dontwantaname wrote:Paul????

paul is dead. i am the walrus.

dontwantaname wrote:I thought you were the egg man

poo poo pachu.

dontwantaname wrote:Most likely got shot when he The Force on the wrong lawn.


I thought you were the egg man

they are the egg men. i am the walrus.

pooflady wrote:I'm betting there's lots of websites and forums dedicated to all kinds of political and religious views. Personal opinion, this isn't one of them.

hmmm...didn't see that one in the terms of use policy...nope not there.
I'm offened by Castle talk...but do I complain?...nope

Iceback wrote:hmmm...didn't see that one in the terms of use policy...nope not there.
I'm offened by Castle talk...but do I complain?...nope, I just choose to not participate.

Iceback wrote:hmmm...didn't see that one in the terms of use policy...nope not there.

why would any1 expect poof's personal opinion to be described in the use policy?

no1 wrote:why would any1 expect poof's personal opinion to be described in the use policy?

exactly my point, she had an opinion and expressed it, yet didn't want others to feel free to express theirs.There is not a written policy prevent sharing of opinions, political or other wise, why would some one feel the need to admonish another for expressing one. Opinions are shared in this forum all the time.
I hardly think expressing aproval for the leader of your country as a political statement. That is my opinion.

Iceback wrote:exactly my point, she had an opinion and expressed it, yet didn't want others to feel free to express theirs.

i rather think she would want others to feel free to express their opinions on non-political and nonreligious topics, just as she did.

edit: feel free to criticise castle!

no1 wrote:i rather think she would want others to feel free to express their opinions on non-political and nonreligious topics, just as she did.

edit: feel free to criticise castle!

I'm sorry I thought it was up to the owner of the site to set rules of what can and can not be discussed....my mistake.
I respect her and Gman right to express their opinions but in doing so one invites rebuttal.

Again,I hardly think expressing aproval for the leader of your country as a political statement.

edit//The Castle comment was meant as satire, however, because I don't like Castle would or would not prevent me from comment. I know others enjoy the show so I choose to Serious TIE Fighters United and not rain on their parade.

I'm in a foul mood today so I'm shutting up now.Feel free to add your opinion or not. I invite debate, it is after all still a right in this country, and that is MY political opinion.

Umm.

Wow.

*shuts up*

Mavyn wrote:Umm.

Wow.

*shuts up*

dontwantaname wrote://shhhh, the thread is cranky....back away

TBH?

This reaction makes me reluctance to participate further. I have seen other political statements made with no comment. Same for religious ones. Getting snapped at for 4 words of support is absurd.

Complain that this forum doesn't have many participants...well, this might be one reason why. I know I certainly don't feel welcome any longer, and I doubt I'm alone in that feeling.

I had 6 words and an abbreviation.

dontwantaname wrote:Wasn't ment to be a nasty.
Sorry

Your reaction was not nasty at all. I'm sorry for not making that clearer. I replied to you, but not because you made me feel unwelcome.

Night all. Tomorrow.

Good Morning Gman
Good Morning Czar
Good Morning Gatzby
Good Morning Cruzer
Good Morning GEG
Good Morning PBL
Good Morning Suarez
Good Morning mwiseman
Good Morning Josephus
Good Morning STLW
Good Morning KT
Good Morning Don't
Good Morning Lynn
Good Morning Mavyn
Good Morning dougall
Good Morning klozitshoper
Good Morning no1
Good Morning Ice
Good Morning Ace
Good Morning Poof
Good Morning edlada
Good Morning tennisplayer121
Good Morning Callista
Good Morning Orc
Good Morning kdccrosby
Good Morning jqubed
Good Morning Zea3
Good Morning gwp
Good Morning Turken
Good Morning j5
Good Morning inkycatz
Good Morning Fen
Good Morning SnifferSir
Good Morning GodfatherND
Good Morning PemberDucky
Good Morning joyner
Good Morning ThunderThighs
Good Morning lplady
Good Morning holmes dog
Good Morning Rain
Good Morning tennbeekeeper
Good Morning baby bee
Good Morning Ken
Good Morning Aras
Good Morning to everyone else

Good morning all

Mornin', folks.

morning y'all

Good morning everybody!

Morning all!

hrmmm. kinda glad I was out yesterday. All the talk of not-talking, bit confusing.

Personally, even though I don't like it, I'd have to say politics is still fair game for discussion around here, simply because I even less like the idea of being prevented from discussing something at all. Especially since the political topics of late are going to affect our everyday lives whether we like it or not.

