Impeachment

That's not all that's goin in the crapper

[Moneyguy1]

The only difficulty I have with "gay" is the highjacking of a perfectly innocent word and changing its meaning completely.

Other than that, Hell, live and let live...

Right on Moneyguy.... I always preferred "Homo".

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
Right on Moneyguy.... I always preferred "Homo".

Personally I still perfer girls! Just nothing about another guy that could get me excited, no matter how much JD I had consumed.

Joe A
(Who is leaving San Fran for Carlsbad/San Diego in a few hours)

[tabs]

The highlight of the Polish contigent at the Gay Pride Parade was the Polish Marching Band..... better known by their stage name the Swinging Kiebsa's

[cool_chick]

The best part for you men is, you'll find some of the hottest hetero girls at a gay pride parade.

you should go to one sometime. you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[red-beard]

I think you do it on purpose...You have _everyone_ here confused!

[Jeff Higgins]

So are we impeaching gays this morning?

[Superman]

Originally posted by cool_chick
My two friends and I are going to the Gay Pride Parade today

Aaarrrggghhhh. Say it ain't so....... Batting for the other team?

Just kidding, actually. Really. I know that going to bat for a cause you believe in, like freedom for example, fools people into making assumptions about you. I'm not fooled. i think........

I also wonder how fully informed, both in terms of the facts of those particular cases as well as the general principles of constitutional law, are those people who are so vigorously convinced that the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States of America just made two decisions that are obviously, clearly contrary to law and to the US Constitution. That's heavy charge, and it's levelled against some judicial heavyweights.

I can only assume RedBeard is a Harvard Law School professor who owns a complete copy of the files in those two cases. Because I know that Supreme Court decisions are not as simple as NASCAR races, even if they seem to be that simple when you don't have all the facts.

[David]

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one that thought this was a crazy ruling. I can see the government needing land sometimes to build a highway, but when a developer can take your land because he can generate more taxes than you pay.

[tabs]

Originally posted by cool_chick
The best part for you men is, you'll find some of the hottest hetero girls at a gay pride parade.

you should go to one sometime. you'll be pleasantly surprised.

That SURPRISE your talking about is exactly why the Boyz on this Board wouldn't go to a Gay Pride Rally to pick up Chicks for Love nor Money....they would be too afrtaid the Surprise would be on them in the form of a Tranny....Imagine the surprize of reaching down and finding another shifter that isn't yours in play....Ouuuuu Boy that would be fun now wouldn't it BOYZ....

[island911]

do all trannies have shifters? I believe some have been mod'd to a straight box. . ..still a bit queer, tho.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by cool_chick
The best part for you men is, you'll find some of the hottest hetero girls at a gay pride parade.

you should go to one sometime. you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Pleasantly surprised? I have been in heaven with some of them!

Have always been a bit surprised that some of the nicest ladies around were not the least bit interested in men. Sad to see but then its their life and they can do as they wish.

A very good friend of mine is married to a lady who is bi... she brings home a friend from time to time and I hear its a lot of fun.

Oh well... enough talking about girls, just booked the tickets to bring a lady friend out for the 4th weekend. Will have to be content with my 911 until then!

JoeA

[Superman]

I have had a couple of opportunities to be with two females, but I was just WAY too slow and naive to jump on them. So to speak. That was then, and I wish another opportunity would arise. So to speak.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by Superman
I also wonder how fully informed, both in terms of the facts of those particular cases as well as the general principles of constitutional law, are those people who are so vigorously convinced that the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States of America just made two decisions that are obviously, clearly contrary to law and to the US Constitution. That's heavy charge, and it's levelled against some judicial heavyweights.

I can only assume RedBeard is a Harvard Law School professor who owns a complete copy of the files in those two cases. Because I know that Supreme Court decisions are not as simple as NASCAR races, even if they seem to be that simple when you don't have all the facts.

Supe, you're the one without the facts. They are overstepping what _us_ the public wants. They are not constraining the expansion of power by the Federal government. They are supposed to be the "last resort" where a bad law or bad decision is struck down.

