Other states copy Arizona SB 1062

[Mad_Cabbie]

And those bills will be vetoed or overruled by the courts.

Thanks so much for repeating (almost word for word) what C Clayton Jones said in post # 4 , Mr. Echo. And note my refute of it (and you ) in Post # 5. You need to do a bit better job of keeping up in the thread.

... And you need to get your head out of your ass.

Your threads are pretty bad. You should be glad that anyone drops by at all to even gawk.

The tide is turning away from homophobia - learn how to swim or you'll sink like a stone.

 

[protectionist]

RED States?​

Yes they are. So ??

Racist Red States

I can't wait to see what the 1/2 shred of evidence is to support this piece of loon lip. OK. Let's hear it (if you even have that much)

 

[protectionist]

WATCH: Protesters Confront The Woman Behind Arizona's Hate Law -

Cooper says that a number of states across the country are passing laws with the same “legal genetic code” that is traceable to fundamentalist Christian organizations.

Meanwhile, where this was first sent up the flagpole, so much fail the co-conspirators refuse to show their faces:

Why Is Cathi Herrod suddenly media shy?
On Wednesday, protesters attempted to take their objections to the source. They intended to confront CAP president Cathi Herrod at the organization’s headquarters. Herrod was all over the media defending her hate bill when it appeared things were going to go her way. But the odious measure has rapidly lost almost all the support it began with as the state waits for Gov. Brewer to make a decision about whether to veto it.
Herrod’s love affair with the media appears to have come to an end. In spite of the wide advance publicity that Wednesday’s gathering received, and in spite of the presence of reporters from virtually every Arizona news outlet, Herrod didn’t come out and face the crowd. As a matter of fact, security officers closed in to deny access to the building, stopping the protesters at the door.

Anybody seen Sil?

The grassroots organization, Citizens for a Better Arizona, initiated the action. Spokesperson Beto Soto told reporters that the delegation was there to ask for an apology from Herrod for all the damage she has caused Arizona. He said:

If you follow the puppeteer’s strings, they go right to this building, and to one person — Cathi Herrod.

The group also wanted to ask Herrod to stop interfering with the state’s legislative process and stop huddling with lawmakers to formulate laws. CAP’s website proudly notes that 123 of its bills have been passed in the state since 1995. In addition, CAP killed an anti-bullying bill, SB 1462, last year for fear that it would protect gay kids. That measure passed in the Senate but foundered in the House. At the time, Senate Minority Leader David Schapira called Herrod a “legislative terrorist” and said:

Cathi Herrod, an unelected lobbyist, killed a bill that would protect all Arizona kids purely because of her intolerance of gay kids.

"Gay" is an improper/incorrect word to describe homosexuals. Gay means happy. There's nothing happy about people being afflicted with a sexual perversion, and wanting to impose their lunacy on everyone else. It's all really quite a sad state of affairs.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

"Gay" is an improper/incorrect word to describe homosexuals. Gay means happy. There's nothing happy about people being afflicted with a sexual perversion, and wanting to impose their lunacy on everyone else. It's all read quite a sad state of affairs.

So, you're in charge of the English language, now too?

gay
gā/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person, esp. a man) homosexual.
"that friend of yours, is he gay?"
synonyms: homosexual, lesbian; More
relating to or used by homosexuals.
"feminist, black, and gay perspectives"
2.
lighthearted and carefree.
"Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face"
brightly colored; showy; brilliant.
"a gay profusion of purple and pink sweet peas"
3.
informaloffensive
foolish, stupid, or unimpressive.
"making students wait for the light is kind of a gay rule"
noun
noun: gay; plural noun: gays

 

[protectionist]

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

This could apply to gays and lesbians as well. And blacks. And mexicans. And anyone else being quietly surrounded with hatred.

NO IT CAN'T. Because American society defending itself from the onslaught of queers is simply a protectionist act of self defense from a sexual perversion with imperialistic tendencies. As for Mexicans, Mexico has been invading the US for decades and waging an imperialist war which has been extracting tens of Billions$$ out of the US economy and state treasuries, and reinserting it all into the Mexican economy, while ignorant, oblivious Americans (you maybe ?) sit around cheering for it. Didn't you know ?

As for hatred, yeah some us do kind of "hate" having our jobs, economy, state treasuries, environment, schools, hospitals, and culture ripped to shreds before our eyes. Be good if more people hated that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

 

[protectionist]

A perfect response

Jon Stewart Trashes Morally Repugnant Arizona Bill, Rips Fox News Apocalyptic Paranoia - YouTube

This jerk isn't worth 9 minutes of my time. Who cares what he rips ?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Yes they are. So ??

