• Racist Judge Disenfranchises Minorities
    183 replies, posted
Par for the course, really. When you confront the average person with inconsistencies in their logic or even question their reasoning ever so slightly on the right kinds of topics and issues, you will be met with a violent reaction. In real life, I would have probably been chased off at the point of a pitchfork by an angry mob, but this is the internet and the only thing you can do is shout the usual school-yard insults, and when that doesn't work, you band together and form an impenetrable bond of self delusion and mindless conformity. Yes, just nod your head. Agree with what the TV says. Like-minded individuals are here to agree with your every word. A judge sided with people of his own race on a matter which concerns people of all races. That's the jist of it. And if you still refuse to see that, then there's really nothing else to say except that in your mind, gay marriage takes priority over civil rights. that's fine, we all have different idea of what's important. Obviously not many of you or perhaps none of you have ever been seriously discriminated against. But The TV keeps droning on about gay marriage. Obviously your perception of what is more important will be influenced by that.
A judge did his fucking job and ruled as he sees fit. Got a problem? Go bitch somewhere else.
[QUOTE=johncage;24058976]Par for the course, really. When you confront the average person with inconsistencies in their logic or even question their reasoning ever so slightly on the right kinds of topics and issues, you will be met with a violent reaction. In real life, I would have probably been chased off at the point of a pitchfork by an angry mob, but this is the internet and the only thing you can do is shout the usual school-yard insults, and when that doesn't work, you band together and form an impenetrable bond of self delusion and mindless conformity. Yes, just nod your head. Agree with what the TV says. Like-minded individuals are here to agree with your every word. A judge sided with people of his own race on a matter which concerns people of all races. That's the jist of it. And if you still refuse to see that, then there's really nothing else to say except that in your mind, gay marriage takes priority over civil rights. that's fine, we all have different idea of what's important. Obviously not many of you or perhaps none of you have ever been seriously discriminated against. But The TV keeps droning on about gay marriage. Obviously your perception of what is more important will be influenced by that.[/QUOTE] Isn't it racist that blacks, asians and hispanics get to decide that white men can't get married then?
The judge sided with the constitution.
[QUOTE=johncage;24058976] A judge sided with people of his own race on a matter which concerns people of all races. That's the jist of it.[/QUOTE] Nope, turn off :foxnews:
[QUOTE=johncage;24058976]Par for the course, really. When you confront the average person with inconsistencies in their logic or even question their reasoning ever so slightly on the right kinds of topics and issues, you will be met with a violent reaction. In real life, I would have probably been chased off at the point of a pitchfork by an angry mob, but this is the internet and the only thing you can do is shout the usual school-yard insults, and when that doesn't work, you band together and form an impenetrable bond of self delusion and mindless conformity. Yes, just nod your head. Agree with what the TV says. Like-minded individuals are here to agree with your every word. A judge sided with people of his own race on a matter which concerns people of all races. That's the jist of it. And if you still refuse to see that, then there's really nothing else to say except that in your mind, gay marriage takes priority over civil rights. that's fine, we all have different idea of what's important. Obviously not many of you or perhaps none of you have ever been seriously discriminated against. But The TV keeps droning on about gay marriage. Obviously your perception of what is more important will be influenced by that.[/QUOTE] Holy fucking shit. I have literally nothing to say to this.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;24059021]Isn't it racist that blacks, asians and hispanics get to decide that white men can't get married then?[/QUOTE] No, because they were deciding what everyone gets to do. That was the nature of their legislative process, it applied to everyone. But then the bigoted judge came along and made sure that their opinions were discounted on the guise of it being unconstitutional. Stop being stupid and wrong. If you really thought the judge had no agenda and was being objective, you need to open your eyes. I'm sure someone had their hands down his pocket when he made his decision. A dark day for Americans who once expected that their opinions would be respected and not thrown out the door at the whim of some horny judge who was knee deep in homo shit. lol, just kidding. but seriously, that guy's a fag.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059128]No, because they were deciding what everyone gets to do. That was the nature of their legislative process, it applied to everyone. But then the bigoted judge came along and made sure that their opinions were discounted on the guise of it being unconstitutional. Stop being stupid and wrong. If you really thought the judge had no agenda and was being objective, you need to open your eyes. I'm sure someone had their hands down his pocket when he made his decision. A dark day for Americans who once expected that their opinions would be respected and not thrown out the door at the whim of some horny judge who was knee deep in homo shit. lol, just kidding. but seriously, that guy's a fag.[/QUOTE] Ugh... And you say you aren't a homophobe...
