Seattle the new San Francisco

Posted by: JoJo

Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/20/08 09:25 PM

Many changes have happened here in my lifetime and most not for the better. This state has become so fu**ing liberal that it now allows nudity in public parks in Seattle. Explain that one to your kid. It's illigal to flash someone but legal to parade around town nude. What has come of this state. Looks like it is time to move.

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_111308WAB_parks_nudity_KS.1ac93ea38.html?ocp=1
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/20/08 09:39 PM

Quote:
Looks like it is time to move.


So I guess we'll see you later, then.
Posted by: Salmonella

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/20/08 09:51 PM

"Seattle the new San Francisco"

Is there any doubt at all?

Having returned from the hinterlands of Wyoming, the culture shock is stunning.

I was on highway 80 westbound near Rock Springs Wyoming.

Suddenly a Volkswagon Jetta passes me with a big Omama magnetic decal plastered on the drivers door and all the F'ed up lefty bumperstickers on the back.
Driving it was some gray haired hippie retread and his ugly unshaven stinking hippie b*tch.

I said aloud to my son...."That's exactly why these good Wyoming folks hate us so much".

I was embarassed to be wearing the same California license plate.

blush
Posted by: stlhdr1

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/20/08 09:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Kanektok Kid
Originally Posted By: JoJo
Explain that one to your kid.


"Son, it is legal to be nude in some parks in Seattle, and some people like to do so."

If that doesn't work, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out dipwad.



Your kidding me right.....

It should be "Son over there you have all the whack-jobs, the people that need attention and want to be different. In life you'll have to make choices, either look the other way or you'll likely turn into some long-haired friends of jesus that are more interested in man with man."

It's pothetic to see such a thing.... Man it pisses me off what this country is coming too, WTF is really going on??

Keith lame
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/20/08 10:07 PM

Are you kidding me?

Rock Springs, Wyoming? I've never seen such a sh!thole. And they hate you because you're from Cali. Great place.............to be from.

Have at it. No nudity, no liberals, no traffic..........and not a f'n steelhead or salmon for 6 hours. Lots of antelope, lots of empty space covered in scrub brush, that's for sure.

If you'd rather live in Rock Springs Wyoming than Seattle because you won't have to see freaky naked people, then there's nothing stopping you from doing so.

Ain't America great?
Posted by: gvbest

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/20/08 10:27 PM

"This state has become so fu**ing liberal that it now allows nudity in public parks in Seattle."

This is nothing new, these nude bike rides have been going on for awhile. Its not like they just passed a law that suddenly made it legal, it was already legal. They just failed to pass a law against it.

It probably never bothered you in the past until it hit the news, but it has always been legal, just got the publicity the last couple of weeks.
Posted by: Irie

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/20/08 10:36 PM

Don't let the door hit ya in the ass.
Posted by: Salmonella

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/20/08 11:08 PM

Dan,
They hate us Californians because our state is so left leaning.
Cali is nationally renowned for being so ummmmm "progressive".

You know "progressives" the ones that vote to outlaw hunting, fur trapping, guns that look scary, you know the vegans, hippies, animal rights activists, radical femiinists you know, all the smart ones.

BTW,
Never said Rock spring was where I wanted to live it is a very ugly area, that's where I was at when I saw the hermaphrodites.
There are some absolutley gorgeous places in Wyoming.
Beauty that defies description.

Wyoming has lots of wide open spaces and very few people.
Combine that with flourishing wildlife and well, the ratrace of urban California is rather disgusting.
Fortunatley I don't have live in those areas.
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/20/08 11:26 PM

Well, California is what it is. Same with Seattle and Rock Springs. Complaining about it is a waste of time.

I know the liberal PETA loving granola-eater types, and I don't like them any more than the small-minded small-town types who think the country is ruined because we have a minority President. But it's their country as much as it's mine, so I do what I do and let them do what they do and hope things go my way.........but it doesn't always do that.

I've learned to deal with it. When I can't deal any more, I'll think of moving elsewhere.
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/20/08 11:31 PM

More like-

Dad- "Ewwwww. Nasty."

Son - "No kidding.........I think I threw up in my mouth a little."

Have you noticed that those most likely to shed their clothes are those that shouldn't?
Posted by: goharley

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/20/08 11:44 PM

Let's see...

Seattle has naked people.
Wyoming has Cheney.










Not a tough choice there.
Posted by: MrOlearhy

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 12:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Dan S.
More like-

Dad- "Ewwwww. Nasty."

Son - "No kidding.........I think I threw up in my mouth a little."

Have you noticed that those most likely to shed their clothes are those that shouldn't?


There's been alot said on this topic. This has to be the best statement made. The ugliness always comes to the top.

On another note, I'm really glad to see that the folks who consider themselves so advanced and progressive to have such open and loving minds. Typical.
Posted by: Roguefshr

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 12:48 AM

these nudist people are f-ing whack jobs. They are the same crowd as the gay and lesbians, they dont want to keep thier f-ed up lifestyles in there bedrooms where they belong and where hetro sexual normal families keep thiers. They want to parade around front street making a scene about how its ok to be a f-ing whack job or a pervert, hey look at my wanker kids! And like the comment above, most of the nudist types are grossly over weight. Nudist minded people who are in shape dont have to throw themselves into the public to get some eyeballs on them with thier clothes off.
Posted by: nookie dreamin'

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 02:24 AM

No doubt about it our once fine country is rotting from within, all because of the liberal whackjobs who believe in the mantra "if it feels good, do it", and to hell what anyone may think about it. These people who choose to exhibit themselves in public
are absolute attention whores, and those who condone them are equally repulsive. Fortunately for me, my kids are all grown, and I am not put in a position to have to explain these freaks to them. I worry however about my sons having to explain these psycotics to my grandkids. KK, I'm not surprised that you are jumping though hoops to defend these vile types of behavior, and neither am I surprised to see Irie defending them as well.. But Dan S , I am stunned at your defense of these cretins. Your stock with me has plummeted, I used to think you were a pretty squared away guy, but then again I will venture a guess and say that you don't give a rat's ass about
my opinion of you. As of now, I number you among those others I refer to as "rainbow warriors". Just curious, being a big AC DC fan.. does that mean you go BOTH ways?
Posted by: Todd

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 02:33 AM

Washington...love it or leave it.

I'm sure you guys will find plenty of kindred spirits in Kansas. If you start driving now you can have time to find a double wide for Thanksgiving dinner.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: nookie dreamin'

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 02:42 AM

So who asked you dipstick? ...and to think I was pulling for you when you were banned. I guess we all can be accused of bad judgement once in a while.. Bye the way, your mom told me to tell you , don't forget to floss!
Posted by: nookie dreamin'

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 02:58 AM

I see the lead "rainbow warrior" has responded.. I just knew he would rise to the bait....FISH ON!!!!
Posted by: nookie dreamin'

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 03:04 AM

By the way, the term "rainbow warrior" has nothing to do with the University of Hawaii....
or Greenpeace for that matter.
Posted by: nookie dreamin'

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 03:18 AM

Must be past their bedtime... backdoor pj's and all rofl
Posted by: Irie

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 03:26 AM

Every conservative policy and social stance has been proven an absolute total failure after eight years of Conservative rule in all three branches of federal government. So all they can come up with is that a handful of idiots riding naked down the street are going to be the downfall of our Republic.

Nice try, dumbschits.

STFU and try another scare tactic.

Maybe Commies in government jobs, A-Rabs hiding under suburban porches with dirty bombs, or Nee-gras (He ain't like us!) becoming president.

F*cktards.
Posted by: nookie dreamin'

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 03:32 AM

I so liked you better as Icthy.. now you're just a leftist moron . Why don't YOU STFU?
Posted by: Irie

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 03:54 AM

Originally Posted By: nookie dreamin'
I so liked you better as Icthy.. now you're just a leftist moron . Why don't YOU STFU?


Because its so much more fun pointing out your idiocy & hypocrisy.

Hours of endless entertainment.
Posted by: One Way

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 08:26 AM

Salmonella, come on, I can only assume you must have run into some trouble for being from California, when you were out of state. Otherwise you would not make the statement about hating Californians. Is it true, or are you just hearing the echos of your own internet bravado. Did you deflect by saying it is them not me? To reinforce that message to your son just potentially creates another individual who will paint with a broad brush and rush to judgment, much like his father. I'm with Dan you should move to Wyoming, you would fit right in.
Posted by: Salmonella

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 09:49 AM

One Way.
Maybe you have been in Marin county too long.
I've spent much time pursuing big game in all of the western states.
The resentment in general for Californians is nearly universal.
Once they get to know you it may change, but like it or not, people judge based on geographic generalities .(The lefties here as well)

Spend a little time on the rocky mountain based hunting boards, you will feel the rub in a hurry.