Racist Red States

I can't wait to see what the 1/2 shred of evidence is to support this piece of loon lip. OK. Let's hear it (if you even have that much)

You don't believe anything else anyone says, why would you believe that?



I, myself, would classify the statement as theoretical - It hasn't been disproven and there is plenty of data to back it up.

In order to discount the theory, one would need to eliminate the possibility of the statement being true - you would need to provide the evidence for that, because the statement is more of an opinion, rather than a specific fact.

In general, opinion statements like this, are not subject to "proof" where there are already verifiable examples of what the author is trying to relate; by the same token - you are certainly within your rights to call the statement "untrue" and provide evidence to the contrary.

I would imagine that there would be plenty of examples on both sides and this issue quite possibly will not be put to rest based on this thread.

Hope that clears things up for you a bit.

"You're welcome".

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

This could apply to gays and lesbians as well. And blacks. And mexicans. And anyone else being quietly surrounded with hatred.

NO IT CAN'T. Because American society defending itself from the onslaught of queers is simply a protectionist act of self defense from a sexual perversion with imperialistic tendencies. As for Mexicans, Mexico has been invading the US for decades and waging an imperialist war which has been extracting tens of Billions$$ out of the US economy and state treasuries, and reinserting it all into the Mexican economy, while ignorant, oblivious Americans (you maybe ?) sit around cheering for it. Didn't you know ?

As for hatred, yeah some us do kind of "hate" having our jobs, economy, state treasuries, environment, schools, hospitals, and culture ripped to shreds before our eyes. Be good if more people hated that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

If you allow someone else to take your job - you deserve to have it taken ~

 

[protectionist]

And those bills will be vetoed or overruled by the courts.

Thanks so much for repeating (almost word for word) what C Clayton Jones said in post # 4 , Mr. Echo. And note my refute of it (and you ) in Post # 5. You need to do a bit better job of keeping up in the thread.

... And you need to get your head out of your ass.

Your threads are pretty bad. You should be glad that anyone drops by at all to even gawk.

The tide is turning away from homophobia - learn how to swim or you'll sink like a stone.

1. When your head is out of the ass of inability to present a reasonable argument, come back and do that. In the meantime, we all already knew of your pathetic inabilities. No need to overstate the case. And please leave Bob Dylan's quotes alone. They should be reserved for intelligent posts WITH SUBSTANCE, not ad hominom, empty drivel.

2. There is no such thing as homophobia. A "phobia" is an irrational fear, based on nothing. But fear of homosexuality and it's militancy is perfectly rational, as established by kids being influenced by proselytizing queers (falsely calling themselves "gays"), by queers injecting themselves into the military and other places where people of same sex dress and shower together, and other such harms. It's also a valid fear of homos using big money (As in this SB 1062 case) to swing things their way, and prod previously influentional organizations to falsely support them, thereby propagandizing their cause.

3. This invalid, false use of the word "phobia" is a despicable act against the millions of people who, like myself, suffer from a true phobia mental illness. In my case, it is agoraphobia (the most common of all phobias). But it just as well could be one of the lesser common phobias like claustrophobia, acrophobia, or any of the others.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Thanks so much for repeating (almost word for word) what C Clayton Jones said in post # 4 , Mr. Echo. And note my refute of it (and you ) in Post # 5. You need to do a bit better job of keeping up in the thread.

... And you need to get your head out of your ass.

Your threads are pretty bad. You should be glad that anyone drops by at all to even gawk.

The tide is turning away from homophobia - learn how to swim or you'll sink like a stone.

1. When your head is out of the ass of inability to present a reasonable argument, come back and do that. In the meantime, we all already knew of your pathetic inabilities. No need to overstate the case. And please leave Bob Dylan's quotes alone. They should be reserved for intelligent posts WITH SUBSTANCE, not ad hominom, empty drivel.

2. There is no such thing as homophobia. A "phobia" is an irrational fear, based on nothing. But fear of homosexuality and it's militancy is perfectly rational, as established by kids being influenced by proselytizing queers (falsely calling themselves "gays"), by queers injecting themselves into the military and other places where people of same sex dress and shower together, and other such harms. It's also a valid fear of homos using big money (As in this SB 1062 case) to swing things their way, and prod previously influentional organizations to falsely support them, thereby propagandizing their cause.

3. This invalid, false use of the word "phobia" is a despicable act against the millions of people who, like myself, suffer from a true phobia mental illness. In my case, it is agoraphobia (the most common of all phobias). But it just as well could be one of the lesser common phobias like claustrophobia, acrophobia, or any of the others.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a
ˌhōməˈfōbēə/Submit
noun
1.
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.


