Jump to content

Bar Talk


DZComposer

Recommended Posts

Of course there's a bar. It's a pub. :P

Anyway, this thread is for quick discussions that don't need a thread. Maybe you saw a news article you want to discuss or something. Basically, this is the thread to post in if you feel like making a random political comment.

You can also mention your favorite drink if you wish to for some reason. But, if you want to start a full-fledged discussion about a drink, post it in The Lounge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm partial to a good Cuba Libre and Piña colada, but I also enjoy tequila. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Julius Quasar

Barney: "England's better Prime Minister was Lord Palverston!"

Wade Boggs: "Pit Thee Elder!"

Barney: "Lord Palverston!"

Wade Boggs: "Pit Thee Elder!"

Barney: "Lord Palverston!"

Wade Boggs: "Pit Thee Elder!"

Barney: "Lord Palverston!" *punches Wade Boggs out*

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A crazy femanist article that says prostitution is done by all men to establish domanence a dehumaniize woman.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MichLawJourI.html

This is of course, crazy. Mainly because it doesn't mention male protitutes, or just because a woman doesn't like her job means that she is a victem of abuse and all her clients are evil. By that legic everyone who works is abused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uhh is this for the cornian bar rp??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, for quick fix topics that don't need a thread all to themselves. Helps to read DZ's original post, after all, that's what he posted it for. Poor DZ, getting ignored.

Anyway, my favourite drink (alcoholic) is a screwdriver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, my favourite drink (alcoholic) is a screwdriver.

Vodka and orange juice eh?  Haven't had one of those in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vodka and orange juice eh?  Haven't had one of those in a while.

I love it when I need to cool down. Alcohol thins the blood, after all, which makes it easier to cool down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love it when I need to cool down. Alcohol thins the blood, after all, which makes it easier to cool down.

I prefer Jägerbombs.  They are a favorite after LQ tournaments at players houses :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.brokenplotdevice.com/2010/07/01/jagerbombs/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

A federal judge has ruled California's homosexual marriage ban unconstitutional. Religious fundies vow to appeal to the 9th circuit appeals court, which will likely uphold the ruling, and then to the supreme court.

Some say SCOTUS may overturn the ruling. I doubt Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan (assuming confirmation) would vote to overturn the ruling. I am pretty sure Roberts, Scalia, Altio, and Thomas will vote to overturn the ruling.

That leaves Kennedy. So far, on every issue before the court during his tenure, he has voted in favor of homosexual equality, so I think he will side with the more liberal block this time.

Sad that it will most likely be a 5/4 case, though. The rights granted by the constitution are to protect the minority from the will of the majority. Thus, you CANNOT vote on people's rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad that it will most likely be a 5/4 case, though. The rights granted by the constitution are to protect the minority from the will of the majority. Thus, you CANNOT vote on people's rights.

Where exactly does it say that?  I understand the whole concept of "Tyranny of the Majority" but some liberals I know still see this as a clear breach of democracy especially in this case when you have a federal judge who's allegedly gay making a decision on this solo therefore some possible inherent bias may be present.  As far as I know I'd think that change can come across through democratic means.  I just hate the thought of one or two federal judges disrupting a clear democratic process with matters concerning the state. 

For the record I am not anti-gay or homophobic etc but, like the whole Arizona Immigration thing I would prefer due process be followed through democratic means instead of the Feds always intervening in things like this.  >_>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throw me a rootbeer... and stop confuzing me with similar topic names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Julius Quasar

A federal judge has ruled California's homosexual marriage ban unconstitutional. Religious fundies vow to appeal to the 9th circuit appeals court, which will likely uphold the ruling, and then to the supreme court.

Some say SCOTUS may overturn the ruling. I doubt Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan (assuming confirmation) would vote to overturn the ruling. I am pretty sure Roberts, Scalia, Altio, and Thomas will vote to overturn the ruling.

That leaves Kennedy. So far, on every issue before the court during his tenure, he has voted in favor of homosexual equality, so I think he will side with the more liberal block this time.

Sad that it will most likely be a 5/4 case, though. The rights granted by the constitution are to protect the minority from the will of the majority. Thus, you CANNOT vote on people's rights.

That creep! :x I hope the appeal goes through.

Ugh, I hate Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan (assuming confirmation).  However, I do like Roberts, Scalia, Altio, and Thomas.

Lousy Kennedy.

5/4? 

Where exactly does it say that?  I understand the whole concept of "Tyranny of the Majority" but some liberals I know still see this as a clear breach of democracy especially in this case when you have a federal judge who's allegedly gay making a decision on this solo therefore some possible inherent bias may be present.  As far as I know I'd think that change can come across through democratic means.  I just hate the thought of one or two federal judges disrupting a clear democratic process with matters concerning the state. 

For the record I am not anti-gay or homophobic etc but, like the whole Arizona Immigration thing I would prefer due process be followed through democratic means instead of the Feds always intervening in things like this.  >_>

I agree there. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually if I recall correctly after sturding the  constitution or part of it 1 1/2 times I don't recall anything reguarding to marriage at all i could be mistaken. Then again the original founders couldn't have possibly seen everthing. coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where exactly does it say that?  I understand the whole concept of "Tyranny of the Majority" but some liberals I know still see this as a clear breach of democracy especially in this case when you have a federal judge who's allegedly gay making a decision on this solo therefore some possible inherent bias may be present.  As far as I know I'd think that change can come across through democratic means.  I just hate the thought of one or two federal judges disrupting a clear democratic process with matters concerning the state. 