Until you prove that you are not a flaming homosexual socialist freak (which many assume based on generalities) you definatley recieve a cold shoulder.

California plates are like a scarlet letter.

I have a place in Central Oregon and family there as well, same thing, they hate us for "all the money we make" (yeah right) raising their real estate prices and our (perceived) overall way of life.

The red state blue state thing baffles many lefties who look at the world through utopian eyes.
Completley different cultures.
I was picking my kid up from school the other day and he commented on how different things are here compared to where we vacationed.

As far as raising my son, I don't want him to dislike someone because they have different beliefs, but to embrace those who threaten his way of life?
Ain't gonna happen.



There is a right and wrong and I don't mean from a religious standpoint.

There are ramifications for dressing like a slob and tatooing and piercing your entire body,for spewing foul language and disrespecting authority.
I've raised him to believe the cops are the good guys (having brothers as cops helps), the thugs & wannabe gangstas & dope peddlers are the bad guys, that there are rewards for hard work and that there is no free lunch.


I have personally have never had problems as a nonresident hunter, but have friends that have had vehicles vandalized with "Go Home" carved on the hood of the truck.

When I hunt out of state the very first thing I do is remove my front license plate .
You would not believe the difference it makes.
Many locals won't even give a courtesy wave if they see the Cali plates.

I dislike the resentment but can understand why when my kid comes home from school saying that he cannot even share his awesome hunting adventures with but one best friend because hunting is so controversial here.
He once had a teacher repremand him for swatting a fly!... No Bullschitt.
She said "in my classroom we don't kill things".
Yes I get frustrated.

"Paint with a broad brush?"

Read any of Todd or KK's posts?






Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 10:03 AM

Quote:
I will venture a guess and say that you don't give a rat's ass about
my opinion of you. As of now, I number you among those others I refer to as "rainbow warriors". Just curious, being a big AC DC fan.. does that mean you go BOTH ways?


Good guess.

And no, I don't go both ways. Why.........are you looking to smoke some pole, or what? Try Blades.

I spend my time caring about things that matter. You fruitcakes like to tell the same old "country going down the tubes" story my grandma and her grandma and every generation before that told. It was bullsh!t then and it's bullsh!t now.

Find me a better country, nudists, flag burners or not.
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 11:33 AM

Many years ago I came to the realization that the only person I could have any control over was myself. So I worked on being a better person and have succeeed in many ways, but still need work in other areas. I could care less what other people do, they do not represent me, where I am from, or what I hope to become.

Basically, do the best you can people, worry about how you conduct yourself with respect to others, the rest will sort itself out. smile
Posted by: Dave Vedder

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 11:40 AM

I'm planning to buy stock in Dan S. now that the rumor is out his stock is plummeting. I'm trying to look it up, but no luck so far. Is the symbol, STFU or FU2?
Posted by: goharley

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 11:48 AM

What is it about naked people that people find threatening to society?

Why does the opportunity for dialogue with one's child by answering his/her question seem so frightening?
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 12:02 PM

Originally Posted By: goharley
What is it about naked people that people find threatening to society?


Because this is how it starts - first they're naked, next they'll be gill netting... stir rofl
Posted by: GreenRiver

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 12:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Mikespike
Originally Posted By: goharley
What is it about naked people that people find threatening to society?


Because this is how it starts - first they're naked, next they'll be gill netting... stir rofl


Yea, ALL THAT bikini
Posted by: The Moderator

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 12:12 PM

JoJo - Let me guess:

You went to the Fremont Solstice Parade and saw the Fat Ugly Naked Guy (or) Chick on the bicycle, butt cheeks completely covering and enveloping that poor bicycle seat and had to tear out your eyes.

Oh wait, that was me.

MY EYES!! MY FRAKING EYES!!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!!!!
Posted by: stlhdr1

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 12:33 PM

Free America........ Yeah, that's what it is and don't forget how it became that..... But when the day comes that things go really wrong and all you yuppies run crying scared, don't come knocking on my door because I sure as hell won't save ya.....

It's apparent so many were raised differently. Certainly some here were from the hard working home, learned nothing was free and a little sweat don't hurt. Some from the battered homes where the twisted things in life were ok. As I've read through this thread I'm just fortunate that my parents were down to earth people and pointed me in the right direction because seeing public nudity as ok, is F'd up........

Keith thumbs
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 01:19 PM

"Free America........ Yeah, that's what it is and don't forget how it became that..... But when the day comes that things go really wrong and all you yuppies run crying scared, don't come knocking on my door because I sure as hell won't save ya..... "

You are now on the top of the Liberal "to be raped during revolt" list. The plan is to do a round up and expose them to what they fear most. In your case you get tossed into a pit of flaming gays.

"we shouldn't allow this...we shouldn't allow that...." what part of freedom don't you still get? And when are we going to get out of the puritan nudity is bad mentality. It's like a bunch of cackling hens with too much time on their hands. Yeah teach your son to hate gays, lesbians, other races, nudists...what else am I forgetting? You need the bumper sticker "proud parent of an intolerant kid".

"yeah he hate all dem fags...that's my boy!" "why the udder day he done lynched hiself a nudist!"
Posted by: The Moderator

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 01:32 PM

Originally Posted By: stlhead
You are now on the top of the Liberal "to be raped during revolt" list. The plan is to do a round up and expose them to what they fear most. In your case you get tossed into a pit of flaming gays.


Wow. You just gave the rest of the "Liberals" a really bad name for that statement.

Sure hope the rest of the "Liberals" out there are not filled with as much hate as what was written there.

"Change".

Yeah, I'm sure as hell sensing some "Change" around here.

rofl

I'm pretty sure much like Larry Craig and his issues with homosexuality, you are a CLOSET REPUBLICAN.
Posted by: stlhdr1

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 01:40 PM

Originally Posted By: stlhead
"Free America........ Yeah, that's what it is and don't forget how it became that..... But when the day comes that things go really wrong and all you yuppies run crying scared, don't come knocking on my door because I sure as hell won't save ya..... "

You are now on the top of the Liberal "to be raped during revolt" list. The plan is to do a round up and expose them to what they fear most. In your case you get tossed into a pit of flaming gays.

"we shouldn't allow this...we shouldn't allow that...." what part of freedom don't you still get? And when are we going to get out of the puritan nudity is bad mentality. It's like a bunch of cackling hens with too much time on their hands. Yeah teach your son to hate gays, lesbians, other races, nudists...what else am I forgetting? You need the bumper sticker "proud parent of an intolerant kid".

"yeah he hate all dem fags...that's my boy!" "why the udder day he done lynched hiself a nudist!"


Does this ring a bell???????????



Keith zip
Posted by: goharley

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 01:43 PM

Originally Posted By: parker
You went to the Fremont Solstice Parade and saw the Fat Ugly Naked Guy (or) Chick on the bicycle,

It's worth it to get a glimpse of Wonder Woman. wink

Originally Posted By: stlhdr1
...my parents were down to earth people and pointed me in the right direction because seeing public nudity as ok, is F'd up........

If your parents instilled in you that seeing naked people "is F'd up" then they were far from "down to earth."
Posted by: One Way

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 01:48 PM

I hear what you have to say Salmonella, and I don't disagree with some of what you offer. One thing I will say, I don't look at the world through rose colored glass. Your reference to Marin county is amusing, but my geographical location does not define me. Much as my residence in California does not define me. I don't care if people accept me for who I am, I do have a problem when people don't accept me for where I am from. The people I have met in Washington have to an individual have all quizzed me about where I am from, and in every case I have dismissed their concerns. I don't out of state hunt, or hunt at all for that matter and maybe that makes a difference, as it may be a defined resource that a California hunter night be exploiting...The only time I ever heard someone say something under their breath about Californians was a stop in Texas. In that case and in similar cases I smile and consider the source. It would be sad if Thomas were to grow up being ashamed about where he is from... No matter what is said California is a nice place to live in fact so nice I believe 8% of the nations population resides there. ( I hope I am correct on that stat) As far as naked people in public goes, I have worked in San Francisco now for 25 years and am yet to see a single one. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places.
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 01:48 PM

You can witness change right here on this thread. No jews were mentioned.
Posted by: One Way

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 01:55 PM

yet, the way this thread is going , everyone is going to be thrown under the bus.
Posted by: The Moderator

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 02:03 PM

Originally Posted By: stlhead
No jews were mentioned.


