Other states copy Arizona SB 1062

[protectionist]

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.

:smiliehug

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

Thanks, but I'm OK. I just stay away from driving on open highways and especially on large bridges.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

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)

1. I have no idea of the American way of life. Good call.

2. Are trying to somehow infer that racism does not exist in the south? Perhaps it is YOU who are not in touch with the American way of life.

I'm pushing an agenda? Not you for your isolationism?

You keep saying that I offer nothing to the conversation, save for hot-air. Fair enough, I would submit that you, yourself are equally guilty of non-contribution to the subject at hand by establishing yourself as a repeating piece of repetitious redundancy, working overtime in order to present the same twisted facts ad nausium with the same predictable, practicality, till the end of time, beyond infinity, e pluribus unum ... abracadabra.

 

[protectionist]

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

I've lost count now at how many posters have said this exact SAME THING.

Great post, MR ECHO!

Answered it in Post # 5.

 

[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.

:smiliehug

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

Thanks, but I'm OK. I just stay away from driving on open highways and especially on large bridges.

I eventually got over all of that to do stuff like driving across country over such bridges like the Chesapeake bay bridge tunnel, the great expanses of desert out west and the deep wildernesses of the north.

The trick is to not care.

Every time I start to think "what If" I say to myself - "so what."

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Oh yea....the good ole days

When you could beat the fags up and anyone you thoght might be a *** and nobody cared. I see why states like Arizona feel they need to step up

 

[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

I've lost count now at how many posters have said this exact SAME THING.

Great post, MR ECHO!

Answered it in Post # 5.

There you went and did it

Made me look at post #5 only to find it had nothing to do with what I posted. Your self proclaimed victories are getting lame

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

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.

I don't have an ounce of decency?

Perhaps I am (quite correctly) inferring that the word "phobia" does not always reference a form of illness like you, yourself struggle with.

Sometimes, it deals with a subject matter or even the irrational fear of a race or class of people. It is not the same, yet the word is fitting and even appropriate.

I will tell you the same same thing that I try to impart to my black friends - the N-word only has power if you allow it.


The same can be said with regards to suffering a phobia; "there is nothing to fear, but fear itself."

 

[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

I've lost count now at how many posters have said this exact SAME THING.

Great post, MR ECHO!

Answered it in Post # 5.

There you went and did it

Made me look at post #5 only to find it had nothing to do with what I posted. Your self proclaimed victories are getting lame

You dumb-ass! You deserve that waste of your life.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Actually, a lot of social conservatism is ON THE RISE, with many ultra-liberal ideas biting the dust nowadays (ex. Affirmative action, Sharia law, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc) Anti-queer legislation may join the ranks (without the assistance of religious backing), as more and more states pass laws like the Arizona one.

It might also be noted that there already is quite a bit of anti-queer law in existence, which isn't going away. Eight U.S. states — Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah — have laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools, similar to the laws in Russia. In 2 of these states, Alabama and Texas requiring educators to describe homosexuality as abhorrent to the general public and as a criminal behavior. And a majority of US states ban same-sex marriage.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Sez you, with no evidence or plausible reason to support your speculation, and nothing more than another echo of what other posters (whom I already answered) have said. Ho hum. Yawn *******

 

[protectionist]

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.

No, it is revealing the ongoing invasion of the US by Mexico and other countries, for the satisfaction of various vested interests - for profit companies, Democrats seeking VOTES, unions, churches, Spanish media, ethnocentrist orgs, etc

PS- "customers" ? You own your own business ?

 

[Howey]

Y'all sure into lost causes, aren't you?

 

[protectionist]

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)

1. I have no idea of the American way of life. Good call.

2. Are trying to somehow infer that racism does not exist in the south? Perhaps it is YOU who are not in touch with the American way of life.

I'm pushing an agenda? Not you for your isolationism?

You keep saying that I offer nothing to the conversation, save for hot-air. Fair enough, I would submit that you, yourself are equally guilty of non-contribution to the subject at hand by establishing yourself as a repeating piece of repetitious redundancy, working overtime in order to present the same twisted facts ad nausium with the same predictable, practicality, till the end of time, beyond infinity, e pluribus unum ... abracadabra.

1. I accept your admission of ignorance.

2. I never infer, imply, or insinuate anything. I said nothing about racism in the south, or anywhere else.

3. FALSE! I have contributed plenty of FACTS,with proper names. here'sa few examples.

a. "Eight U.S. states — Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah — have laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools."

b. Other states copy Arizona SB 1062 - Andrea Drusch and Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com

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

d. "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."

e. "it is revealing the ongoing invasion of the US by Mexico and other countries, for the satisfaction of various vested interests - for profit companies, Democrats seeking VOTES, unions, churches, Spanish media, ethnocentrist orgs, etc"

 

[protectionist]

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

:smiliehug

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

Thanks, but I'm OK. I just stay away from driving on open highways and especially on large bridges.

I eventually got over all of that to do stuff like driving across country over such bridges like the Chesapeake bay bridge tunnel, the great expanses of desert out west and the deep wildernesses of the north.

The trick is to not care.

Every time I start to think "what If" I say to myself - "so what."

I never thought "what if", I just had panic attacks while driving in very wide open spaces, which is a severe NO NO. So, I don't do it any more. And I have no need to. I don't like traveling, and I don't really find too much need to go anywhere other than the traffic light streets in my neighborhood, which I have no problem with.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Oh yea....the good ole days

When you could beat the fags up and anyone you thoght might be a *** and nobody cared. I see why states like Arizona feel they need to step up

Nobody here is talking about that.....except you.

 

[protectionist]

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

I've lost count now at how many posters have said this exact SAME THING.

Great post, MR ECHO!

Answered it in Post # 5.

There you went and did it

Made me look at post #5 only to find it had nothing to do with what I posted. Your self proclaimed victories are getting lame

It had to do with what you posted. CCJ said >> "And those measures will likely be vetoed or invalidated by the Federal courts as well." Key word >> "will". Get it, now ?
If not, never mind. Who cares ?

 

[protectionist]

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.

I don't have an ounce of decency? Perhaps I am (quite correctly) inferring that the word "phobia" does not always reference a form of illness like you, yourself struggle with. Sometimes, it deals with a subject matter or even the irrational fear of a race or class of people. It is not the same, yet the word is fitting and even appropriate. I will tell you the same same thing that I try to impart to my black friends - the N-word only has power if you allow it.
The same can be said with regards to suffering a phobia; "there is nothing to fear, but fear itself."

Point was that the phony word "homophobia" is phony, because fear of homosexuals is not an irrartional fear, it is well-founded, for valid reasons.

 

[protectionist]

Y'all sure into lost causes, aren't you?

Y'all sure into pretending causes are lost causes, aren't you ?

 

[paperview]

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.

Sez you, with no evidence or plausible reason to support your speculation, and nothing more than another echo of what other posters (whom I already answered) have said. Ho hum. Yawn *******

You lost the battle. Get over it.

 

[rightwinger]

I've lost count now at how many posters have said this exact SAME THING.

Great post, MR ECHO!

Answered it in Post # 5.

There you went and did it

Made me look at post #5 only to find it had nothing to do with what I posted. Your self proclaimed victories are getting lame

It had to do with what you posted. CCJ said >> "And those measures will likely be vetoed or invalidated by the Federal courts as well." Key word >> "will". Get it, now ?
If not, never mind. Who cares ?

Where did I ever say anything about them being overturned? I said they would be withdrawn