gdp's Comments

The New Civil Rights Movement : Yet Another New Poll Shows Majority Support For Same-Sex Marriage

Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:00:17 +0000

Reality is a liberal conspiracy. It's true.

Breitbart.com : Vaccines on horizon for AIDS, Alzheimer\'s, herpes

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:23:31 +0000

HIV is the #1 killer of women 18-44 worldwide.

Breitbart.com : Sick Elton John postpones US gigs with Joel

Mon, 2 Nov 2009 02:35:23 +0000

It appears that the average 13 year old boy is more mature and less bigoted than the average "Christian conservative" on this board. Very telling.

Breitbart.com : Nearly one in three people with HIV do not know: EU

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:55:46 +0000

I suppose you're willing to have unprotected sexual intercourse with an HIV+ woman? And I wonder how all of those Africans are dying of this disease, they must all be gay.

Breitbart.com : Unemployment tops 10 percent in 16 states in June

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:29:50 +0000

The recession began before Obama took office, a little sanity please.

Jason A Clark : The Senate Trying To Silently Pass A "Pedophile Protection Act"

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:53:34 +0000

Interestingly enough, I just spent time time to look over the actual bill: "(2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim. (3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence. (4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs." To be honest, I'm not very interested in the entire world, or jurisdictions that don't have 1st amendment protections. If every law was invalidated because a police officer made an improper arrest there would be very few laws still on the books.

Jason A Clark : The Senate Trying To Silently Pass A "Pedophile Protection Act"

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:24:25 +0000

I don't believe the bill will do that much to deter hate crimes, but I see the bill as pretty much harmless. I just don't see the constitutional protections against free speech being interpreted away anytime soon. The judicial branch could do tons of things, but at some point you have to have faith in the constitutional system of government. And yes, you are lying by presenting a highly circumstantial case against the bill as fact, as if it is certain to protect pedophiles and silence pastors. If a pedophile is ever protected by this bill or if a pastor is ever imprisoned, I'll join the Republican party and buy you a beer. I expect the bill to pass so we'll see.

Jason A Clark : The Senate Trying To Silently Pass A "Pedophile Protection Act"

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:08:55 +0000

I've already refuted the "sexual orientation" argument by showing how the word is defined. "Sexual Orientation" has a simple meaning, which is heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual, and certainly does not include 100's of paraphilias. The rest of your argument amounts to a slippery slope. Nothing in the bill limits or could be interpreted to limit speech. It uses the very same language that has been used for hate crimes legislation for decades. Saying that pastors will be prosecuted for saying homosexuality is a sin is blatantly untrue, and if the government ever oversteps its authority, I will be with you 100%. Honestly, I don't care if you make a 'slippery slope' argument, but lying about the effects of the actual contents of the bill is disgraceful. Everytime a senator gets a letter about "100's of paraphilias" they must roll their eyes

Jason A Clark : The Senate Trying To Silently Pass A "Pedophile Protection Act"

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:50:30 +0000

The bill simply amends the 1969 hate crimes bill that has protected race and religion for 40 years to include sexual orientation. There is no additional language. Additionally the Supreme Court precedent only applies when a crowd is directly incited to riot, and would still apply regardless of this law. Anyway, greetings from West Texas.

Jason A Clark : The Senate Trying To Silently Pass A "Pedophile Protection Act"

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:13:21 +0000

First of all, if there is a bill out there that limits the speech of anybody, this isn't it. This bill only applies to act of violence. I have a plane to catch in a few hours, I'll continue this later.

Jason A Clark : The Senate Trying To Silently Pass A "Pedophile Protection Act"

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:49:28 +0000

It would take the repeal of the 1st amendment to outlaw any form of speech. That isn't happening anytime soon. Hate crimes laws against racial minorities passed decades ago, but that hasn't stopped the speech of the KKK, has it? Again, there is no intent and no conceivable way that this could outlaw speech. Stop with the fearmongering.

Jason A Clark : The Senate Trying To Silently Pass A "Pedophile Protection Act"

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:43:37 +0000

The truth is that to every dictionary, legislator, and medical association, "sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Congress is not in the business of defining plain and simple words when used to pass bills. Saying that this bill will protect paraphilias is fearmongering at its finest, and another low blow by the religious right in trying to confuse the difference between gays and pedophiles.

Jason A Clark : The Senate Trying To Silently Pass A "Pedophile Protection Act"

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:01:44 +0000

Refuted in about 2 minutes with a google search. Straight from the American Psychological Association's Website: "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

Jason A Clark : The Senate Trying To Silently Pass A "Pedophile Protection Act"

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:55:43 +0000

What a load of tripe. The bill protects sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is defined as heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. That's all there is to this, stop spreading lies.

Breitbart.com : Mass. sues feds over definition of marriage

Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:32:57 +0000

My source is quite simple. The US Constitution and this nation's founding documents. The founders of this nation who ensured liberty and justice for all. You can dispute these ideals as "relative morality." Go ahead. You are in reality no better than the theocrats in Iran that impose a narrow view of morality to the exclusion of all others. Perhaps one day when Christians are thrown in the lion's den and most people agree, don't complain about your personal freedoms being infringed upon, that is if you're willing to accept your own words.

Breitbart.com : Mass. sues feds over definition of marriage

Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:03:19 +0000

Don't try to obfuscate the issue philosophically. I do not know if there is an absolute morality or not, but you do not have any greater claim to it than I. Gay marriage is not a moral issue that society should have a say in, it is an issue of personal rights and freedom, and equality under the law.

Breitbart.com : Mass. sues feds over definition of marriage

Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:28:47 +0000

So basically, you don't have an actual reason besides your religious beliefs? At least you admit it.

Breitbart.com : Mass. sues feds over definition of marriage

Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:45:23 +0000

How many times do I have to say this. Fertility is not a prerequisite for marriage. If you're not going to deny an infertile couple a marriage license because they can't have children, then it makes NO sense to deny a gay couple a marriage license for the same reason. Furthermore, it's not as if a couple doesn't have a child their marriage is annulled. There are plenty of heterosexual couples out there that are perfectly capable of having a child but choose not to, and yet their marriage is valid. Anyway, gay people CAN have children and can adopt.

Breitbart.com : Mass. sues feds over definition of marriage

Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:08:24 +0000

I didn't mean "social mores" in a derogatory sense. I have social mores too, and anti-racism is one of them.

Breitbart.com : Mass. sues feds over definition of marriage

Thu, 9 Jul 2009 07:20:01 +0000

Well, I applaud your logical consistency. And I thought you said you really want the government to enforce your social mores.