likearock

By your logic, because the mental health community doesn't catagorize stamp collecting as a mental illness that means that a pedophile can't also be a stamp collector?

Why? Because you say it's so? Unfortunately, the formal definiton of the terms say nothing about the ages of the participants. Mark's getting a lot of heat for suggesting that NAMBLA represents a "Militant Homosexual Agenda". However, his logic is sound. The members of that organization are homosexual. It is also true that anti-gay groups will seize on that fact to victimize the overwhelming majority of gays that aren't pedophiles. But that doesn't change the facts. I think Bill's analogy to Pro-lifers is right on target. And it's perfectly accurate to catagorize groups who conspire to kill abortion doctors as part of a "Militant Pro-life Agenda", in spite of the fact that they're not representative of the majority of pro-lifers.

I don't have the professional skills to help you even if i knew what your emotional state consisted of. I'm merely making an observation based on the tone, and subject of your posts. I beg to differ sir. If someone doesn't bring it to your attention, you may never seek help. Didn't you hear him say it's uncalled for? The fact that you persist in spite of that reveals that you are in reality the angry one. The technical term is projection.

You methinks wrong. No, wait a second, he's right! The original narci definition was of an "idiot" that was in reality quite smart. You confirmed that Bush haters are just that!

Then you made a much bigger mistake by not recording American Dad. It was better than FG.

Well you did disguise the link in a smiley.

Interesting. I was under the impression that any depiction of gay love was disgusting to you. How is it you were able to watch the skit?

Sometimes words/prefixes have more than one meaning. In this case, "homo" does not mean "the same." But I'm sure you already knew that... The word homo meaning man is Latin as well as Greek.

Well, since the FISA and PA still require that the Security Comittee get the breifing... we still have a bunch of politicians crying over something that was technically legal and approved by THEM. Not to mention that if they never wanted it to happen in the first place, they'd be more credible if they hadn't voted for the Patriot Act in the first place. You're absolutely right. However, after 9/11 the atmosphere was so emotionally charged it was next to impossible to recommend something that could be interpreted as "soft on terrorism". Nevertheless, while the Dems did vote for the Patriot act, they also insisted on the sunset clause to allow the country to re-evalute the statutes after things calmed down. And now that they are calmed down, many people (not just dems) are beginning to have second thoughts about some of the overly-intrusive portions of the original act. For instance, the government shouldn't be able to simply monitor everyone's choice of books at the library. Sure, if they want to identify a person or group of person's, then they should have to authority to monitor them. And this change was adopted and passed by the full Senate although it was later taken out in committee. I hope they put it back.

Could this be because you are a "White" liberal? Well, Dave Chappelle's not white. What's your take on that?

He has etymology confused with usage. The "homo-" part of the word is derived from a Latin word meaning "the same," so I think he is confused about it having anything at all to do with mankind. Correct. The word homo, meaning man, and the prefix homo, meaning same, are Latin homonyms.

Hi Trent. I think a key phrase is "provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution." When things like this come to light, it makes me wonder if even the amended law is being followed.

Good story. Thanks for that.

I think not. Unfortunately, history has shown that the majority tends to be bigoted towards many minorities. It is a very regrettable flaw in human nature that this happens. Only in recent history have humans been able to start overcoming this flaw. However, you assert that gays would not be subject to this flaw. I think not. That's a very cynical point of view. I don't share it. However, I will give you this. If large number of gays were suddenly subject to a religion in which all straight people were condemned as sinners for simply being straight then, in that case, I'd agree with you. Fortunately, no such religion exists as far as I know.

That is merely a speculative remark on your behalf. You don't know how straight people would be treated in a gay world so you cannot make that remark in good faith. How about this instead: In the gay world, straight people are treated with respect. That's quite evident to anyone who spends any time with gay people. And it would seem to justify a belief in the other, admittedly speculative, remark.

I'm old enough to remember the Nixon administration. It thought itself above the law. Unfortunately the Bush (2) administration seems to have found Nixon's playbook and some of his old cronies (Cheney, Rumsfeld...) and is trying to re-live those days. I agree 100%. The difference: Nixon had a Congress with a Democratic majority so he couldn't get away with it.

The Duke maybe, but Randolph Scott was as queer as a three-dollar bill. (And yes, I am not guessing -- there is plenty of "evidence" to be found.) So where does that leave your sanctimonious statement? Not necessarily doubting you but are these the same people who say that Lincoln was gay?

The 190 crammed into a smaller container doesnt bother me as much as what size reserve was in there. You can fit a much larger main in the main tray (I wouldnt recommend it, and it would be one ugly pack job) but that part doesnt scare me too much. Its the reserve... Does some one KNOW what was the reserve? I agree that that's the single most glaring piece of missing information here. And a very important one. I'm beginning to wonder if we'll have to wait for the Parachutist report to find out.

A year ago ,PhillyKev signed off with this thread. Since then there have been four postings from his account: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1886168;#1886168 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1923409;#1923409 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1922885;#1922885 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1970018;#1970018 Does anyone really think this is the same guy?

That shows some class.

It still has to get past the House. It's comfortably veto-proof in both House and Senate.

Then I am dust with a fine granularity for having been paid to design statistical instruction sets for VAX … Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! I have touched the console buttons of the PDP-11, and I was healed.

Not at all hypocitical. Pro-life = death of the assuredly innocent. Death Penalty = death of the not-so-innocent. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. Some are innocent.

You're bucking against something so ingrained in the human psyche, you'll never see that changed. Just take a look at the works of Homer, Aeschylus, Shakespeare, etc. Vengeance is a key theme throughout. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the kind of need for vengeance as described in Grisham's "A Time To Kill". When someone kills your loved one and has no remorse but instead sneers and makes jokes about it, there is nothing wrong with wanting that person to die, and if the state puts them to death, so be it.

But it is the law. And if it's ever going to imposed, it better be when the crimes are as cold blooded and heinous as the Williams murders were. In spite of all that, I think he would have had a good chance for clemency if he had only owned up to his crimes and expressed some remorse. Without that, letting him slide would just be a spit in the face of his victims' loved ones.