Fake News Site Owner Identified

[Revoltingest]

Republicans have advocated execution of gays. They have advocated gay men put in prison camps to prevent them giving AIDS to everyone else. Democrats have advocated the elimination of guns.
I don't pay much attention to the freaks.

Good....on that last sentence....not the preceding ones.

But I do see a need for serious restrictions. And, possibly more important, consistent ones across state lines. People like to pretend that Chicago's gun laws have resulted in the violence. But it's really Indiana's laxity that is the problem. Law abiding Chicagoans have a lot of restrictions, but any 17 y/o thug can drive to Gary and buy a cheap pistol.
But getting back to the point, where have you seen the concerted effort to ban gun rights that we have seen over the last ten years to ban LBGT rights?
Nowhere, that's where. It's fake news.

I don't know what fake new you're citing.
But nonetheless, I'll continue to be concerned with all civil rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

I remember when you bragged about painting over a handicapped parking space.
I didn't bother with the wienie mods of RF. I reported you directly to the FBI!
Tom

You have a really good memory!
I owned the space, so I figured it was my prerogative.
In the almost 2 decades since, I've yet to see a handicap plate show up there.

 

[idav]

Both are constitutional civil liberties, although gun rights
are more explicitly granted, & the other is a rising star.

One right doesn't matter much to you, but it does to many others.
Moreover, there need be no competition between them.
We can have both.

Not that one doesn't matter to me, one is dealing with inalienable rights and civil liberties. I take no issue with rights to bare arms but doesn't mean limitations aren't a good idea. But yes unfortunately some have to be convinced that people that are different deserve the same rights.

 

[esmith]

Because it was ruled a few decades ago that "separate but equal" is not Constitutional. Religion doesn't own a monopoly on marriage, nor do they reserve any rights to decide who may enter into such a legal agreement, or define the parameters of the agreement.

I'm just asking why. Does not civil union and marriage bring the same "legal" rights? Or is it just to make a point?

 

[esmith]

What is the legal difference?
Tom

There isn't any difference as far as I know and have read.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not that one doesn't matter to me, one is dealing with inalienable rights and civil liberties. I take no issue with rights to bare arms but doesn't mean limitations aren't a good idea. But yes unfortunately some have to be convinced that people that are different deserve the same rights.

Let me say this about that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm just asking why. Does not civil union and marriage bring the same "legal" rights? Or is it just to make a point?

Every argument I have ever heard for civil unions would extend the same rights, next of kin, taxes, etc., etc. to homosexual couples. They are basically the same except for in name. However, having "marriage" for one group and "civil unions" for another is not Constitutional.

 

[Lighthouse]

Not to cause an argument but just to ask a question. In other words I really don't care one way or another
Why insist on marriage whereas a civil union ceremony would give the same rights as a ceremony of marriage and put a stop to the religious right complaints?

That's why it is fake news. They twist and turn something that wouldn't even take away any rights into making it seem like it will take away rights.

People are complaining about rights when really they are complaining over the definition of a word. Meaningless, people just love to be pissed off, angry, hateful, and act as a poor victim for no reason.

 

[esmith]

Every argument I have ever heard for civil unions would extend the same rights, next of kin, taxes, etc., etc. to homosexual couples. They are basically the same except for in name. However, having "marriage" for one group and "civil unions" for another is not Constitutional.

OK so it is just pushing a point. Ok got it.

 

[habiru]

Democrat politicians are not coming for your guns. They are not. This is a fact. Many, many Republican politicians are actively working towards diminishing and eliminating LBGT rights. This is a fact. None of this has to do with the news, except when it becomes fake and suddenly the Dems are going to bust in your door, seize your guns, and make you a criminal, and the Reps are champions of freedom by allowing discrimination against the LBGT community and not letting them get married, and of course they aren't "actually" discriminating against LBGT.
But, no, it's not the same because the Democrats are not coming for your guns, they aren't trying to criminalize guns, and they aren't trying to ban guns. But, do not forget, the Republican Party Platform is explicitly anti-LBGT.
https://www.gop.com/platform/renewing-american-values/

That is not news, but rather "straight from the horses mouth." Rather you want to accept it or not, that platform pledges to discriminate against LBGT Americans. The Democrat Party Platform has no such rights-corroding and denying language in regards to gun ownership. Sanders, the rightful party nominee, even represents one of the most gun friendly states in America, and has consistently came out in favor of gun ownership.

