StrangeSox

hahahaha keep pretending there isn't white male privilege, kap. Maybe it's that white man's burden that's putting us at a disadvantage! kap, jenks, have you guys ever read any sociology at all? Your arguments are completely blind to reality.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 6, 2010 -> 11:27 AM) Was making a joke. Someone referenced a report that apparently found gay men were more likely to molest children. I referenced one of the pro-prop 8 witness's ridiculous testimony. His source for that claim was "the internet". No such scientific study exists showing what he claimed; gays are just as likely as straights to molest children, but that doesn't stop the "save the children!" boogeyman from rearing its ugly head all the time.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 6, 2010 -> 11:17 AM) Except that this argument only gets played like this when it comes to these types of social issues. States grant all sorts of rights tailored towards a specific group while clearly discriminating against others. Think about things like minority contract requirements with cities. It's absolutely blatant discrimination, but no one cares because it benefits the little guy. The "benefits" of giving out the miniority owned business contracts aren't much better than the "benefit" of protecting children from all those gay raper guys out there. Or the other one that really gets me (though it will soon be moot) is the fact that women and children can get free health care in illinois, but a man can't. Apparently the justification is that protecting women and children's health is more important than a man's? Minorities are at a systematic disadvantage. AA-type programs aren't perfect but they're not "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination". The justification is that there's a lot of single mothers out there who can't afford health care for them or their children. It's not fair to punish children for their parents' lack of financial success and if that parent becomes too ill to work, they'll be screwed.

Equal protection, 14th amendment. eta and due process was in the ruling I think.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 08:23 PM) Go ahead and piss all over it. You're all fine with it until a decision goes against you, and then you'll scream facism. The more control over "local" law a place has, the closer to a constitutional republic you have, which you're obviously against. The more control over "local" law a place has, the higher the occurrence of grievous civil rights breaches.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 08:37 PM) The clause is important because to me it technically limits the naturalization (aka, hop plane, spit the baby out, fly back to said country and now you have an American) process. You do not have jurisdiction or the rights of an American citizen just because you spit out a baby in the US. That's my problem with it, and my interpretation of that clause. The whole point of putting it there was because they wanted to ensure that slaves were covered - as they were NATURAL citizens, not because momma came and spit you out just to go back home somewhere else. Here's how it works: Some senators agreed with your interpretation at the time. Others did not. The SCOTUS's interpretation is the one that matters, and this was settled in 1898. So, the clause does not limit naturalization like you would want it to. Your child does have citizenship just because you "spit out a baby in the US". Your interpretation of that clause is simply wrong based on long-standing precedent.

hahaha thank you, kotsay.

farmer: "ball that rameriz knocked down, rolled about 2 feet away and was quick but not too aggressive"

WTF just happened?

More awesomeness: Reminding me more and more of the types of arguments made for creationism in schools.

ahahahahahahahahha Someone needs to tell these morons that argument by assertion doesn't work. Wonder if they waived their hand a la Obi-Wan when they said that.

Here's the actual decision: http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2010-08/55367172.pdf

Let's not forget that 25% of the country is in favor of military dictatorships as well. Question phrasing is very important, question order is very important, and also there's a lot of morons.

I'm listening on the radio but this caught stealing sounds pretty dumb right here.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 12:04 PM) Looks like we're gonna have to do it ourselves again today in order to not lose ground. I'm not a big fan of this pitching matchup though. Hopefully Scherzer thinks he can just man up and throw gas by us, because that strategy generally doesn't work against our guys. At least we're in first place. It has to be really annoying to go 8-2 in your last 10 and make up a total of zero games.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 10:17 AM) I'm saying that the laws of marriage are created by states, not the federal government. California should be able to decide the requirements of marriage, as it defines it, however it wants. How is this a fail? You're advocating for the states being able to breach individual rights in the US Constitution. 14th amendment, yo.

Bought Pavement tickets today. Malkmus was on Sound Opinions the other day, pretty good interview if anyone wants to check it out.

Don't forget that they have incorporated a bunch of great "features" into the game that you have to keep paying more and more money for! Madden 10 was the first Madden I had bought in probably about 6 years. It might be another 6 before I give it another shot.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 11:02 AM) What difference does it make if the gay couple next door is married or not? False dichotomy. You've left out the option of burning them both at the stake.

That's a special kind of fail right there.

Come on, Balta. Hollywood Squares.

This country has always been incredibly aggressive in granting citizenship.

I have a hard time with the executive branch giving orders to kill Americans, even if they are s***bags. edit: and also effectively blocking legal representation.

"Something called 'volcano monitoring'..." reminds me of this: "Hey, I have no idea what validity this may have, but it sure sounds stupid! Let's cut more science funding! YEAH!"

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 01:18 PM) Yeah that's it. A known illegal with a history of dui kills someone and I'm xenophobic. GMAFB. Would you think the same if it were your relative.God forbid we offend anyone..or enforce the law...we may lose a vote or two. If by "these people" you meant repeat offenders, then please accept my apologies. If by "these people" you meant illegal brown people, then LOL.