Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jeffislouie

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 52
11
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Prop 8 discussion....
« on: November 10, 2008, 04:39:15 PM »
We can continue to pretend that all the gay marriage protests have been peaceful, loving and hug-filled, or we can face the reality:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598748/20081106/fall_out_boy.jhtml
"What began as a small protest of 1,000 swelled to more than 4,000 before the night was through. Protesters blocked traffic, and reports suggest that up to seven people were arrested for disturbing the peace. Aerial footage of the protest also seems to indicate that police used force against at least some of those who attended the rally. Other footage shows at least one marcher standing atop a police car. He was wrestled to the ground by police.

An additional group of about 500 protesters gathered outside CNN's Los Angeles bureau, where they were seen banging on the doors and walls and hoisting signs protesting the ban. In response to the rally, the Los Angeles Police Department issued a tactical alert, which called on all the department's officers, and some from surrounding precincts, to respond."

I did not imply that all protests were riots - you folks read into what I wrote.
We don't have to pretend that all the protests have been civil either.

http://www.lockergnome.com/griffin/2008/11/06/protestors-explode-over-prop-8-riots-turns-ugly/


So please.  I'd really prefer it if people stopped attacking me for presenting a viewpoint.  I do not hate gay people.  I do not oppose gay marriage.  I am interested in discussing what is going on, which is why I stirred the pot with a viewpoint that CLEARLY made people unnecessarily upset.

12
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Prop 8 discussion....
« on: November 10, 2008, 04:29:46 PM »
Quote
There were several reports of unruly protests, arrests, and in some stories, small riots.


Did you attend any of the rallies?  All of the rallies that I attended or have good friends that attended were very peaceful and moving.  Also, you might have seen a clip on the Today show of a pissed off motorist who got out of his car and punched a protester squarely in the face.  The protester was like half the guy's size.  If we're talking about people being unruly, clearly it cuts both ways.

Having a mature discussion about the issue is fine, but please don't inflate your sense of martyrdom anymore.  It's insulting.  You didn't post wanting to have honest discourse because if you did, you wouldn't have filled your original post with rhetoric designed to incite rather than explore.  You're nothing but a hype man -- the Flavor Flav of political discussion on LSD.

As someone told me last night, we can educate and spread the word to voters, but remember, you don't have to get every one.  We only need something like 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 voters.  I'll chalk it up to you being one of those I should leave by the wayside and continue discussion with those who are TRULY open to hearing another side (not claiming to be open, then being a poo stirrer).




I couldn't have attended the rallies - I live in Chicago.
I didn't use "rhetoric designed to incite rather than explore", I used rhetoric I felt appropriate to illicit a response.  And it worked.  What I didn't expect is hateful assumptions regarding my feelings on the subject.
As for leaving me 'by the wayside', might I once again point out that I don't have a problem with gay marriage?
I do enjoy stirring the pot - perhaps because it forces people to stand up for their beliefs.  And perhaps it exposes people's weak-ass arguments while illustrating their own hatreds while pretending that they just want the hate to stop.  Like many who are passionate about this subject, I find your accusatory tone to be more indicative of the sort of person who only dislikes hatred when it is pointed at a target they like, while advocating hatred against those they disagree with.
I didn't attend the rallies - and by your own admission, you might have missed a few as well.  As I pointed out, SOME rallies were NOT peaceful.  Some folks stepped in front of microphones and declared that mormons were hate mongers ( a mighty hateful thing to say, if you ask me).  Some people had to be arrested and some crowds had to be dispersed by police.  My point wasn't to stop peaceful protest, but to encourage those who weren't so peaceful to stop hurting the cause.

Now - you can continue to pretend that I hate you, all gay people - whatever.  Or you can re-read my original post, take a step back, and realize I was encouraging a peaceful, different approach that I feel might actually accomplish something.

Calm the @#!* down.

13
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Prop 8 discussion....
« on: November 10, 2008, 02:57:04 PM »
Jeffie Boy, you and your evil, scheming cohorts should really stop lynching, torturing, defaming, bankrupting, and murdering members of the homosexual community.  Such systematic and widespread violence from those who voted "Yes" on Prop 8 really doesn't help your position.

