IT for not liking what IT wrote, look into the mirror yourself. You committed a personal attack on Daniel for not liking what Daniel wrote. Your personal attack on Daniel is a lot worse than Daniel's "dig" on IT. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 21 2008, 09:03 AM Post #74 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Would that everyone were accorded the same level of respect. (And that wasn't aimed at you, MS.) |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jul 21 2008, 09:12 AM Post #75 |
|
MAMIL
|
When I saw the original post where IT posted about his annulment, I said to Mrs. D'Oh 'I wonder how long it is before someone brings that one up in an argument'. I don't think it's a very nice or very clever thing to say, personally, but I guess there's a lot of stuff said here that isn't very nice or very clever. I'm not sure that really makes it OK, nevertheless. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |











4:52 PM Jul 10