Bye bye credibility
Johncage is giving Glenn Beck a run for his money.
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;24059157]Bye bye credibility[/QUOTE] What credibility? [QUOTE=johncage;19192452]they're a bit low poly due to them being from rts games. the helmet shows this. however, they look great. my only suggestion is to rename them company of faggots because that's what their ugly valve face models look like. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - PLing))[/highlight][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=johncage;19656867]shepherd > gas ass faggot nick. they based nick on john cusack, who is a closet homosexual idiot. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Homophobia" - Benji))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Totally not a homophobe or anything.
From [release]Hey genius, I'm not religious. I'm not anti-gay(homophobe) either, I'm just anti stupidity.[/release] To [release]...whim of some horny judge who was knee deep in homo shit. lol, just kidding. but seriously, that guy's a fag.[/release] In Only Two Pages!
[QUOTE=johncage;24059128]No, because they were deciding what everyone gets to do. That was the nature of their legislative process, it applied to everyone. But then the bigoted judge came along and made sure that their opinions were discounted on the guise of it being unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] Actually it was unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=johncage;19656867]shepherd > gas ass faggot nick. they based nick on john cusack, who is a closet homosexual idiot. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Homophobia" - Benji))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Haha oh fucking wow times a hundred
[QUOTE=johncage;24059128]No, because they were deciding what everyone gets to do. That was the nature of their legislative process, it applied to everyone. But then the bigoted judge came along and made sure that their opinions were discounted on the guise of it being unconstitutional. Stop being stupid and wrong. If you really thought the judge had no agenda and was being objective, you need to open your eyes. I'm sure someone had their hands down his pocket when he made his decision. A dark day for Americans who once expected that their opinions would be respected and not thrown out the door at the whim of some horny judge who was knee deep in homo shit. [B]lol, just kidding. but seriously, that guy's a fag.[/B][/QUOTE] :hurr:
If it will dispel the homophobes accusations, I know several gay people and am on good terms with them.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059292]If it will dispel the homophobes accusations, I know several gay people and am on good terms with them.[/QUOTE] Actually you're most likely lying.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059292]If it will dispel the homophobes accusations, I know several gay people and am on good terms with them.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah this is the famous "I have gay friends" defense!
[QUOTE=johncage;24059128]:words:[/QUOTE] [URL="http://img541.imageshack.us/i/hahahaohwow.jpg/"][IMG]http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/2500/hahahaohwow.jpg[/IMG][/URL] Quite a contradiction don't you think?
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;24059332]Oh yeah this is the famous "I have gay friends" defense![/QUOTE] How is that famous when hardly anyone uses it? And if a person were truly homophobic, why would he ever claim that? Your expectation of me(white, social conservative, fox news, pro war, etc, etc) is not being fulfilled. That is the source of your confusion.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059391]How is that famous when hardly anyone uses it? And if a person were truly homophobic, why would he ever claim that? Your expectation of me(white, social conservative, fox news, pro war, etc, etc) is not being fulfilled. That is the source of your confusion.[/QUOTE] If you are not a homophobe then you are a troll. Guess what. Mods ban trolls too. [editline]01:24PM[/editline] Either way you are stupid as fuck.
The reason we choose representational democracy is because sometimes the 'majority' are misinformed. Rights should be granted to everyone. You are right, this judge ignored the votes of the RACIAL minority (who barely passed proposition 8), but this minority also hampered the rights of the GAY minority. Flash backwards a few years: When Governer Faubus was elected by the white majority in Arkansas, he ran on the stand to "keep schools segregated", despite the fact that federal law called for integration of all schools. Here we see the prevaling theme from the LITTLE ROCK 9. 1.) The 'conservative' minority had their vote ignored by ONE BIG 'OL NEGRO-LOVING Supreme Court. 2.) Federal Law trumps State Law Federal law says "all men are created equal". We know being gay is not a CHOICE, people do not CHOICE to become homosexual, so why is it then that we punish them for being gay? "Now you can't get married." That's bullshit. In short - yes, you are right, the judge stopped the racial minority who was apart of the majority that suppressed the rights of the GAY minority of California. It isn't a question of weather or not a judge wants to see legislative change occurring at the hands of hispanics and blacks and what not, rather it is a question of how America should look/operate. He made the right choice. Then again: Maybe you were okay with Jim Crow Laws and Segregation? Its hard to tell.