...or was that an unfair characterization?  Sorry, it's easier to tell when you do it.

I just love being called "jeffie boy" by disrespectful hate mongers like yourself.

I'm not sure what the hell your intended result was, but all it did was illustrate your unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to have a civil discussion.

At no point did I say that I supported Prop 8.  At no point did I say that I have a problem with gay marriage.  What I DID do was try to discuss the issue.  It's really too bad that folks like you seem more interested in distracting from the conversation than actually participating.

I never said there was widespread violence, or even widespread rioting.
There were several reports of unruly protests, arrests, and in some stories, small riots.
There was also plenty of coverage of gay community members trying to fight what they perceive to be hate with hate, as in "mormons are hate-mongers".
I am continually irritated by the very low level of discourse that seems to permeate these boards.  Around here, folks seem more interested in jerking each other off because they agree than <gasp> god forbid having a discussion without getting emotional and angry.
The point is:
Hatred isn't okay.  Not supporting gay marriage isn't hatred, especially when it is rooted in religious faith and belief.  BUT, calling people who oppose gay marriage names and publicly mocking their faith IS a PERFECT example of religious intolerance that so few care to acknowledge.  So deal with it.  When you try to associate people who ARE against gay marriage with people who lynched blacks in the south, you are guilty of your own brand of hate mongering.

So, if you would like to have a rational discussion, I urge you to approach my post for the substance contained, not your belief that I hate, am anti-gay, or advocate either way.  I don't oppose gay marriage, but I do understand why some do. 

I guess Obama is the only democrat talking about 'listening' to people who disagree with him.

The rest of you intend to continue berating anyone who's opinions or posts you take issue with.

14
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: November 10, 2008, 02:47:22 PM »
Don't worry. I still hate you.

There's the attitude I've come to adore about the LSD experience.

15
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: November 10, 2008, 12:10:52 AM »
Barack Obama is our next President.

With that comes my support and the hope that he lives up to the words and ideals he expressed during his campaign.  I will support him as President and even though I may be critical of his actions, I will do so as respectfully as I can and defend his positions, when possible, with the same voracity and passion that I defended Bush's.

Obama isn't going to be the President of the Democrats among us, but rather the President of all of us.  I truly hope that the Republicans don't fall into the same trap the Democrats did over the last 8 years of trying to cast our President as a buffoon or a criminal.  BDS is a vile period of our history that did more to divide us than anything else.

Though I have been passionate in my support for McCain and staunchly against Obama, the time for that argument has passed and it is time for America to start a new chapter.

The Republican party, for which I cast my vote for the first time in my election history, needs to reform itself and become, once again, the party of big ideas, small government, and a message the people of the US can get on board with.  The Republican party needs to call a convention wherein they require every single Republican in office to sign an ethics clause.  In that clause, it should be expressly stated that unethical behavior will result in voluntary retirement and loss of all party priveledges.  For too long, the Republicans acted like big government, big spending liberals, making the case for conservative ideas weak and hypocritical.  This is an opportunity to rebuild the party and sign a new contract with America - one where values like honesty, integrity, and doing the work of the people are more important than elections, porked up bills, and fighting Democrats tooth and nail.

Regardless of our political differences, we must all recognize that what bonds us is stronger than the ideologies that separate us.  We have a new President and I call upon every American to choose to be respectful, honorable, and supportive.  Obama WILL make mistakes.  He very well may make things worse.  Many will find fault with his decisions.  I hope and pray that even in times that some consider to be dark, we forge ahead with a new ideal.  We can disagree without being devisive.  We can dissaprove without name calling.  We can be civil.

This thread is dead.  Sadly.  Many of you will miss some of the regular characters, all of whom posted passionately.  Some of us were seen as heels and some as hero's.  Those of us who were heels, I believe, argued their points for the right reasons.  I saw very little actual hate.  If I upset of offended, I apologize.




Without a doubt the best post I have read in this thread.  I completely agree.  We're in this together.  Let's not just pass the hot potato.

I haven't followed this thread at all, mainly but I have to concur that this heartfelt post is beautifully written!  I wholeheartedly agree with all you've said here!