But they are kept in place for "Good Behavior". Going against a super-majority of the public is not "Good Behavior".

So, are you saying you _support_ these two decisions? If I'm wrong, and ignorant, then _you_, the all knowing Superman, must support these two decisions.

[Superman]

Sounds like you're angry, RedBeard, and not listening. You are suggesting that the Court act like the legislature at one point (like they should respond to a supermajority, complaining that their decisions run contrary to what the public wants, etc), and then complaining at another point that they are legislating from the bench. Which is it? I assume you know it is not their job to legislate. So, what's all this about majority and supermajority and popular opinion?

Mostly what I am saying, having watched judicial bodies agonize over certain decisions, is that these issues are really simple for RedBeard, who I assume is not even an attorney let alone a judge, let alone a
Supreme Court Justice, while he sits in his computer room having not attended law school and probably not seen a single document from the file those justices considered. And I'd guess you like that simplicity. It allows you to act like you know these United States Supreme Court justices' brains have leaked out their ears. Clever. But not informed, Red. Bummer if this offends you, but decisions are much simpler without the facts.

I've made this analogy before and it fits like a glove in some instances: This is the equivalent of tossing your empty beer cans at the TV screen when your favorite WWF bout surprises you.

Frankly, inasmuch as I understand these decisions, I agree with you. But I'm certainly not going to draw the conclusions you have drawn without a great deal more information than what I have at the moment.

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman
. . .
Frankly, inasmuch as I understand these decisions, I agree with you. But I'm certainly not going to draw the conclusions you have drawn without a great deal more information than what I have at the moment.

"great deal more information" !?

how do you figure? .. .wha infot do you think is missing?

...Or is this more of a principled response to the conclusions of others ... since you usually find yourself wrong, when confronted with the facts?

[Superman]

Well, I'll answer your questions this way: When I was at L&I, I had to make a lot of decisions. These decisions were, essentially, the regulation. Or the application of the regulation. And they nearly always meant a five figure impact to some employer, one way or the other. Sometimes more.

When a question first came to me, the answer almost invariably seemed obvious. Incredibly obvious. But eventually I learned to notice that the party raising the question had an axe to grind, and the information I got along with the question was designed to make the question seem simple, and the answer easy. But upon further reflection and investigation.....

I discovered that the question was not really all that easy. And the more I found out, the more layers I peeled back, the more layers I found waiting. It would typically take hours of review, in addition to site visits, etc., for the whole question and all its angles and implications to become clear to me. Eventually, the question would get easier, but in a way FAR different from the ease I experienced when I first heard the question.

It has been said that "To know him is to love him." That is, when you have just a tad bit of information about something someone has done, their actions might seem random or lazy or stupid or whatever, and you're inclined to make a snap judgement. But then, if you were to walk a mile in that man's moccasins, you can come to understand much better why they made the decision that they made. In fact, given sufficient background information, the question moves from "Why did he do that....he must be lazy or stupid?" to "How could he have done it any other way?"

A daughter researched her deceased father's background. He was an ass to everyone, reclusive, etc., but he always came home and brought his paycheck. Then locked himself in his study. One of the stories she exhumed was when dad was a small boy. He brought home some kittens, unannounced. His mother scolded him, and made him take the kittens down to the creek and, one by one, drown them until they were dead. The daughter's original question ("Why was dad such an ass?") changed.....("How was dad able to be so loyal and dependable?")

So no, I'm not cutting anybody any slack when it comes to snap judgements made with virtually no information. I don't know precisely what information I would need in order to second-guess the Supreme Court of the United States of America, but I think it's hilarious that so many of you feel prepared to do just that.

[Racerbvd]

You don't go shopping for fish at a bakery

[island911]

I see...

Ya know, Supe, you really shouldn't be so quick to judge us all as being too hasty; in our conclusions. That's really bad form. You should always first consider that maybe some here HAVE thouroughly relected on the issue at hand; before you go implying that folks here are too quick to judge judges.

Sheesh, supe; you're so quick to judge those who dare be judgemental of judges. aint i a stinker?