It's like shooting fish in a barrel! Your constant need to re-create definitions, establish non-existent boundaries and create straw-man arguments that you can destroy dramatically in front of your non-existent "fans" is remarkably laughable.

Oh, BIG FONTS ... WE NEED MORE BIG FONTS AND RED LETTERS TO PROVE OUR POINTS ...

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

In my case, it is agoraphobia (the most common of all phobias). But it just as well could be one of the lesser common phobias like claustrophobia, acrophobia, or any of the others.

I had that too. Was afraid of just about everything you can think of.







I was very lucky to get out from under It's evil grasp. Good luck, I really mean it.

 

[protectionist]

"Gay" is an improper/incorrect word to describe homosexuals. Gay means happy. There's nothing happy about people being afflicted with a sexual perversion, and wanting to impose their lunacy on everyone else. It's all read quite a sad state of affairs.

So, you're in charge of the English language, now too?

gay
gā/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person, esp. a man) homosexual.
"that friend of yours, is he gay?"
synonyms: homosexual, lesbian; More
relating to or used by homosexuals.
"feminist, black, and gay perspectives"
2.
lighthearted and carefree.
"Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face"
brightly colored; showy; brilliant.
"a gay profusion of purple and pink sweet peas"
3.
informaloffensive
foolish, stupid, or unimpressive.
"making students wait for the light is kind of a gay rule"
noun
noun: gay; plural noun: gays

I'll stick with the older dictionaries that did not define "gay" as having anything to do with homosexuality. Who cares what a dictionary says ?, that's written by some younger lamebrains who stupidly ALLOW a bunch of perverts to come along and CHANGE the English language, and ruin what was once a wonderful English word.

In charge of the English language ? That would be the American people, not the knuckleheads I just mentioned.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

In charge of the English language ? That would be the American people, not the knuckleheads I just mentioned.

Correct, the English language is created by the way people actually speak. Websters is a reflection of that, they do not "invent it."

 

[rightwinger]

Arizona, as usual, tried to be the first

They got humiliated because of it. The other states will quickly bury these bills and pretend they never happened

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Arizona, as usual, tried to be the first

They got humiliated because of it. The other states will quickly bury these bills and pretend they never happened

At this juncture - ramping up the social conservative witch hunts is political suicide.

Even the fools who signed off on this crap-sandwich are now realizing the horror of what they have done.

 

[protectionist]

Racist Red States

I can't wait to see what the 1/2 shred of evidence is to support this piece of loon lip. OK. Let's hear it (if you even have that much)

You don't believe anything else anyone says, why would you believe that?



I, myself, would classify the statement as theoretical - It hasn't been disproven and there is plenty of data to back it up.

In order to discount the theory, one would need to eliminate the possibility of the statement being true - you would need to provide the evidence for that, because the statement is more of an opinion, rather than a specific fact.

In general, opinion statements like this, are not subject to "proof" where there are already verifiable examples of what the author is trying to relate; by the same token - you are certainly within your rights to call the statement "untrue" and provide evidence to the contrary.

I would imagine that there would be plenty of examples on both sides and this issue quite possibly will not be put to rest based on this thread.

Hope that clears things up for you a bit.

"You're welcome".

No, I'm not welcome, because I didn't thank you, because your didn't do anything more than what you did before, which was blab a lot of hot air, rhetoric.

1. Onepercenter made the statement that the red states copying Arizona SB 1062 are "racist". Well, in our American way of life (if you have any idea what that is), burden of proof is always on the accuser to prove his accusation. It is NOT on those who might discount his accusation. So NO, I DO NOT "need to provide the evidence" to "eliminate the possibility of the statement being true", as you put it. I need do nothing at all, except wait to hear what onepercenter has to say to back up his claim.

2. What I could also do is wait for YOU to back up onepercenter's claim, since you claimed that there is >> "plenty of data to back it up." Not that I necessarily accept "data" since it is so often contrived to push an agenda of one sort or another, but it might be interesting to hear what you have to say on it. That is IF you have something to say (other than hot air)

 

[protectionist]

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

This could apply to gays and lesbians as well. And blacks. And mexicans. And anyone else being quietly surrounded with hatred.

NO IT CAN'T. Because American society defending itself from the onslaught of queers is simply a protectionist act of self defense from a sexual perversion with imperialistic tendencies. As for Mexicans, Mexico has been invading the US for decades and waging an imperialist war which has been extracting tens of Billions$$ out of the US economy and state treasuries, and reinserting it all into the Mexican economy, while ignorant, oblivious Americans (you maybe ?) sit around cheering for it. Didn't you know ?