Well thanks, but seriously - don't tell anyone.
I'm much better when hated.
I meant it, but it was probably a mistake to post it.

16
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Prop 8 discussion....
« on: November 10, 2008, 12:08:40 AM »

You don't have to hate gay people in the sense you speak of, but one of the definitions of hate certainly fits those who voted for Prop 8.  The word can be used to describe prejudice or bigotry against a class of people.  I would certainly say that voting for "seperate, but equal" for a class of people can be described as prejudice and/or bigotry.  Also, way to go with pointing the finger and playing the political blame game again.  I thought you turned over a new leaf with this election?

In addition, I know you like to blame liberals, but would you consider Republicans liberal?  Are all Democrats liberals?  There are plenty of instances of Democrats who voted Yes on 8 and many Republicans who voted no. 

Are you trying to argue that it wasn't liberals who pushed for legal gay marriage?
I'm calling it like I see it.  It came from liberal values, not conservative ones.  It's about being able to acknowledge the good and not so good each side does, not just name calling.  Gavin Newsome is a liberal.  Or did he become a republican?  Ease up, I'm not using the term in a negative way - I tend to skew liberal on social issues, so I certainly don't mind it when someone says that something I say may be liberal - why do you get all testy when I use the word?


I've got a little news for those who think small thoughts like this:  get over it.  If you want to get married and are gay, you can accomplish far more by creating a new term that allows you to have the same rights as straight married couples without assaulting what is, essentially and historically, a religious concept.

If it's all about religion, why are some religions more important than others?  There are churches that will allow gays to marry.  Why does the Mormon or Catholic or any other church get to define what marriage is more than, say, the Unitarian Church?  Also, what about those of us who aren't gay but support the rights of gays to be able to marry?
[/quote]

It's not that SOME religions are more important than others.  It's that EVERY religion considers homosexuality to be a sin.  The religions tend to agree on this one.  Hence, there is little religious debate about the matter.  Let's not change the subject by deflecting it into how we define marriage when we are talking about gay marriage.

As a person with many gay friends (the guys call me their husband and the girls make fun of me for having a penis), I can tell you that even some of them are split on the issue. 

So what?  The issue is choice.  Just as has been said to straight people, if you don't want gay marriage, then shut the @#!* up and don't get one.

[/quote]

While I may agree with you on this one, you just hit on the main point of my post.  SOME straight people seem to care, and it's usually because of their faith based values.  Which is why a different term might work better - and be an easier issue to pass the vote.

Sure, they all want the same rights as straight couples, but every one of them understands two things that the radical homosexuals don't seem to:
1)  When you lose a vote on your issue, freaking out is harmful, not helpful
2)  The term 'marriage' is rooted in religious ideology and is, therefore, not likely the right path to take towards equal rights.


Wow, how insightful  ::)  People understand it's rooted in religious ideology, but it's no excuse because:
1. There are many things rooted in religious ideology that we don't find acceptable today.  Slavery is a part of the Bible, but we expressly forbid that today.  Mormons used to teach (don't know if they still do) that blacks are cursed with the mark of Cain with dark skin.  Today, they would (rightfully) be called racist.  Many religions subjugate women, but that's not something that is viewed as acceptable today.  I could continue, but I think you get the point. 

[/quote]

True, but only kinda-sorta.  For example, in the jewish faith, slavery was an agreement.  You were bound by rules and laws.  You had to provide for the slave, treat them well and with dignity, and they could only be a slave for 7 years, unless they opted to voluntarily remain in servitude.  MODERN slavery is decidedly ANTI-judeo-christian faith.  I get the point, but hardly think that this compares.  For example, if one believes in judeo-christian scripture, GOD says homosexuality is a sin, hence the issue.  Again, this is not my belief, but a fact you should be aware of.


Prop 8 passed by a wide margin. 

So what the majority believes = what is right?  I refer you to the antebellum South.  nft.
[/quote]

If you will allow me a moment of snark, Obama was elected President.  If you believe in Democracy, or better yet a representative republic, you MUST believe that the majority is correct.  Better to convince the majority to come over to your side than compare them to racists and slave owners, don't you think?