Until now.

You forgot to mention blacks and muslims, too.

There. It's official. Best thread today!
Posted by: Rocket Red

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 02:10 PM

I am a small town guy, but I don't care about naked people. If my daughter saw something like a bunch of naked freaks walking down the road, I know her eyes would bug completely out of her head, and I would have to give her a lesson on that. I could care less though, at some point she will see naked people, and get over it.

I know how it would go:

"Look at all the naked people daddy! Why are they naked?"

"Those are freaks honey, don't become one of them, they don't realize that everyone else is making fun of them. Their time has very little value to the GDP or society in general, evidenced by the fact that they can spend countless hours getting their nakedness approved by the city council, just so everyone else can make fun of them. That is the beauty of our government, it has plenty of time to waste on all kinds of problems."
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 02:13 PM

+1 to RR. thumbs
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 02:15 PM

It's right up there with green hair, mohawks, face tattoo, nose ring.....may not like it but it's their right to call attention to themselves if they wish.
Posted by: j 7

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 02:20 PM

Look at me I'm naked. OOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm special.


I say if you declare yourself as a nudist then you should not be allowed to wear clothes at all, ever. Then it goes like this.

Look at me I'm naked. OOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm cold.

Look at me I'm naked. OOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I got skin cancer on my genitals.

Look at me I'm naked. OOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I fell off my bike and cut my genitals.

Clothes are functional, not a burden by the man.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 02:28 PM

There's 2 things in this world that I worry about naked people and sniper rifles.
Posted by: j 7

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 02:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Kanektok Kid
Originally Posted By: j 7

I say if you declare yourself as a wingnut then you should not be allowed to make sense at all, ever.


Typo..........................



Now I'm confused. Am I a wingnut or did I make sense?
Posted by: goharley

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 03:16 PM

Originally Posted By: j 7
Clothes are functional, not a burden by the man.

Well, there you go then. If the clothes provide no funtion at that time, don't wear them.


And just to clarify: satisfying your own insecurities is not considered functional by others.
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 03:25 PM

Originally Posted By: j 7
Originally Posted By: Kanektok Kid
Originally Posted By: j 7

I say if you declare yourself as a wingnut then you should not be allowed to make sense at all, ever.


Typo..........................



Now I'm confused. Am I a wingnut or did I make sense?


If you're naked while typing that, you're a confused, senseless-wingnut. grin

And no one has mentioned gay hermaphrodites. Imagine how much they must loathe themselves.
Posted by: Salmonella

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 03:36 PM

Remember my statement on how Californians are viewed?
Just for fun I posed a question regarding this on a popular outdoor site .

Can you feel the love?

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads.../gonew/1#UNREAD
Posted by: stlhdr1

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 03:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Salmonella
Remember my statement on how Californians are viewed?
Just for fun I posed a question regarding this on a popular outdoor site .

Can you feel the love?

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads.../gonew/1#UNREAD


To think WA, is headed in the same direction.... I don't get out of state much but wonder what it would be like and if people see WA the same as CA...

It's amazing the segregation in the state, you can drive East of the Cascades and it's a wave and friendly hello from most, drive north through Seattle and everyones in a hurry and could give a crap about you....

Keith
Posted by: Todd

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 03:49 PM

I travel all over the country for half the year, and everyone thinks Seattle is about the coolest place to be.

Must be because of all the naked people...or the fact that most people here would like to tell everyone to stay the fukk out of their business, and just mind their own.

Spend 1/2 the time you spend worrying about what other people think and believe worrying about what you think and believe, and you'll be a lot happier, plus people won't have to continually tell you to STFU and mind your own business.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: goharley

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 03:51 PM

Doesn't sound that bad to me. I have a much more negative image of Idaho, Kansas, Arkansas, Texas, et al, than those people have about California.
Posted by: One Way

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 03:55 PM

Read carefully each post, then consider the source.I could give a rip about the opinion on anything from a person who lives in Kansas or Indiana for god sake look where they live. The only real rip on Californians had to do with out of state hunters which I have heard before. Anyway it is what it is this has never been a major concern of mine.
Posted by: The Moderator

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 04:01 PM

Originally Posted By: stlhdr1
I don't get out of state much


Yeah, that is pretty obvious.

If you think Seattle is a rude city, you're in for a very eye opening awakening if you travel around the US.
Posted by: Todd

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 04:05 PM

Unfortunately my travels around the country include having to drive everywhere, and the flyover states are a lot more enjoyable while, well...flying.

Think people are rude in Seattle? Try LA, or Chicago, or pretty much the entire east coast.

I'm always a bit mystified how the same folks who think the government is always intruding in their lives too much wants them to intrude into everybody else's lives, except their own.

The first step in getting the government to mind it's own business is for you to start minding your own, and stop whining about other people enjoying their rights as citizens of our fine country.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 04:14 PM

I've lived here all of my life and our only rank on Californians has been that they are like locusts.

As Emmett Watson of the Lessor Seattle Society would write in his column it's ok to visit but not to stay.
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 04:18 PM

Dudes in Indiana and Kans-ass should really STFU about ANY other state.

Gary, IN and Wichita, KS are about the two biggest sh!tholes on earth. If you live in Indiana or Kansas, it's obvious that your judgment is all f*cked up anyway.
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 04:21 PM

I should also mention Emmett's KBO group....Keep the Bastards Out.
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 04:54 PM

Dan-

Your posts have seemed a little edgier than usual - I promise you things will get better when Ty is gone!

And, you also missed out on the three biggest a$$hole states* we have:

1) Rhode Island
B) Manhattan
3) Mexico
ocho cinco) kraploadistan


*From the 2008 Sarah Palin Handbook of Places with Names
Posted by: goforchrome

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 05:03 PM

IBTL

I keep reading these posts from DanS and Keith, looking the the hidden sarcasm...I can't find it.
I think they really believe what they're typing.
Amazing.
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 05:10 PM

Yeah, I believe what I'm saying. I'm pretty sure Keith believes what he typed as well.

Care to make a case to the contrary, or are you going to keep your tremendous wisdom and intellect to yourself?
Posted by: stlhdr1

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 05:17 PM

Originally Posted By: goforchrome
IBTL

I keep reading these posts from DanS and Keith, looking the the hidden sarcasm...I can't find it.
I think they really believe what they're typing.
Amazing.


Yeah I beleive what I typed... Of course it doesn't affect me whether there's nude people walking around, I don't have kids.... But to me there are places for nudity and places there aren't. Guess it goes back to values in life, what I was taught and raised around... Just seems out of place to me...

Sure there was some sarcasm is a few of the posts..... I tend to get carried away a little, sometimes you've got to dig through the BS....

Keith thumbs
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 05:24 PM

Jeebus Cripes everyone! I hope this will help with all the pent up, uh, "emotions"

And of course there's no hypocrisy in the semi-nudity of my post! grin
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 05:28 PM

Mikespike = Thread Saver

thumbs
Posted by: j 7

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 05:43 PM

Their not completely naked so that is OK. Real nudist would not wear socks and shoes.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 05:45 PM

Holy Cripes there'sa more biscuit in them there pictures than a camp cookout in Wyoming!!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 05:45 PM

I say we shoot the sumbitches,in case anyone was wonderin
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 05:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Barbarosa
I say we shoot the sumbitches,in case anyone was wonderin


Why aren't you over on the "gun nut" thread? And don't think I can't hide from Barbarosa! rofl
Posted by: Idaho Mike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 06:53 PM

If I am going to be upset about something going on in Seattle Parks, a group of old and or out of shape folks who ride around naked is pretty low on the list. I bet you would have to go days before you spotted any.

Lets talk about what the real problems are in the parks. How about all of those low life bastages that urinate and crap all over the place. Then we have the sh%t head gang bangers.

Man, if your going to run something out of the Parks, lets run arseholes out instead of harmless freaks.
Posted by: goforchrome

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 06:55 PM

I'm going to try to teach my kid what to fear and what not to fear.
Nude people minding their own business in a park are not something I think he needs to fear.

Not so scary.

I'm pretty sure my wife and I are raising our son to be a pretty good citizen, with an open mind.
No harm there.
Posted by: One Way

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 07:16 PM

KK that boat is available again next year I'm sure we will hook up again...If not Im sure Richard will let you know how the fishing was. Keep in mind it took this Californian to get you Washingtonians to the fishing hole that day.
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 07:21 PM

Quote:
I'm going to try to teach my kid what to fear and what not to fear.
Nude people minding their own business in a park are not something I think he needs to fear.