Now, that said, letting the politics devolve into personal attacks and anger, should definitely be avoided.

and, since we're on politics...

...never mind. at least not right now.

"The people" voted for this one too:

j5 wrote:"The people" voted for this one too:

so they did at the time, even if it is wrong by today's standards. the problem with that law (and why it was rightly repealed later) is that it discriminated based on race -- something which is inherent and unchangeable in a person. Same-sex marriage, however, is an issue of lifestyle choice. It truly concerns me how so many keep trying to equate the homosexuality movement with the civil rights movement, when the two are not even remotely on the same level.

Turken wrote:something which is inherent and unchangeable in a person. Ghay marriage, however, is an issue of lifestyle choice. It truly concerns me how so many keep trying to equate the homosexuality movement with the civil rights movement, when the two are not even remotely on the same level.

Yes, they are exactly on the same level. That's the problem. Defining it as a "lifestyle choice" is the disconnect, since it is not (in most cases).

eta: and even if it were purely a lifestyle choice, why would it matter who one chooses to marry? Of what consequence is it to anyone except those engaged in the process?

eta2: please note, this is neither politics nor religion, but current events.

j5 wrote:Yes, they are exactly on the same level. That's the problem. Defining it as a "lifestyle choice" is the disconnect, since it is not (in most cases).

sorry, but they are not on the same level.

you cannot choose your race (or whether you're born of a particular gender, or with a particular handicap, or any of the other protected classes). but sexual orientation is a conscious decision that a person makes (and can change repeatedly) on their own. it is a choice, and as such, is subject to the moral codes (i.e. laws) of the society in which that choice is made.

dontwantaname wrote:Story

Can you flowchart that? I'm having difficulty following.

Turken wrote:sexual orientation is a conscious decision that a person makes (and can change repeatedly) on their own. it is a choice, and as such, is subject to the moral codes (i.e. laws) of the society in which that choice is made.

I disagree.

dontwantaname wrote:Don't have to go to lunch with Mom for her birthday. A step niece and her mom are going.

They strongly protested the no party thing. But at 90, unless you love parties, you can't hear what is going on.
I voted the party down. Said Mom would be happier with a series of lunch or dinner dates.

So I took her to lunch on tuesday.
Her brother and my cousin's parents took her out last night, They went for lunch. Got home at 11pm. Old people eat slow! Uncle is 92. My cousin's parents must be late 80's or early 90's.

Today lunch with step granddaughter and her mom.


Mom worked at UPS with this younger women. They were friends. When the younger women was dating her husband, all the women in the office thought he was a jerk.
They married. He was a jerk, she had 3 kids and got divorced. Although the ex husband has always been in his kids lives.
Lets say their divorce was better than the marriage. No problem inviting both to a party. Even after she remarried.

The jerk had a father working at UPS. When my Dad died, Jerk's father started dating my mom. So my mom ended up stepmom to the guy she didn't think was good enough to marry her friend!
As far as the grandkids, she is the only grandmother on the dad's side they have ever had.

They are taking Mom out to a nice lunch today. Which is what mom wanted. Quiet, easy to hear. Not crowed.

A step brother had her over last week for dinner with the entire family there.

Step sister is doing Mothers Day with her daughter and grandkids. That is early .11am. Daughter has to go to her husbands family in the afternoon.

So instead of one party, a bunch of lunches and dinners.

I didn't know Sun was at 11am.

I had to tell my sister in law last week if we were going to lunch with that side of the family.

We may be going solo!

That's what we did with my m-i-l's 90th birthday. Each child and each grandchild took her out to dinner. Made a calendar. I think she went out 12 times.

j5 wrote:I disagree.

care to back that up with any sort of evidence that it is NOT a choice?

sexual orientation is like alcoholism. you might be born with a set of characteristics which lend to a particular proclivity. you may also be born into a household or societal situation which encourages a particular behavior as normal. BUT, ultimately, how an individual acts upon these nature and nurture influences is up to them. Some individuals may find it very easy or very difficult to enter or leave these lifestyles, but the option (in either direction) is always there.

j5 wrote:Yes, they are exactly on the same level. That's the problem. Defining it as a "lifestyle choice" is the disconnect, since it is not (in most cases).

//I'm not here since I may just go off on this topic. For me personally, this isn't the place for that. To each their own though.//