Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

dahat dahat inanity makes my head hurt
  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    @brian.shapiro:No argument, only here is a shorter way to describe it... Terrorism Works.

    , cbae wrote

    That's a great argument for "separate but equal". Good job! Where were you 60 years ago? You would have kicked Thurgood Marshall's *!

    Nice job inventing emanations of penumbras there in order to get to the end result you've been trying to reach all along... after all so far you've failed to successfully label me as some sort of homophobe... and now try to label me as a racist or segregationist instead/as well.

    Funny thing, have I mentioned my personal views on SSM? Do you know my views on it? (The answer to both questions, is a resounding "NO!", and if you think you can discern my views from my statements here, you are once again seeing creations of your own mind).

    Unlike you who is so hell bent on achieving certain end results come hell or high water and with a complete disregard of the consequences or methods involved... I care about the process and getting to somewhere in the right way... but again, this is what separates a liberty & constitutional loving individual such as myself from a hypocritical Mussolini-style fascist such as you.

    Just remember... as far as I can tell, in this thread YOU are the only one advocating for the removal or diminishing rights of ANY individuals or groups, YOU.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , brian.​shapiro wrote

    *snip*

    Cool. Up until a minute ago, you were a bigot trying to restrict my rights though. Keep that in mind if I'm ever on a board of directors and you're considered for appointment as CEO.

    Why wait until you are on a board considering him for the CEO gig? Clearly if he is ever given a CEO job, based on his bigotry demonstrated in this and other threads he is not worthy of the post... unless it is CEO of some anti-gun & anti-leprechaun organization... in which he'd be a good fit.

    Do we not then have the right to demand him to step down? Oh right... I'm not the sort that does...

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    Perhaps you don't understand the difference between constitutional laws and statutory laws.

    You mean like how one trumps the other... yet quite often statutes are written which violate the higher law?

    I find it easy responding to your arguments.

    My son also finds it easy to use crayons to draw... the quality of both responses are quite equal.

    More spin. Just like a broken record.

    Says the person who keeps repeating the same non-answer.

    Your right to purchase firearms leaves off where my right not to get shot by your gun begins.

    Care to cite the bit of the Constitution which covers that? Though I guess I'd accept some case law... because the words "shall not be infringed" have historically permitted ownership so long as they are not used in unlawful ways (like shooting at other people).

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    Oh my Bing searches this evening are quite unusual

    , brian.​shapiro wrote

    *snip*

    I think they're discriminatory, if we're going down this road already and same-sex marriage is allowed. I don't really see the problem with it.

    If I wanted to, I should be able to get my employer to pay health care benefits to my brother. If I wanted to, I should be able to become a citizen of another country, and get citizenship for my brother.

    Inheritance is another aspect... while handing property down parent to child usually gets hit with some taxes, from spouse to spouse is not, thus actually incentivizing an elderly parent to marry a single & younger child so as to avoid the death-tax.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , brian.​shapiro wrote

    *snip*

    Yes. exactly.

    Anyway; in weddings I've been to, the ceremonies have been held at the event of the parties. And you can commit to each other and contract with each other without government approval.

    Alas his intolerance is quite solid and assumes that a wedding can only happen in a certain way and regardless of any other realities.

    My father got re-married a number of years back in a ceremony involving less than a dozen people... I wasn't even invited as I was at college 6 hours away, they had a reception 3 months later when more could come.

    A college friend got married in the back yard of a judge who performed the ceremony (even commenting that it was not only the first wedding he ever presided over in his back yard... but also in his shorts), their witnesses were two gals they grabbed from the dorm on the way to the judge... they had a celebration a full 6 months later (in dead of winter no less).

    A couple of cousins got married the day AFTER their reception (not everyone can attend a Mormon weddings, so sometimes the celebration is the bigger event).

    I actually attended a wedding once where the paperwork was left at home... rather than get it when needed it was simply signed and back dated the next day.

    Different folks marry in different ways... and cbae's seeming inability to recognize that those getting married pre Prop-8 were doing so in a rather risky way... is quite sad... as in all weddings (other than perhaps drunken Vegas ones) tend to involve some degree of pre-planning not just of the event, but based on other facts (budget, schedules, laws (how long the waiting period is between receiving license & being able to use it)).

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    No, I don't feel the need to explicitly state what people's rights are unless there's a need based on discrimination. The Ninth Amendment guarantees that rights that aren't enumerated are given to the states or the people. There's no need to fill up our statutes with explicit rights in the event that some group in the future will feel discriminated against. Nice try spinning my position into something it's not.

    You keep making claims like that when you are on the record wishing to disseminate against other groups.

    More so, it is true that the 9th amendment does in part what you say... but again, why your silence on the so many things that I am banned from doing despite my inherent right under the 9th amendment? It's illegal to manufacturer certain kinds of toilets or light bulbs in this country, ditto to sell certain kinds of health care plans... again, to hell with rights you don't support!

    LOL! Spin, spin, spin!

    It's quite clear you have a hard time responding to some arguments made against you... you'd be better off just ignoring them (as you have many others) rather than highlighting that inability.

    You just answered your argument about why this provision is explicitly delineated. Again, if a certain class of people feel discriminated against by this law because they want to marry their siblings, I'll support their cause. I don't know this class of people exists. Please provide evidence of this existence of this people? While we're at it, let's see of leprechauns exist and maybe we can give them the right to vote?