Not so scary.

I'm pretty sure my wife and I are raising our son to be a pretty good citizen, with an open mind.
No harm there.


thumbs
Posted by: RowVsWade

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 07:30 PM

Is it a coincidence that they want to ban, on city property, the Constitutional right set forth in the 2nd Ammendment but allow naked freaks to run around on city property? Freedom?

BTW----I don't give a shiat if people run around naked.....just as long as they are armed.
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 07:31 PM

This is my rifle, this is my gun.
This is for fighting, this is for fun.

rofl
Posted by: Salmonella

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 08:01 PM

Nudity makes the concealed weapon a little more uncomfortable to carry.
eek2
Posted by: RowVsWade

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 08:16 PM

I've heard DanS has the labia to smuggle dam near anything.....
Posted by: Todd

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 08:44 PM

I could hide a Howitzer behind my gun.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: seastrike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 08:50 PM

STFU RVW.

My take:
I'm a right leaning voter. Grew up in Detroit/IN/Chi so STFU Dan wink
Nudity? Give me a break. I took my son to the Solstice Parade when he was 5 to see some [censored] and freaks. After 5-10 minutes of "boobie/penis" and pointing he lost interest. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing but I don't think nudity is wrong. I do think that teaching the kids that it is bad or sinful is wrong. You won't catch me on one of those bikes painted up to look like whatever but I think it's funny and there are actually some hot broads (love that word) riding around.
As far as the nude beach...whatever. I'm sure it'll be someplace between Richmond Beach and Carceek way out of the way.
Californians? Don't mind them at all. Yeah they raised our real estate prices but that is going on all over the place. All the fishing and hunting dudes I've met from CA are cool. Well not quite. We had a caravan of CA dudes invade "our" elk area a few years ago after an article in Sports Afield or one of the other hook and bullet mags. They all brought their quads. Cool thing was they left in two days after they figured out they couldn't get off the road with them. I met OneWay this summer and he's a cool dude.
My folks retired to Chico,CA 4 years ago. When the neighbors found out they were from San Antonio and not San Fran they were welcomed with open arms.
I've got a couple of friends from CA here in the Seattle area. They say to the person that they get the cold shoulder from most locals.
Live and let live.
ps Reiter was slow today.


Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 09:24 PM

Quote:
Grew up in Detroit/IN/Chi


Sorry about that. wink

RvW can't tell a labia from a "gun". Hardly a surprise.
Posted by: Todd

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/21/08 09:37 PM

At this point, I doubt he's allowed within 300 yards of either, so I can understand why he might not be able to tell them apart.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: cupo

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/22/08 03:41 AM

I think Californians are great, as long as they stay Californians.
Posted by: John Lee Hookum

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/22/08 12:54 PM

Plenty of love for all you haters in the Red States. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. beer
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/22/08 09:39 PM

Wow!! Getting all worked up because some people ride around naked on their bicycles? Get a life is a phrase that comes to mind. I envy people who apparently have enough discretionary time in their lives to get upset about the small stuff.

And what's with criticizing the hippies all the time Salmonella? Sheesh! I grew up in the south end of my county among hillbilly rednecks - Irish Malamphy lived down the road and was the best moonshiner in the county - and I was taught to be judgemental about everyone and everything - different from us. Fortunately I came of age during the 60s and became a hippy. Long hair, sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll; no era has had something better to offer yet. We hippies, latter day dudes now 60 and older have more than average education, higher than average income, satisfying careers, and we tend not to judge others by the length of their hair, their overly rigid lifestyles and protocols for damn near everything, wearing too many or the wrong clothes for every occasion, or even their narrow-mindedness. When we judge, we try to judge behaviors and not the people engaging in them. We figured out long ago that if people want to get naked, it doesn't hurt us, and if we get naked, it doesn't hurt them. Maybe not always easy on the eyes, but hardly qualifies as hurting other people.

We native Washingtonians however, allow ourselves a bit of judgement when it comes to Californians though. The stereotypical Californian who moves to Washington comes here with a small California home equity and then pays cash for a local McMansion, helping drive up real estate prices, then he complains about how low wages are here relative to his former California job, and then has the idiocy to complain about the crummy weather. For these simple reasons, Emmett Watson (reference earlier in this thread) invited all immigrant Californians to move the hell back there, or at least away from here.

Personally, I don't restrict my criticism to immigrants from California. I wish all immigrants would move the hell out of Washington. I thought it was getting too crowded here when the population passed 2.6 million, and that was 40 years ago.

Remember the saying, "don't sweat the small stuff?" Also remember, practically everything that people get uptight about is small stuff. Oh so many really need to get a life. Focus on what matters.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.
Posted by: Chuck E

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/23/08 12:58 AM

As a 4th generation Washintonian, I approve Salmo g's message. Yep , I could be considered an old hippy also since I haven't had a haircut in 10 years but I also spent time in southeast Asia, been married to the same lady for 36 years, haven't been without a job since I was 14 and we raised two sons that are stand up guys, so judging someone by what they appear to be rather than what they are is as backward as your whiney posts. So folks that think this such a bad place to live - leave and let the rest of us live in peace. We don't want or need you here.
Yep, things been going to hell since the wimmins got the vote, the buses and the schools became integrated and people get nekkid in parks.
If you are interested in the real problem, take a look in the mirror.
Posted by: Irie

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/23/08 02:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Chuck E
As a 4th generation Washintonian, I approve Salmo g's message. Yep , I could be considered an old hippy also since I haven't had a haircut in 10 years but I also spent time in southeast Asia, been married to the same lady for 36 years, haven't been without a job since I was 14 and we raised two sons that are stand up guys, so judging someone by what they appear to be rather than what they are is as backward as your whiney posts. So folks that think this such a bad place to live - leave and let the rest of us live in peace. We don't want or need you here.
Yep, things been going to hell since the wimmins got the vote, the buses and the schools became integrated and people get nekkid in parks.
If you are interested in the real problem, take a look in the mirror.

agree

My family's history in WA goes back 5 generations, if you count my great-great grandmother, who took her young son here from Chicago in the 1890's. He went on as a self-taught engineer and patent holding inventor to build the 1st hydro electric plants before WWI, supplying Seattle with it's first electricity.
If you dont like it here and want Washington to become another schithole Red State with fugged public education, polluted dead paved over rivers and lakes, and a taliban government, get your ass to Kansas, with the rest of your ilk. And take your 3.2% beer with you!


Posted by: ParaLeaks

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/23/08 01:39 PM

Salmo g. .......
Quote:
When we judge, we try to judge behaviors and not the people engaging in them.


As with most all you post, Salmo g., I agree with most all. And what we don't agree on really is of no, or little, import.

Well stated, sir. thumbs

Must be an era thing.
Posted by: Dave Vedder

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/23/08 02:43 PM

Salmo Nailed it. +1

Funny how the radical right always told us to quit bitching and to love ti or leave iut. Well is seems that may just go both ways.

I was taught we are made in God's image. If so how could our bodies be reprehensible?
Posted by: Mingo

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/23/08 03:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Dave Vedder
Salmo Nailed it. +1

Funny how the radical right always told us to quit bitching and to love ti or leave iut. Well is seems that may just go both ways.

I was taught we are made in God's image. If so how could our bodies be reprehensible?


I agree with Salmo, after all, he is my dad and he tolerated my herbal experimentations when I was a wee nardling. I usually agree with Vedder The Elder but not when he says "how could our bodies be reprehensible?"

C'mon Dave, most people you will see on a nude beach have reprehensible bodies. The ones you would pay to keep their clothes ON always want to take them OFF! rofl rofl rofl
Posted by: Dave Vedder

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/23/08 03:33 PM

Minog: I too find some bodies reprehensible, but feel guilty for it? WWJD?
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/23/08 04:07 PM

Mingo my son, remember, we can't all be super models. If everyone looked like that, then they wouldn't be super anymore. Remember you weren't taught to turn the other cheek, but rather to turn your eyes away if what you see is bothersome.

You're a good kid, Mingo.

Sg
Posted by: Satan

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/23/08 06:36 PM

Originally Posted By: cupo
I think Californians are great, as long as they stay Californians.


Umm,gee,didn't we all migrate here? Hmmm.....isn't this the UNITED States of America? You are free to express that. I've lives in various places.I am welcome wherever I go. If you were a hobbitt you'd be called Douche Baggins,no doubt.
Posted by: Salmonella

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/23/08 06:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Chuck E
As a 4th generation Washintonian, I approve Salmo g's message. Yep , I could be considered an old hippy also since I haven't had a haircut in 10 years .