 

[Wu Wei]

Not that one doesn't matter to me, one is dealing with inalienable rights and civil liberties. I take no issue with rights to bare arms but doesn't mean limitations aren't a good idea. But yes unfortunately some have to be convinced that people that are different deserve the same rights.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's already been established that many politicians have flopped on the issue of gay marriage over the past couple decades. Even regular people change; for as strong as an advocate and proponent of LBGT rights that I am today, I used to be as equally against them. I even used to think "gay bashing" was amusing.
And how can I trust Trump word's when his actions are appointing cabinet members who want the exact opposite of what he claims he wants? How can he trusted when it's coming he was saying whatever it took to get elected? Why should I trust him when he say's he'll protect me from the Muslim boogeyman while his own VP has tried numerous times to ban LBGT rights?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You know where...

 

[habiru]

It's already been established that many politicians have flopped on the issue of gay marriage over the past couple decades. Even regular people change; for as strong as an advocate and proponent of LBGT rights that I am today, I used to be as equally against them. I even used to think "gay bashing" was amusing.
And how can I trust Trump word's when his actions are appointing cabinet members who want the exact opposite of what he claims he wants? How can he trusted when it's coming he was saying whatever it took to get elected? Why should I trust him when he say's he'll protect me from the Muslim boogeyman while his own VP has tried numerous times to ban LBGT rights?

Hillary Clinton had never cared about anyone. Years ago, the people did not like her bold dominate behavior over her husband Bill. They were thinking that she will be making all of the decisions. And which she was the decision maker. Bill was just and hen-peck husband that went around messing around with bimbos,. And so all of that time since her husband was governor, that she never tried to pressed these issues before. She only wanted the peoples votes, but she careless about them. But she will do anything for money. Like for an instance. George Soros is part owner of the corporation that is called Monsanto. But Putin doesn't like Monsanto's products and he has banned their products from coming into Russia. Hillary is George Soros attack-dog. Even she has dealing with George with the Haitian's mining. She need to be in office to protect Ole' George investments. But she careless about the voters. That is why George has been spending so much money on her campaign.

 

[idav]

Let me say this about that.

Lol.

The medicinal purposes of course, for non law breakers.

 

[idav]

It means bears with guns.

They get them from park rangers!

 

[Revoltingest]

Lol.

The medicinal purposes of course, for non law breakers.

And recreational.....where legal.

 

[Underhill]

Liberal, Conservative, Centrist.... if they are humans...they are all equaly susceptible to being scammed...be that fake news, fake, e-mail, social engineering, or conman..... if you don't thinks so, you are just lying to yourself.

That's just nonsense. It is possible for anyone to be scammed, sure. But equally susceptible? That is laughable. Educate yourself whenever possible, look for sources, don't be a slather a$$ and your chances of being sucked into the fake news nonsense are vastly lower than those who couldn't be bothered.

 

[Wu Wei]

That's just nonsense. It is possible for anyone to be scammed, sure. But equally susceptible? That is laughable. Educate yourself whenever possible, look for sources, don't be a slather a$$ and your chances of being sucked into the fake news nonsense are vastly lower than those who couldn't be bothered.

I am rather educated on the subject, and I don't ever go with sources I have not verified so that attempt to justify your position failed and name calling is never good justification for ones argument, it generally means you are on shaky ground to begin with.

I work in Cyber security my friend, have for years, I was in other areas of government security for years before that, I saw it and see it everyday. You believe what you want, but from my perspective you are in denial. Political affiliation, liberal, conservative, race creed or color, does not matter. If we are talking humans, they are all equally susceptible.

 

[Revoltingest]

But equally susceptible? That is laughable.

When something is difficult (if not impossible) to measure, & it's rampant on
both sides, then "equal" (approximately) susceptibility is a reasonable claim.
Or do you say the left is so much worse that it's demonstrable?