As for hatred, yeah some us do kind of "hate" having our jobs, economy, state treasuries, environment, schools, hospitals, and culture ripped to shreds before our eyes. Be good if more people hated that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

If you allow someone else to take your job - you deserve to have it taken ~

Since I have repeatedly spoken out against this invasion of our country by Mexico (et al), it cannot be said that I have allowed the invaders to take our jobs.

Example >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

But what you say may be true. It's just not true in my case. However, in the case of all those people who support immigration (legal or illegal), THEY are allowing those immigrants to take their jobs. I'm retired, and no longer in the workforce, but those who are, and support immigration, would be doing just what you said. You maybe ?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, other states will not follow suit. Political suicide, as well as economic suicide. Sorry, but projecting your personal hates onto others won't achieve your goals. Homosexuality has been part of the human condition for all of recorded history. In fact, some significant societies actually idealized it. Such as some of the Greek city-states.

Most Americans pretty much have the attitude now that what you do in your bedroom between consenting adults is your business, no one elses. That is how it is and will remain.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

NO IT CAN'T. Because American society defending itself from the onslaught of queers is simply a protectionist act of self defense from a sexual perversion with imperialistic tendencies. As for Mexicans, Mexico has been invading the US for decades and waging an imperialist war which has been extracting tens of Billions$$ out of the US economy and state treasuries, and reinserting it all into the Mexican economy, while ignorant, oblivious Americans (you maybe ?) sit around cheering for it. Didn't you know ?

As for hatred, yeah some us do kind of "hate" having our jobs, economy, state treasuries, environment, schools, hospitals, and culture ripped to shreds before our eyes. Be good if more people hated that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

If you allow someone else to take your job - you deserve to have it taken ~

Since I have repeatedly spoken out against this invasion of our country by Mexico (et al), it cannot be said that I have allowed the invaders to take our jobs.

Example >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

But what you say may be true. It's just not true in my case. However, in the case of all those people who support immigration (legal or illegal), THEY are allowing those immigrants to take their jobs. I'm retired, and no longer in the workforce, but those who are, and support immigration, would be doing just what you said. You maybe ?

No one has taken my job thus far. I have not allowed for it by fighting to make myself so useful, that my customers keep calling back. Blaming other people for stealing their job is nothing but making excuses for failure.

 

[protectionist]

... And you need to get your head out of your ass.

Your threads are pretty bad. You should be glad that anyone drops by at all to even gawk.

The tide is turning away from homophobia - learn how to swim or you'll sink like a stone.

1. When your head is out of the ass of inability to present a reasonable argument, come back and do that. In the meantime, we all already knew of your pathetic inabilities. No need to overstate the case. And please leave Bob Dylan's quotes alone. They should be reserved for intelligent posts WITH SUBSTANCE, not ad hominom, empty drivel.

2. There is no such thing as homophobia. A "phobia" is an irrational fear, based on nothing. But fear of homosexuality and it's militancy is perfectly rational, as established by kids being influenced by proselytizing queers (falsely calling themselves "gays"), by queers injecting themselves into the military and other places where people of same sex dress and shower together, and other such harms. It's also a valid fear of homos using big money (As in this SB 1062 case) to swing things their way, and prod previously influentional organizations to falsely support them, thereby propagandizing their cause.

3. This invalid, false use of the word "phobia" is a despicable act against the millions of people who, like myself, suffer from a true phobia mental illness. In my case, it is agoraphobia (the most common of all phobias). But it just as well could be one of the lesser common phobias like claustrophobia, acrophobia, or any of the others.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a
ˌhōməˈfōbēə/Submit
noun
1.
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.


It's like shooting fish in a barrel! Your constant need to re-create definitions, establish non-existent boundaries and create straw-man arguments that you can destroy dramatically in front of your non-existent "fans" is remarkably laughable.

Oh, BIG FONTS ... WE NEED MORE BIG FONTS AND RED LETTERS TO PROVE OUR POINTS ...

What you don't seem to understand is that we of the slightly older generation went ot school in the 1950s and 60s. Words like gay (meaning queers) and "homophobia" did not exist. They were not in OUR dictionaries, and thereby not part of our language. Well, we still use the same dictionaries, we still speak the same language the same way, and we don't give a rat's ass what some damn fools who weren't even born when we were in college, now write into their imbecile new dictionaries. YOU consider those new dictionaries valid. We don't.

And if you had a grain of knowledge of what the word phobia means, you'd know these new dictionary writers are wrong and stupid, and shouldn't be followed. if somebody climbs up to the top a the tallest bridge in your town and jumps off, do you follow. I set the record straight on the non-word "homophobia" in Post # 29. You need nothing more than that.

And if you had an ounce of decency, you would not so lightly toss a word like phobia around, wherever you think it's convenient for you, when that word has a very severe meaning to people who have TRUE phobias.