It ain't what's "ON" the skull that makes a hippie as my late friend Jimmy would attest to.



I do have some hippies in my family.
One female in particular, Oregon native.
She used to look like sasquatch, hairy armpits, greasy hair, hairy legs , the heavy stench of patchulli oil , utopian world beliefs, peace signs on everything she owns, the whole tie die [censored], smokes weed daily, hates guns , hunting & meateaters and mostly republicans.
Having to sit across the table from that beast at family functions for 17 years and be civil gives me the right to bitch.
stir

I LOL at these California stereotypes.
beathead

Man that thread I started got heated.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads.../gonew/1#UNREAD

Feelin the love yet?


What a buncha shiat.
You guys seen my pics.
You know my gig.
I guess the stereotype will live on forever.
evil

This state is 770 miles long.
Throughout it's range we have it all.
You name it we got it.
Big rugged country, highest peak in the lower 48 in fact.
Wide open spaces.
Beautiful trout , salmon & steelhead streams.
Filthy polluted stinkwater.
Beautiful wilderness.
Ugly barren wasteland.
Jam packed shoulder to shoulder urban areas that make you wish your doctor's last name was Kevorkian.
It's all right here.
hello
Billionaire businessmen, movie stars, drug dealers, gangsters, yuppies, vegans, rednecks, hippies, axe murderers, child molesters, good ole boys, illegal aliens (by the shitload) and lots of honest hard working folks just trying to get by.

Sure plenty of freaks abound here and yes, I'm prolly the exception to the rule.
(yeah right)
wink

Guess that's why I feel so at home in the rockies.
The country I hunt in Cali kicks my ass a whole lot more than Wyoming does.
I laugh at those flat land midwesterners that lambaste us Cali boys.
These boys huff & puff trying to ascend a baseball mound, sit in a treestand or a heated groundblind waiting for a buck to come to the cornflinger then go on and on about how physically demanding their hunt was.
rofl

While in Wyoming last month, I spoke with a game warden.
he said to me,"You know, year in & year out I see you Cali boys come in here and for the most part you guys are among the most successful of the non residents that hunt here."
I took that as a high compliment.
I've threatened to leave several times in my life, I have a great wife, I live in the country, make a good living and have found out how to make lemonade out of lemons.

Actually, in real life I'm pretty tolerant of folks with other beliefs .

Once in a while I just gotta vent.

Party on Wayne.....


Posted by: IrishRogue

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/23/08 08:41 PM

Feels a bit like fighting the wrong war if you're hyped up about public nudity in a park. I'm far from a nudist beach expert, but it sure seems tame compared to what 2 seconds of Google searching can turn up.

As for the rest of what I have to say, Salmo said it.
Posted by: gvbest

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/23/08 11:26 PM

Dont you find it kinda funny that the guy that had the original b*thch that started this topic has yet to respond to all of this.! Nothing like b*tching and complaining and then not being able to add anything to the topic but the original complaint.
Posted by: goharley

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/24/08 12:40 AM

He's been busy "hanging out" in the park. wink
Posted by: Matt S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/24/08 02:59 AM

Good thread

Salmo G is a much better writer than Salmonella.
Posted by: Irie

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/24/08 03:43 AM

Dont the Sturza's own Sunbirds?
Posted by: One Way

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/24/08 08:25 AM

Avid, interesting you brought that up. I was sitting around a fire once on Whidbey Island, having a beer and listening to to some stories. The subject of My being from California came up. I fired back, well popped back, well, asked everyone around the fire to say where they were from originally. I bet if you did the same around your next campfire you might be as surprised as I was.
Posted by: Mingo

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/24/08 09:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Mingo my son, remember, we can't all be super models. If everyone looked like that, then they wouldn't be super anymore. Remember you weren't taught to turn the other cheek, but rather to turn your eyes away if what you see is bothersome.

You're a good kid, Mingo.

Sg


Thanks dad. Next time you come over, bring a bigger pizza okay?
Posted by: The Moderator

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/24/08 07:11 PM

Originally Posted By: avid angler
Umm,gee,didn't we all migrate here?


Nope. The US Court has ruled that our Native Americans are *Native*.

You are thinking of a "Wild American". Most of those all immigrated here from various sources around the world and have heavily influenced the genetic pooling of America.

We've even had some cross-genetic crossings between wild and native Americans.

It's not an exact science, especially with the ESA (Especially Stupid Americans) rules and all.
Posted by: Salmonella

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/24/08 07:35 PM

Originally Posted By: fish4brains
There's 2 things in this world that I worry about naked people and sniper rifles.


No worries here....

Posted by: Salmonella

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/24/08 07:47 PM

Or here either....

XXXXXXXXX

Mebbe We better cool it.
Big Daddy's on the warpath....
Posted by: John Lee Hookum

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/24/08 10:20 PM

Originally Posted By: parker
Originally Posted By: avid angler
Umm,gee,didn't we all migrate here?


Nope. The US Court has ruled that our Native Americans are *Native*.

You are thinking of a "Hatchery American". Most of those all immigrated here from various sources around the world and have heavily influenced the genetic pooling of America.

We've even had some cross-genetic crossings between hatchery and native Americans.

It's not an exact science, especially with the ESA (Especially Stupid Americans) rules and all.


Fixed the typo grin
Posted by: Pugnacious

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/25/08 12:13 AM

At the risk of sounding llike some of the other jackasses, I am pretty sure that the line for where good California starts and bad begins is somewhere in the middle of the bridge to Oakland. Everything south of that is a good reason to not like California in my opinion. Nothing against all you northern Californians. On the other hand, my wife is from southern California. But I was fooled with the Californian trickery when I met her in Oregon.

One thing that is funny is that the future president everyone is freaking out about was elected a Senator in a state that is very much like the ones that people are freakin out in. I wonder what would happen if his name were something like John Smith?

Xenophobia is almost like something that is an ingrained emotion in the human race. Diversity is evidently something that is almost as hard to teach as the Chinese langauge. Come one folks. Spend 4-8 years waisting your breath on something that you can not do a damn thing about? Or do something about the things in your backyard that you have bitched about for the last twenty+ years? Some of us clearly need to prioritze here and stop worrying about the little things like a dangling skin wagon. If you don't like, look somewhere else. Or move into a Housing Association and build a really high fence around your neighborhood to block out all the sin in the world.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/25/08 02:10 PM

Hey Salmonella, are those sniper rifles the girls are holding? I can't tell. Do you have a few close ups?

And to think the original poster was concerned about naked people riding bicycles . . .

Sg
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/25/08 03:11 PM

the original troll, I mean poster, hasn't been back.
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/25/08 04:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Salmonella
Originally Posted By: fish4brains
There's 2 things in this world that I worry about naked people and sniper rifles.


No worries here....



Although they're naked, with the guns, it's still difficult to get in their pants. rofl
Posted by: wntrrn

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 11:20 AM

I'm guessing JoJo has more of an issue with this state (or just the 3 counties which run it) than this single issue. For all you folks saying "if you don't like it just leave" you're really just denying others the chance to voice an opinion that's different than your own.

This state and it's local jurisdictions have been run by D's for a quite a while now. Point out one positive policy the Democratic run state government has done for us? We haven't rebuilt the viaduct, haven't done anything with 520, haven't done [censored] if you ask me.

We did build an expensive building where drunks can get tanked and then have a nice cozey place for Medic 1 to pick them up and take them to Harborview for an evening of detox or dialysis on our dime. Built self cleaning toilets to the tune of millions which were already proven to have failed in San Fran. We have built a light rail system that isn't going to help one commuter.

I'll be the first to say that these last 8 years nationally will go down as the biggest disaster in American history. But what about our state? What have the D's done to help us. Grow our government so they have a big enough voting base to keep them in office for eternity? Ron Simms.... CAO? Brightwater? 1% for the arts? Schools.... the kids still can't read or write. Etc, etc.

Gets pretty old listening to all you lefties telling everyone else how wrong they are for having a different political viewpoint. JoJo brings up one issue that rubs him the wrong way and all you can say is don't let the door hit you in the ass. It would seem in your little world looking at life thru a teeny little window that people who think different than you should just STFU.

I love this area and probably won't live anywhere else. Doesn't mean I have to agree with the growing left/liberal/let me do whatever the [censored] I want attitude.
Posted by: Irie

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 11:25 AM

YOU should just STFU.

--and don't let the door hit ya in the ass... asshat
Posted by: wntrrn

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 11:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Irie
YOU should just STFU.