Malcolm X preached violence as a means for change and it failed.  Then he changed his mind and made some of the most fascinating explorations into race relations in the history of mankind.  And was killed for it.  By black people who disagreed with his new, more peaceful approach.  And history shows that it was Dr. Martin Luther King who was more responsible for civil rights advances.

Please stop showing your ignorance of the African American civil rights movement.  Malcolm X did NOT fail as an agent for change.  In fact, his teachings were instrumental in the founding of the Black Panthers, a group that did a tremendous amount of good for black communities (including, but not limited to sickle cell clinics, free breakfast programs that were the precursor to the Federal Free and Reduced meal program, free grocery programs, forcing the city of Oakland to install a traffic light so young black children would stop getting run over on the way to/from a particular school, etc).  What's more, he was not killed because he changed his mind.  And history does not show that Martin Luther King would have been as successful on his own.  That's nothing but pure speculation on your part.

[/quote]

Yeah, the black panthers were great.  About 25% of the time.  The rest of the time, they weren't so nice.  They did plenty of harm.  And the fact is that Malcolm X was killed after he began to renounce violence because even he saw the damage groups like the Black Panthers were doing to the civil rights movement.  By black people.  Who were involved with the very group that Malcolm X helped grow and later found repugnant to some degree.

The fact remains that state's [sic] still have a constitutional right to make their own decisions. 


The fact remains that the people still have the right to challenge Prop 8.  Are you arguing with the constitutionally established system of checks and balances?

[/quote]

Not at all.  But the tenor of the challenge has been negative and filled with hatred towards others.  As I stated earlier, behaving badly won't help change the law.  There are still plenty of far better ways to achieve change.



Also, I <3 the way your entire post addresses the LGBT community, but fails to consider there's (obviously) a wide swath of the California population that is 1) heterosexual and 2) doesn't agree with Prop 8.  I'll remember this post as I continue joining others interested in fighting for the civil rights of ALL people by protesting outside the Mormon temple on Overland and Santa Monica, in West Hollywood, and anywhere else.

Anyway, I don't know why I bothered since you're obviously just trying to stir the pot. 
[/quote]

So you are going to protest a few mormon churches that did nothing wrong.  That ought to win them over.  It will surely show them how wrong they are to believe in god and that their faith is hateful.

And yes, I am stirring the pot.  It is difficult to learn things if all we do is talk to people we always agree with.  This being a hot topic, I am curious to discuss it.
I do not hate gay people.
I do not oppose gay marriage.
I am merely making an observation.

17
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Prop 8 discussion....
« on: November 09, 2008, 11:50:29 PM »
Although the term marriage may have religious roots, it is now a state institution.  As a state institution, it should not discriminate against a subset of society because they were born different than the majority.  I believe hatred is a strong word.  I know of a lot of people who voted in favor of Prop 8, and I do not believe their actions were intentionally malicious.  I do, however, believe that supporting the proposition is discriminatory.  You cannot say that you believe gay people are your equal, yet their participation in the insitution of marriage somehow degrades the value of heterosexual marriages.  Although some people want to confer the same rights to homosexual couples without calling it marriage, the separate term implies a certain perception of superiority.  I see this problem very similar to the problem of segregation.  The feeling that two groups need to be separate to "protect" one group creates a "badge of inferiority" for the minority group.  Although a simple majority of voters voted in favor of the Proposition, it has been my opinion that the rights of the majority should be protected from the rash will of the majority.  That is the purpose of the constitution.  The California Supreme Court saw it that way, but the people of California felt it was necessary to change our Constitution to single out a minority group.  So when people get upset, they have some justification.  Furthermore, I do not think it is fair to use such generalizations.  There are so many opponents of Proposition 8 who are challenging the passage of the law in appropriate manners.  The end of slavery, segregation, and the fight for other civil rights have all met with opposition before their end goals were achieved.  Just because Prop 8 passed this time does not mean it will always pass. 

I'm not sure I agree to your opinion regarding 'superiority'.
There is a traditional view and a non-traditional view.  One is rooted in something like 5000 + years of history, tradition and faith, and one is not.  Superiority may be the wrong word.