For the record I am not anti-gay or homophobic etc but, like the whole Arizona Immigration thing I would prefer due process be followed through democratic means instead of the Feds always intervening in things like this.  >_>

It doesn't say it in those words, but they language is pretty implicit of that concept, particularly in this part:

Look at Amendment XIV §1:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Plus, it's the whole principle of having the bill of rights. The government CANNOT infringe upon them, even if most of the people agree with the infringement. The 14th amendment plugged a loophole that states found in it which they exploited to discriminate against blacks.

That creep! :x I hope the appeal goes through.

So, it is OK to deny people rights because of their genetic makeup?

I've read this decision, and this judge made an excellent ruling. The state grants rights to married couples, and homosexuals are being denied having those rights with their partners. That is not equal protection. Once the state grants rights based on marriage, marriage becomes an institution of the state, and thus it cannot be discriminatory.

If your church does not want to hold ceremonies for gays, fine.

But, on the civil side, a marriage license MUST be made available to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it is OK to deny people rights because of their genetic makeup?

There has been no proof that being gay is part of genetics.  When the Human Genome project finished there was no connection with genes and being gay. Any study "proving" such a link was done by people with a vested interesting in making a connection and did not live up to scrutiny by more impartial scientific minds.

Furthermore, you can't equate gay rights to something like woman's rights or the civil rights movement because gay rights refer to things people DO (actions), not how someone is genetically born (skin color, gender, etc)

The day there is positive irrefutable PROOF (agreed upon by the entire or majority of the scientific community) that being gay has something to do with genetics is the day I'll change my opinion on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been no proof that being gay is part of genetics.  When the Human Genome project finished there was no connection with genes and being gay. Any study "proving" such a link was done by people with a vested interesting in making a connection and did not live up to scrutiny by more impartial scientific minds.

Furthermore, you can't equate gay rights to something like woman's rights or the civil rights movement because gay rights refer to things people DO (actions), not how someone is genetically born (skin color, gender, etc)

The day there is positive irrefutable PROOF (agreed upon by the entire or majority of the scientific community) that being gay has something to do with genetics is the day I'll change my opinion on the matter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

Not to mention the observations of homosexuality in other species. Science actually supports that homosexuality is not a choice.

People don't choose to be gay, just like they don't choose to be women or choose to be black. So, yes, it is a civil rights issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

Not to mention the observations of homosexuality in other species. Science actually supports that homosexuality is not a choice.

I'd prefer to see something from a highly reputable scientific journal that's unbiased as opposed the Pro-left winged Guardian of all online sources showing a DEFINITIVE PROVEN link...if this whole matter was as clear cut as you'll making it out to be then there would be no debate among the most scientific intelligent minds out there because science, by one of it's core definitions, is the pursuit of knowledge  I've seen many scientific articles in the past year or so arguing that, due to no such "Gay gene" existing as part of the Human Genome Project, that there is no definite proof for genetics relating to homosexuality.  However, I assure you that if concrete evidence is found it WILL be ALL over the world news...and for good reason.  Again, I have yet to see a massive breakthrough in new evidence and only partial suggestive findings on BOTH sides of the coin here.

I'd go as far to say that the majority consensus leans towards genetics but it appears there is no single gay gene and no single environmental variable.  The question of whether or not homosexuality is genetic has yet to be answered as most researchers have not found any true biological basis to base their own studies on.

People don't choose to be gay, just like they don't choose to be women or choose to be black. So, yes, it is a civil rights issue.

My bad, my mind was preoccupied with something else.  Yes, it is a civil rights issue.  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in straight couples, you don't choose who you love. :| The argument that it's not genetic just because science hasn't proven it yet just baffles me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in straight couples, you don't choose who you love. :| The argument that it's not genetic just because science hasn't proven it yet just baffles me.

Well there are other factors that are considered as well besides just genetics - like the environment for one.  Science is the pursuit of knowledge, but as far as definitive proof when it comes to some things sometimes I think it can fail.  There are many questions out there that science can't answer with 100% certainty and, IMO, some things that will never end up being answered scientifically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A famous poem, adjusted to match right-wing prejudice in American history since 1850.

First they came for the blacks.

But I did not speak up, for I was not black.

Next, the came for the Catholics.

But I did not speak up, for I was not a Catholic.

Next, they came for the Chinese.

But I did not speak up, for I was not Chinese.

Next, they came for the Mormons.

But I did not speak up, for I was not a Mormon.

Next, they came for the Italians.

But I did not speak up, for I was not Italian.

Next, they came for the Irish.

But I did not speak up, for I was not Irish.

Next, they came for the Japanese

But I did not speak up, for I was not Japanese.

Next, they came for the Communists.

But I did not speak up, for I was not a communist.

Next, they came for the Socialists.

But I did not speak up, for I was not a Socialist.

Next, they came for the trade unionists.

But I did not speak up, for I was not a trade unionist.

Next, they came for the Mexicans.

But I did not speak up, for I was not a Mexican.

Next, they came for the gays.

But I did not speak up, for I was not gay.

Next, they came for the Muslims.

But I did not speak up, for I was not a Muslim.

Next, they came for the unemployed.

But I did not speak up, for I was employed.

Then, they came for me.

And there was no one left to speak up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Canada's prostitution laws have been struck down as unconstitutional.  This came out of left field to a lot of people.  It's obviously been appealed and may eventually come down to a Supreme Court ruling.  (And yes, I know some of you might want to move to Canada because of this) :o:P

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/867332--prostitution-laws-struck-down

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O_o... this confuses me greatly. I mean, I guess, if you think about it really hard, it makes sense. But you have to think really hard.

Oh god someone will try this in the US next :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

O_o... this confuses me greatly. I mean, I guess, if you think about it really hard, it makes sense. But you have to think really hard.

Oh god someone will try this in the US next :|

I don't know........ the laws are a little different here, but if it happened there, you can just expect that someone will try and do it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...