--and don't let the door hit ya in the ass... asshat


There's a solid contribution. Gotta love that thought process.



Have a breakdown on I-5 and see how many people stop to help. Have your car break down outsisde of Deer Park and see who stops to help.
Posted by: Irie

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 11:46 AM

Originally Posted By: wntrrn
Have a breakdown on I-5 and see how many people stop to help. Have your car break down outsisde of Deer Park and see who stops to help.


According to conservative philosophy, you should "help your own damn self" and "pull yourself up by you boot straps." And it's your own fault anyway for being cheap and lazy and not maintaining your vehicle. Besides, according to conservatives, Al Queda is running amok, (hell they just had a member elected POTUS) and that overheated minivan of yours with the fish emblem and yellow ribbon magnet just might be a roadside bomb...at least according to conservatives.
:p slap
Posted by: wntrrn

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 12:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Irie
Originally Posted By: wntrrn
Have a breakdown on I-5 and see how many people stop to help. Have your car break down outsisde of Deer Park and see who stops to help.


According to conservative philosophy, you should "help your own damn self" and "pull yourself up by you boot straps." And it's your own fault anyway for being cheap and lazy and not maintaining your vehicle. Besides, according to conservatives, Al Queda is running amok, (hell they just had a member elected POTUS) and that overheated minivan of yours with the fish emblem and yellow ribbon magnet just might be a roadside bomb...at least according to conservatives.
:p slap


According to which conservatives? All of them? Or just a few wackos way out of touch with main stream conservatism? So, all liberals are for gay marriage, free health care for all citizens, electric cars, and hemp clothing?

What's wrong with people taking responsibility for their lot in life? If they're not wealthy it must be someone else's fault? Victim mentality at it's finest....
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 12:08 PM

Oh I get it.

Conservatives can give an opinion and nobody should question it.

Gotcha.

If you don't want someone to counter your opinion, then keep it to yourself. If you don't keep it to yourself, then don't cry like a little baby with poopy pants when someone counters your opinion with theirs.
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 12:59 PM

"According to which conservatives? All of them? Or just a few wackos way out of touch with main stream conservatism? So, all liberals are for gay marriage, free health care for all citizens, electric cars, and hemp clothing?

What's wrong with people taking responsibility for their lot in life? If they're not wealthy it must be someone else's fault? Victim mentality at it's finest...."

Hmm, didn't you lump all Dems and liberals in a previous post?
Posted by: wntrrn

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 01:27 PM

Nope, just taking the other side of the fence. I'm straight down the middle when it comes to politics. Usually can have a pretty good conversation because I'm willing to listen to another's point of view and see some of the issues that drive them.

Dan S.... Where did I start crying little a little baby with poopy pants. Or, is that your way have a "conversation"? Was it when Irie just told me to STFU?

Or was it when JoJo brought this thread up most of the responses were people just telling him to "not let the door hit him in the ass". Ya, that really does sound like people willing to listen to a different viewpoint. Pretty Irieonical.

Over here you're pretty much either left or you're wrong.
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 01:35 PM

Quote:
Gets pretty old listening to all you lefties telling everyone else how wrong they are for having a different political viewpoint. JoJo brings up one issue that rubs him the wrong way and all you can say is don't let the door hit you in the ass. It would seem in your little world looking at life thru a teeny little window that people who think different than you should just STFU.


Sounds like crying to me.

Nobody is obliged to let you speak your opinion without challenge. If you can't handle your opinions being challenged, then you should STFU.
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 01:59 PM

"Over here you're pretty much either left or you're wrong."

Well be left then. Cross over children...all are welcome.
Posted by: Jerry Garcia

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 03:17 PM

I don't think that STFU and don't let the door hit you on the way out is a challenging someones view, it's FUBAR.
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 03:27 PM

I didn't know intelligent debate was a requirement for conversations on the dark side.

If you can't take the heat, you can always leave the kitchen.
Posted by: wntrrn

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 04:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Dan S.
Quote:
Gets pretty old listening to all you lefties telling everyone else how wrong they are for having a different political viewpoint. JoJo brings up one issue that rubs him the wrong way and all you can say is don't let the door hit you in the ass. It would seem in your little world looking at life thru a teeny little window that people who think different than you should just STFU.


Sounds like crying to me.

Nobody is obliged to let you speak your opinion without challenge. If you can't handle your opinions being challenged, then you should STFU.



Not crying, yet. Just an observation from the cheap seats.

I asked in one of my previous posts in this thread. What sort of great accomplishments has this state achieved the past couple decades that have the majority of members here so glowingly supportive of this state's leadership? I just pointed out a couple of the things they have been in complete control of that are just plain disasters. Where's the positive? Bigger government? Huge spending increases? What kind of leadership have they shown? That's just an honest and fairly simple question.
Posted by: wntrrn

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 04:57 PM

Never voted for Shrub and didn't vote for McSame. I'd just like to see the people get their government back.
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 05:36 PM

Actually we had a surplus in this state under a dem and the reps whined about it. And now that it's a deficit they are whining about that too. wtf.

It's not so much the Dems it's the fact that the reps can't seem to come up with an appealing candidate who appeals to the masses.
Posted by: Irie

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 08:26 PM

For the record you invited me to STFU first.

Not something I recommend when Im on my 3rd cup of coffee and you post something that makes you an easy target.
Posted by: Pugnacious

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 08:38 PM

I think if the Rep's would find someone that didn't look like a person that would butter you up with sweet nothing's whispered in your ear about how he was going to save you from falling in the pit of financial ruin as you stood on the edge right before he turned his slicked back hair wearing azz on you and gave you a reverse horse kick in your face while reached out for him, they might have a reasonable chance at offing the money wasting governors that blow half a state's money on unsupported, smelly like turds on a hotplate projects like light railways to nowhere.
Posted by: Pugnacious

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 11/26/08 09:36 PM

HAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: alanmikkelsen

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/05/08 11:37 AM

Liberals constantly complain that conservatives are trying to impose their cultural vision on the rest of the country. In contrast, they themselves only care about the "real" issues of class and economics. Liberals argue that middle-class GOP voters have been hoodwinked by Republican strategists pushing manufactured "values" issues. Their argument boils down to say that to disagree with the left about the nature of economic self-interest is a form of brainwashing or dementia.

But are liberals and leftists really dedicated to economic justice rather than divisive issues like gay marriage or partial-birth abortion? If you look closely, you'll see that liberals object to "values issues" in politics only when they expose liberal weaknesses. When liberals are on the defensive, they use socialistic arguments to delegitimize the oppositions cultural agenda. When conservatives have the upper hand on a cultural issue, liberalism is all about "solving prolems" for the average Joe, about paychecks and helth care. But on offense, it's about racial quotas, mainstreaming gay culture, scrubbing the publicv square of Christianity, and a host of explicitly cultural ambitions.

The simple fact of the matter is this: liberals are the aggressors in the culture wars. Why this should seem a controversial point is somewhat baffling. It is manifestly clear that traditionalists are defending their way of life against the so-called forces of progress. When feminist groups finally persuaded the courts to force the Virginia Military Institute to accept women, who was the aggressor? Whose values were being imposed? Which side's activists boast of being "agents of change"? My point is not that the forces of change are always wrong. Far from it. My point is that the left is dishonest when it pretends that it is not in the business of imposing its values on others.

One piece of advice to the left: Try thinking, not drinking.

P.S. I assume this will engender all the intelligent responses from KK, Irie, et.al. such as STFU, don't let the door hit you on the ass, etc. Lot's of articulate intelligence there, on the left.
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/05/08 11:52 AM

Quote:
It is manifestly clear that traditionalists are defending their way of life against the Constitutional rights of others


Fixed.
Posted by: alanmikkelsen

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/05/08 12:11 PM

OOOPs, forgot the famously articulate and that paragon of liberal intelligence, Dan S: Fixed
Posted by: GreenRiver

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/05/08 12:23 PM

I didn't read all of this, but just remembered Mike posted some bikini pics on it long ago.

Mike, How about some more? what da ya think?
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/05/08 12:28 PM

Alan,

I bet if you stomp your feet and hold your breath, the liberals will stop bothering you in just a few minutes.
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/05/08 02:35 PM

Good that you read Alan. Can we add plagerism to your "I'm a real homophobic, torturing, murdering, self enriching, anti-freedom, christian thief who cheats on my wife with other men" resume?

Here's a book review of Jonah Goldberg:

http://bostonreview.net/BR33.3/mattson.php

Closer to the end, he states, “The simple fact of the matter is this: liberals are the aggressors in the culture wars.”