I agree that bills like prop 8 won't always pass, nor do I necessarily believe they should.  What I do believe is that prop 8 passed this time and misbehaving while calling people who voted for it 'hate-filled' doesn't help any.

I don't think this is, to whatever majority out there voted for it, about superiority or even civil rights - I think this is about the religious significance of marriage.  The battle folks seem to be ignoring is that the organized religions all see homosexuality as sin, and therefore feel that legalizing homosexual weddings is going against god.



18
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Prop 8 discussion....
« on: November 09, 2008, 11:45:19 PM »
5,419,478 to 4,908,887 is hardly a wide margin, particularly when over 2,700,000 mail-in and provisional ballots remain to be counted.

Regardless, you crack me up when you say poo like, "You CANNOT win people over to your position if you start by insulting them." Because, you know... you're a jerk. So it's ironic, see?

All flash and no sizzle.
Try harder.  Even more interesting, take a look at the county vote.
That tells a different story.

19
General Off-Topic Board / Prop 8 discussion....
« on: November 07, 2008, 04:44:12 PM »
First of all, I am sick and tired of people saying that the vote for Prop 8 in california, which passed overwhelmingly, is a sign of hatred.  It isn't.  You don't have to hate gay people to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  I'm already starting to see the liberalistic blame/demonization game being played, much as it is when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

Get a clue folks.  You do not help your cause by calling people who disagree with you hateful.  It is not patriotic to get your issue on a ballot and riot when things don't go the way you want.

I've got a little news for those who think small thoughts like this:  get over it.  If you want to get married and are gay, you can accomplish far more by creating a new term that allows you to have the same rights as straight married couples without assaulting what is, essentially and historically, a religious concept.

As a person with many gay friends (the guys call me their husband and the girls make fun of me for having a penis), I can tell you that even some of them are split on the issue.  Sure, they all want the same rights as straight couples, but every one of them understands two things that the radical homosexuals don't seem to:
1)  When you lose a vote on your issue, freaking out is harmful, not helpful
2)  The term 'marriage' is rooted in religious ideology and is, therefore, not likely the right path to take towards equal rights.

Prop 8 passed by a wide margin.  This should inspire those who want to have long term, legal homosexual relationships with the same rights and benefits as straight relationships to find a better angle to pursue.  Wake up!  When the civil rights movement started, there were plenty of obstacles and loads of negative results.  They persevered, modified their approach, and stayed committed.  They did not riot.  They did not start calling everyone who disagreed with them racists.

It is not a good thing to start calling people who disagree with gay marriage hate-filled, especially when such an overwhelming majority voted for Prop 8.  You CANNOT win people over to your position if you start by insulting them.

I believe in the rights of gay people to have committed long term relationships with all the benefits (and detriments) of straight marriage.  I think that gay divorces will help shape divorce law, which is unabashedly skewed in favor of women.  I think gay people deserve to be just as miserable as straight people who get married.

But I still am quite sure that calling it a 'marriage' isn't going to work.  Ever.

Change the terminology and you have a shot.  Riot, attack religious institutions, act like lawless out of control maniacs, and behave like petulant children who didn't get their way and you will fail.  The worst part of the strategy that is in place now is that it is creating more anger and resentment towards the gay community and proving the electorate that you don't deserve what you want.

Malcolm X preached violence as a means for change and it failed.  Then he changed his mind and made some of the most fascinating explorations into race relations in the history of mankind.  And was killed for it.  By black people who disagreed with his new, more peaceful approach.  And history shows that it was Dr. Martin Luther King who was more responsible for civil rights advances.

Wake up, California gays - stop acting like the law doesn't matter and everyone hates you.  Learn to behave like adults.

The fact remains that state's still have a constitutional right to make their own decisions.  The electorate has spoken.  Deal with it.  Inspire yourselves to adapt and create a new way to attack an old issue.

Proceed with the hatred of ol' Jeff.  I can't wait to read the comments that accuse me of homophobia and hatred....


20
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: November 05, 2008, 01:59:58 PM »
That was an excellent post Jeff.  Unfortunately, the message got a bit lost in the end when I got down to your sig line.

I'll change it.  That was my partisan, pre-election tag line.

The message was real and so the tag line must change....


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 52