[QUOTE=one free man;24059368][URL="http://img541.imageshack.us/i/hahahaohwow.jpg/"][IMG]http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/2500/hahahaohwow.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [/QUOTE] dats me
[QUOTE=Neolk;24059435]The reason we choose representational democracy is because sometimes the 'majority' are misinformed. Rights should be granted to everyone. You are right, this judge ignored the votes of the RACIAL minority (who barely passed proposition 8), but this minority also hampered the rights of the GAY minority. Flash backwards a few years: When Governer Faubus was elected by the white majority in Arkansas, he ran on the stand to "keep schools segregated", despite the fact that federal law called for integration of all schools. Here we see the prevaling theme from the LITTLE ROCK 9. 1.) The 'conservative' minority had their vote ignored by ONE BIG 'OL NEGRO-LOVING Supreme Court. 2.) Federal Law trumps State Law Federal law says "all men are created equal". We know being gay is not a CHOICE, people do not CHOICE to become homosexual, so why is it then that we punish them when they become gay? "Now you can't get married." That's bullshit. In short - yes, you are right, the judge stopped the racial minority who was apart of the majority that suppressed the rights of the GAY minority of California. It isn't a question of weather or not a judge wants to see legislative change occurring at the hands of hispanics and blacks and what not, rather it is a question of how America should look/operate. He made the right choice. Then again: Maybe you were okay with Jim Crow Laws and Segregation? Its hard to tell.[/QUOTE] thisthisthisthisthis
Great argument Neolk. I still believe the judge is a racist bigot, but now I'm interested in the new focus. If gays are allowed to marry, wouldn't that impinge on the rights of the Christian? If so, it really comes down to religion vs. gay people. I respect them both, so for me, the choice is simple. Let the majority decide. But wait, if that's the case, why were their votes trashed? There's definitely a problem here and rights have been violated. Mostly the rights of those racial minorities by that judge.
It's famous because everyone accused of homophobia instantly cries "But I have faggot buddies!"
This doesn't seem to have been brought up before, so I'm just gonna slip this in here... The constitutional violation of denying gays the right to get married has nothing to do with "all men are created equal." It is a religious equality issue. There are certain religious organizations that would happily marry gay couples. Instead, they are unable to because of law inspired by the more popular religion (Christianity herpderp) says they can't. This is a blatant violation of religious freedom, as well as separation of church and state, though I'm aware the latter isn't in the constitution.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059391]How is that famous when hardly anyone uses it? And if a person were truly homophobic, why would he ever claim that? [/QUOTE] 1. It's being used by every homophobe that spews hate speech. It's like a dot at the end of a sentence for them. 2. It's a good way to shield yourself from criticism
[QUOTE=johncage;24059510]Great argument Neolk. I still believe the judge is a racist bigot, but now I'm interested in the new focus. If gays are allowed to marry, wouldn't that impinge on the rights of the Christian? If so, it really comes down to religion vs. gay people. I respect them both, so for me, the choice is simple. Let the majority decide. But wait, if that's the case, why were their votes trashed? There's definitely a problem here and rights have been violated. Mostly the rights of those racial minorities by that judge.[/QUOTE] Please explain how gay marriages impinges on christian rights.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059510]Great argument Neolk. I still believe the judge is a racist bigot, but now I'm interested in the new focus. If gays are allowed to marry, wouldn't that impinge on the rights of the Christian? If so, it really comes down to religion vs. gay people. I respect them both, so for me, the choice is simple. Let the majority decide. But wait, if that's the case, why were their votes trashed? There's definitely a problem here and rights have been violated. Mostly the rights of those racial minorities by that judge.[/QUOTE] If you believe homosexuality is wrong then don't practice it, it's that simple.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.