Blah bitty blah blah blah. You nut jobs had it all and you f'd it away. get over it.

Is that the response you were looking for?
Posted by: alanmikkelsen

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/05/08 05:23 PM

Well, since you like Jonas Goldberg so much, how about this for your reading enjoyment:

An ugly attack on Mormons
The religious group has been the target of a campaign by liberal supporters of same-sex marriage.
Jonah Goldberg
December 2, 2008
» Discuss Article (534 Comments)

Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice, working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife's purse and then the man's wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter's piggy bank and pinch every penny. "We need it for the Wall Street bailout!" they exclaim.

No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?

No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. "Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!" says the blond one with a toothy smile. "We're here to take away your rights." The Mormon zealots yank the couple's wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.

As the thugs leave, one says to the other, "That was too easy." His smirking comrade replies, "Yeah, what should we ban next?" The voice-over implores viewers: "Say no to a church taking over your government."

Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.

The third ad, however, was real. It was broadcast throughout California on election day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.

What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?

Nope.

This newspaper, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial saying that the "hard-hitting ad" was too little, too late.

The upshot seemed to be that if the pro-gay-marriage forces had just flooded the airwaves with more religious slander, things would have turned out better.

At a pro-gay-marriage rally in Los Angeles after the vote, chants of "Mormon scum!" were reported. Envelopes containing white powder have been sent to Mormon temples in California and Utah; vandals hit other temples. Lists of businesses to boycott -- essentially Mormon blacklists -- have sprung up on the Internet. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned because of pressure after it was revealed he gave $1,000 to a pro-Proposition 8 group.

It's amazing. Hollywood liberals, who shout "McCarthyism!" as a first resort, see nothing wrong with this. If Jews were attacked in this way for giving too much money to a political cause, Barbra Streisand would already have a French passport.

Never mind that Proposition 8 carried nearly every demographic slice of voters. Put aside the fact that the Catholic Church and scores of other Christian churches supported it too. Discount the inconvenient truth that bans on gay marriage have now passed in 30 states. It's all the Mormons' fault.

The argument is that Mormons used illegitimate power, in this case money, beyond their numerical standing in the population to secure victory for the measure. Golly, wealthy gay liberals would never do anything like that! I bet they're not giving a dime to the legal effort to overturn Proposition 8.

No, it's just that Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.

Traditional religion is the enemy anywhere it runs afoul of complete social acceptance of homosexuality. In New Mexico, a wedding photographer was fined nearly $7,000 for refusing to shoot a gay commitment ceremony. The dating site eHarmony, run by evangelicals, was just bullied by gay activists via the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights into starting up a site for gays. The first 10,000 registrants must get six months free.

It's often lost on gay-rights groups that they and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war. Indeed, they admit to being the "forces of change" and the "agents of progress." They proudly want to rewrite tradition and overturn laws. But whenever they're challenged democratically and peaceably, they instantly complain of being victims of entrenched bigots, even as they adopt the very tactics they abhor.

My own view is that gay marriage is likely inevitable, and won't be nearly the disaster many of my fellow conservatives fear it will be. But the scorched-earth campaign to victory pushed by gay-marriage advocates may well be disastrous, and "liberals" should be ashamed for countenancing it.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/05/08 08:41 PM

What I don't understand is why any group, be it left, right, middle-of-the-road feels that they have the right to tell me how to live. If I am opposed to gay marriage, they I don't have to marry a guy. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is required. What you do is up to you.

The US was founded, at least according to my schooling and reading, on the idea that all men are created equal. I will agree that it has taken us a while to actually live up to that, but we try. As long as I do not actually physically interfere in someone else's life, I should be good to go.

It seems to me that those people, of whatever political or religous persuasion, say that it is "My way or the highway" are really no different than the Islamic zealots we seem to fear so much. What is the difference between a government based on a literal reading of the Koran and a government based on a literal interpretation of the Bible? Both are certainly opposed to the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the other Amendments.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/05/08 09:12 PM

The original posting on this was about the nude bike rides in Seattle. Most posters here see it as a freedom issue. Well, I disagree. How far should freedom go. Should anything go? How would you feel about a teacher whipping out his dick and teaching his kindergartners about Masturbation? How about if he did it from a Float during Macey's Thanksgiving Parade? How about if he did it during the Gay Pride Parade? Sure you can argue that we should expect such during the Pride Parade, but how do you explain it when to people who were unaware the parade was taking place, like a tourist who just happens to be in the area with his Kids?

A bit extreme, but I think as a parent I should have the right to limit what I want my child to be exposed to. The main problem with the nude bike rides is that people were unaware they were going to happen. Kids were playing in the fountain when nudists starting prancing around them. Families were walking together when they were over taken by throngs of naked bikers. At that time they had no choice or Freedom to aviod the issue. Why must it be OK to force others to accept your values over another, especially when the values you are pushing are uncommon and against social norms. I have no problem with nudists or nudist beaches or bike rides or whatever, but I do not want to have to expose my children to them. There are millions of places to prance around nude but to do it in Seattle Center or Downtown Seattle only prove that they are doing so to get attention. Who cares if they do it on a particular beach or on a particular county road were it can easily be avoided. The gay pride parade and Soltice Parade prove that this can go much farther. If we allow it then, why not everywhere?
To insist on pushing your values in my face will get my attention. If they had started prancing around my kids, I would be pissed of too, as most parents would be.
Posted by: ParaLeaks

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/05/08 10:34 PM

Well and responsibly stated. beer
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/06/08 11:23 AM

Krijac and Slab-

The constitution was written to protect the minority, so we all have to live with other people's freedom of expression, unless you vote to limit certain "lifestyle choices" in the public domain.

Good luck. smile
Posted by: Krijack

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/06/08 12:43 PM

Freedom of expression. What does that mean? I feel use of the phrase has gone way past what it means. Should the government be allowed to stop the KKK from having public rallies in which they deomnstrate the best way to make bombs and kill people? Should the Right wing nut jobs be allowed to block the entrances to Planned Parenthood with dead fetuses in their hand? Do you have a problem with Child molesters standing in front of an elementry school ground and masturbating? What about public sex with animals? Should I be able to block Interstate Five in down town Seattle every day from 3:30 to 6:30 to protest the war. What about blasting music at 3 am in front of your house? Maybe you find nothing wrong with an anything goes society, but it is not one I or most people want to live in. I see nothing wrong with drawing reasonable limits. If someone wants to have live animal sex demonstrations, let them do it in a barn in Enumclaw, not in front of my house. Am I trying to install my morals on others? You bet. Everything in this world regarding rights is a balancing act. Germany was in a dilemna regarding the public internet video which showed a man killing and eating a willing victim in an S&M act. Since they were both willing many people felt it was OK. Again, I don't. I don't want to have honor killings because it is their cultural rights. I don't want to see 11 year olds married. So yeah. I do want to impose my morals on others. I think most people agree with me. The level is what is in question. Most of us feel that seattle is starting to push the limits of what is tolerated. It has to stop somewhere doesn't it. Where is the question.
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/06/08 04:50 PM

Here's the rub, though.

You don't have the Constitutional right not to be offended.

You think some dude torching a flag isn't going to offend people? Of course he is.......but it's protected "speech" guaranteed by the Constitution, and even though it's going to offend pratically anyone who sees it, it's his right.

It's the same principle at work here. You very well may be offended, understandable, but that's not a litmus test for laws.

We have courts to determine what is "appropriate" protected expression.........and in this case the courts have ruled that these people have the right to get nekked. So I guess you'll have to learn to deal with it.
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/06/08 06:01 PM

"A bit extreme, but I think as a parent I should have the right to limit what I want my child to be exposed to. The main problem with the nude bike rides is that people were unaware they were going to happen."

You have the right to stay home, block tv channels, etc.
I suppose one could say it's like fishing regs.....it's up to the fisherman to keep abreast of changes. In other words it's up to you to keep abreast of what is going to be happening and where on stuff you wish to avoid.

Like me....I don't go to bars or taverns anymore because I can't stand most drunks. I don't go to Seattle much especially places like Capitol Hill, because I choose not to be around attention seeking freaks....my choice.

"I see nothing wrong with drawing reasonable limits."

We have drawn limits mostly on things that restrict another persons liberty. I don't see you seeing someone nude as restricting your liberty however. It's not as if you were cornered and forced to deal with it. Blocking someones progress via the freeway or a clinic is restricting someones freedom. You get arrested for that.
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/06/08 06:07 PM

Alan, or should I say Larry Craig, you seem to have a real hard on for gays.