    Seriously? So rights have to be claimed at city hall... or in in sufficient # in the media?

    Yes, I have a firm and fast rule of EXISTENCE before I decide I whose rights I support.

    Another wonderful example of how tolerant you are for other people who you now claim don't even exist.

    You spin me right 'round, baby
    Right 'round like a record, baby
    Right 'round, 'round, 'round

    You can keep deflecting, it doesn't change the fact you seek to limit the rights of those who which to purchase firearms... which in my book makes you just as bad as those who supported Prop 8... as in both cases (by your definition) you have people seeking to deny rights to others.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    @dahat: Should we pretend that Jim Crow laws like poll tax and literacy requirements weren't directly aimed at blacks to prevent them from voting?

    Again we see your inability to stay on SQUIRREL!

    As for these "other kinds of marriages", if the zeitgeist changes to the point of acceptability of these kinds of marriages and there's a class of people who are vocal in demanding those rights and can show that they, as a class, are being discriminated against because of who they are, then I'll gladly vote in their favor.

    So here we get to the crux... to you, marriage 'rights', or perhaps 'rights' in general are only for those who are sufficiently vocal.

    It's a good thing people like you were in the minority back in the days of the civil war, as while the slaves may not have liked being so, it wasn't them who were fighting for abolition.

    Why should I care of somebody wants to marry his sister?

    The people of Washington voted against that in 2012. Washington State prohibits marriages between close kin... even of same sex couples.

    While an argument might be able to be made against marriage of fertile opposite sex kin from marrying out of a fear of the genetic issues of the offspring (similar to laws prohibiting sexual relations between two such people)... it is far harder to make such a case against same-sex couples.

    But again... you are for only for protecting of certain peoples rights... this we already knew as you desire to hinder those of others.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    f you don't like having bombs thrown at you, you should stop getting so personal with your posts. Every time you participate in these threads, your posts degenerate into calling me or others "fascists" or "liberal" (as if "liberal" is some sort of insult LOL).

    Funny... in the process of pointing out your growing history of blatant hypocrisy in this thread (let alone others), I also highlight (not complain about, highlight) your baseless bomb throwing as another example of the double standard you act here with... and then proceed to cry about others doing the same.

    Again, hypocrisy .

    If you wish to challenge my definitions of any terms, you are free to do so, unlike you who is so quick to make up your own.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    Allow me once again to demonstrate your ignorance yet again..

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    Are Catholics compelled by their religion or their god to take away the rights of those of whom they believe are "sinners"?

    You have repeatedly spoken of people "taking away the rights" of others... specifically Prop 8 voters and it's supports seeking to take rights away from gays.

    First I must ask... why are you so narrow-minded and discriminatory in your views on this? Why do you so incorrectly believe that Prop 8 only affected those interested in same-sex marriage?

    Like it or not, marriage has long been understood to be between a man and a woman in this country*, and the 'right' to it did not care of gender... a man who is straight, by or gay has the same (in general) 'right' to marry a woman who is gay, straight or bi.

    (* and is something that is changing)

    Like the explicit right to keep and bear arms... not all avail themselves of it, some because they choose other things (priesthood, single life), some because they can't find who/what they are looking for, others because they may not be interested.

    Speaking of "marriage equality" has long been a canard, it was not about true equality as I can go through a slew of other kinds of marriages that remain prohibited.

    Instead it is an expansion of the definition to remove the inherent "of a different sex" qualifier to the existing statutes... with the same existing restrictions that were in place before (ie not already married, not close kin, of age, etc).

    That's correct... the 'right' to marriage expansion we saw here in Washington back in 2012 implicitly extended the 'right' to marriage to same-sex couples while it explicitly applied to ALL individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or type of coupling they desired.

    Again... why are you choosing to be so narrow-minded & discriminatory with regards to who these laws apply to?

    You heard that right, I (as a heterosexual man) now also have the 'right' to marry someone of the same sex... well, provided I provided I divorce my wife first... though even with that 'right', I do not have much interest in exercising it.

    If you want to have a discussion about this... could you at least use the correct terminology and fact based arguments?

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    @evildictaitor:Well said, but remember to go back to what I said earlier about the need for a blanket amnesty after any kind of civil war... but I do need to highlight something you said given the actions of one here (emphasis mine):

    , evildictait​or wrote

    It seems to me that the best resolution here is that people should be entitled to hold bigoted views if they so choose, because mob-rule declaring that certain views are "off-limits" and people holding those views should be outed and have their careers destroyed is not liberalism, it's fascism, no matter how you dress it up and pretend that it's for the "greater good".

    One form of it at least.

    The world we are now entering will see the same proponents of the evil of $1000 6 years earlier, likely equally happy to seek out other leaked donor roles from other organizations they disfavor.

    "Did you donate to an Planned Parenthood? Well you are against the rights of the unborn and are unfit to hold this position"

    "Did you donate to National Right to Life? Well you are against the rights of women to choose and are unfit to hold this position"

    Are they prepared to live in a world where a simple Like of Obama for America or the Republican National Convention will be used as sufficient reason that a person is unqualified for a position because of previous stances?