Originally Posted By Dabob2 (Me): <My guess is that they'll a). let Prop 8 stand, b). affirm that the marriages that took place in 2008 are still legal, and that c). CA will vote again on this in 2010 or 2012 and Prop 8 will be overturned.> Well, the first two parts of my prediction came true; if the third does too, I'll be satisfied. Especially if the extension of number three does... <Thousands more will get married, the polls will show a continued gain in support for marriage equality, and the anti-equality forces will focus their time and money on other states.>
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf If the anti-Prop 8 crowd wants to get even, they should fight for an amendment (or a revision?) making hetero divorce illegal. After all, if the voters are so concerned about saving traditional families, wouldn't that be one of the best ways to do it? Heck, they could probably even get the Catholics and Mormons to pay for it.
Originally Posted By Perez Hilton Well, the position of Obama, the black community and Hispanics was allowed to stand today. I guess the voice of the people is still something that matters in America. Good for the court, they finally got one right regardless of your personal wants.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Well, the position of Obama, the black community and Hispanics was allowed to stand today." I guess poor blacks and Hispanics and whites have at least one thing in common!
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "I guess the voice of the people is still something that matters in America." Here's another example of a court meddling in the voice of the people! <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_vs._board" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...s._board</a> Hey court, thanks for forcing your activist beliefs on Virginia, Arkansas, Florida and Alabama! From Wikipedia: "Not everyone accepted the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In Virginia, Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr. organized the Massive Resistance movement that included the closing of schools rather than desegregating them." Thanks for standing up for local voices, Mr. Byrd.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones He should have his say. Unlike others, I allow people to speak their mind and don't get offended at the drop of a hat.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No, a troll is someone who was asked politely by the moderators countless time to clean up his act and stop violating community standards, and who was finally kicked out for not doing so. But he keeps coming back in various guises for a day or so, and giving us (and the moderators) grief. I don't agree with wahoo or DAR very often - but they're certainly not trolls. They stay within the guidelines and we have discussions. A troll is something else.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "They stay within the guidelines and we have discussions. A troll is something else." I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think there are a lot of valid topics that seem like troll material, but I find them to be interesting. I guess the one who pays the bills has the final say. It's unfortunate, though, that they feel that way.
Originally Posted By hopemax This person has been banned many times for breaking community standards, and this has been going on for years now. I think the original ban took place in 2006. If this was in real life, when you a ban a person from your property it is expected that they abide by your request. If they do not, people would believe you are in your rights to take out a restraining order.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I guess we will have to agree to disagree." What is an Internet troll? >>The term derives from "trolling", a style of fishing which involves trailing bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The troll posts a message, often in response to an honest question, that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group. Usually, it will fail, as the troll rarely bothers to match the tone or style of the group, and usually its ignorance shows.<< <a href="http://www.flayme.com/troll/#What" target="_blank">http://www.flayme.com/troll/#What</a> There is nothing interesting about that kind of foolish behavior. Anyway, getting back to the subject, this is an interesting article about how the Supreme Court had a legal obligation to uphold Proposition 8: <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12453297" target="_blank">http://www.mercurynews.com/top...12453297</a>
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "If this was in real life, when you a ban a person from your property it is expected that they abide by your request. If they do not, people would believe you are in your rights to take out a restraining order." The Internet and real life are two very different things. "There is nothing interesting about that kind of foolish behavior." Again, I disagree. I like to see all viewpoints, even the extreme ones. If people are offended or insulted, that's their fault.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt It's not a viewpoint. Again, read the definition. A troll is someone purposefully trying to agitate the group and steer the conversation off course.