Thanks for the laugh on this line:

"No, it's just that Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience. "

The fact is the Mormon church is deemed to be the largest most powerful political lobby in the nation. Almost got a man in the white house. But you spin things however you wish.
Posted by: RowVsWade

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/06/08 06:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Dan S.
We have courts to determine what is "appropriate" protected expression.........and in this case the courts have ruled that these people have the right to get nekked. So I guess you'll have to learn to deal with it.


Really? What court?
Posted by: Krijack

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/07/08 04:43 AM

I cna't believe that people feel any one should have the right to do what ever they want. Dan S., do you really think the courts have ruled that? I would love to see that case. We have all kinds of limits on personal freedom. No one here has a problem with zoning laws do they. Tell you what, I will start running my sled up and down the Hoh, Sol Duc and Bogie and then listen to you all cry about it. What a joke. I have to wear a seat belt, but a bunch of wierdos can run around trying to expose themselves to my kids. Since this behavior, is in your mind, protected, then I guess I can't go anywhere and not expect to have to put up with it. And since it this protection is unlimited, then I can expect to see anything anywhere. Sorry, but I might just move to Utah then. The truth is, I have certain religious and moral beliefs, and I want to live by them the best I can and raise my kids to do the same. You can do otherwise, and I really don't care. But please, let me have the freedom that you so dearly claim to want and limit your perversions to places where I can avoid them. Oh yeah, and don't loose it if you see a christmas tree in the airport.
Posted by: alanmikkelsen

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/07/08 08:20 PM

Originally Posted By: stlhead
Alan, or should I say Larry Craig, you seem to have a real hard on for gays.

Thanks for the laugh on this line:

"No, it's just that Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience. "

The fact is the Mormon church is deemed to be the largest most powerful political lobby in the nation. Almost got a man in the white house. But you spin things however you wish.


Sorry boys and girls, but this isn't about the Mormons. That story is only an example of how intolerant the left is about any view than their own. You all preach tolerance, but if you lose an open, free election, then what is exhibited is intolerance of the highest order. If people don't agree with the left, then off with their heads. I am not preaching riot and sedition against anyone simply because my candidates or issues did not win an election. It's the intolerance of people that preach tolerance that never ceases to amaze me. It almost looks like a psychological disorder. Anyone know how to spell schizophrenia?
Posted by: goharley

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/07/08 09:23 PM

Originally Posted By: alanmikkelsen
Anyone know how to spell schizophrenia?
a-l-a-n-m-i-k-k-e-l-s-e-n

Damn, how hard was that?
Posted by: Oregonian

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/07/08 09:34 PM

Zzzing !
Posted by: alanmikkelsen

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 09:46 AM

Cute, Harley. Right on point, again. I mean if ya can't argue the principle, ya can always zing the messenger. Another intelligent debate point from the brilliant minds of the left. Just to keep this going:



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Goharley said:
Only if those far left fringe groups are the ones that founded the Democratic Party. Since it was Jefferson that founded the party in the late 1700s, are you indentifying him as a leftist?

So the left is intolerant of the right's intolerance. Hmmm, interesting dichotomy. The big difference being the left doesn't try to restrict your rights because of your hate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Cute, but more obsfucation. Study Thomas Jefferson, then move forward and really study Andrew Jackson. Jefferson founded the Democrat-Republican party. Andrew Jackson was clearly the first real Democrat. Thomas Jefferson's party was much more closely aligned with today's conservative principles than the Democrat party has been for 150 years. Andrew Jackson really started the country down the road to nasty political shennanigans. His playbook would read like a typical political playbook today. I love it when the left tries to wrap themselves in Thomas Jefferson's cloak. That's another of the most disingenuous arguments they make.

Specifically, what rights has the right tried to restrict? When was the last time the right was on the streets en masse, threatening churches, political contributors, businesses, little old ladies, and spraying graffitti or performing acts of vandalism after they lost an election?

OOPs, forgot, if you're on the left, that protected free speech. My bad.
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 11:52 AM

"The truth is, I have certain religious and moral beliefs, and I want to live by them the best I can and raise my kids to do the same. You can do otherwise, and I really don't care. But please, let me have the freedom that you so dearly claim to want and limit your perversions to places where I can avoid them. Oh yeah, and don't loose it if you see a christmas tree in the airport."

I don't want to see some guys ass either but I am not advocating arresting people for running around naked. You have freedom right now. You can run around naked too or not. You can choose to look or not. What you want is to restrict others freedom to be in line with your "religious and moral beliefs" and that's a scary slippery slope.
Posted by: Illahee

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 12:34 PM

The problem is very simple.
Anyone who grew up in the 60's and 70's saw plenty of naked people, in fact they undoubtedly dropped trow themselves on occasion.
Thinking that people with no cloths on is some indication of moral decay, just proves your just not that old.
Posted by: willametteriveroutlaw

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 02:30 PM


Originally Posted By: stlhdr1
...my parents were down to earth people and pointed me in the right direction because seeing public nudity as ok, is F'd up........

If your parents instilled in you that seeing naked people "is F'd up" then they were far from "down to earth." [/quote]

Go harley, were you raised in a Hot Boxed VW van just out of curiosity? I'm glad my parents taught me the difference between right and wrong. Not everything is okay there just different mentality.
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 02:53 PM

Quote:
Not everything is okay there just different mentality.



???
Posted by: goharley

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 03:04 PM

Originally Posted By: alanmikkelsen
Specifically, what rights has the right tried to restrict?
Can two women enjoy the same rights through marriage that a man and woman obtain? Can people without clothes on have the right to freedom of movement in a public park?
Posted by: Pugnacious

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 03:17 PM

Maybe instead, it should be made legal to punch the people in the face if they show up unannounced, naked, and start "prancing" around your kids. I bet they would not do it then. Or atleast they would have some discretion about it and then they would announce themselves. Simple minded? Yes. Effective? Definitely.

I think the funniest thing about all this is that the people that are forcing their ways and ideals on everyone are the same hypocritical pricks that piss and moan about the general society forcing normalcy upon them. Sounds like the little kids in the sand box that keep throwing handfuls of sand at each other because the other did it last.

Feciciousness= fuel for the fire! Lets see how long this can keep going.
Posted by: willametteriveroutlaw

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 04:41 PM

Originally Posted By: goharley
Originally Posted By: alanmikkelsen
Specifically, what rights has the right tried to restrict?
Can two women enjoy the same rights through marriage that a man and woman obtain? Can people without clothes on have the right to freedom of movement in a public park?



Goharley,

Why should 2 women get the right to marry?
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 04:48 PM

Why not?
Posted by: Oregonian

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 04:57 PM

Well for one, the plumbing just don't match up...
Posted by: alanmikkelsen

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 05:00 PM

Originally Posted By: goharley
Originally Posted By: alanmikkelsen
Specifically, what rights has the right tried to restrict?
Can two women enjoy the same rights through marriage that a man and woman obtain? Can people without clothes on have the right to freedom of movement in a public park?


I won't get into the public nudity, as I think it's a bunch of sophmoric individuals clamoring for attention and I don't want to dignify that. As far as the right restricting marriage, I'm under the impression that a majority of people, including blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Mormons, etc., all voted in favor of proposition 8 in California. Are those all rightists? These are these same people who elected Barack Obama, in many instances. Seems to me like this was a broad cross section of the population who decided they wanted to protect traditional marriage. I don't think anyone voted to take away any right.

So it boils down to this: Is this an attack by the right on civil unions or an attack by the left on traditional marriage? I'm just not convinced that I've seen much from the mainstream right that is trying to take established rights away from anyone. What I have seen in the public forum is a lot of vicioius anger directed at people who exercised their right to vote about something they felt needed to be preserved, traditional marriage. In fact, this is the second time it's been voted on in California. The left didn't like the first vote, so they sued to have it overturned, probably the same with the current vote.

Bottom line: Creed of the left---Let the will of the people be done, until it doesn't meet with our goals and criteria. Agree with us and you're enlightened, disagree and you're a bigot, facist or both.

Not much room for intelligent discourse within those parameters.
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 05:10 PM

"Well for one, the plumbing just don't match up..."

So you only get married to produce kids? Should all marriages that fail to produce a child be null and void?
Posted by: goharley

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 05:33 PM

Originally Posted By: alanmikkelsen
...an attack by the left on traditional marriage?
Whose traditional marriage? The ones spelled out in the bible that accepted plural marriages? Or the ones by Joseph Smith that preached the same? Or the traditional marriages of today that are more out of convienence until one spouse is tired of the other, and then man tears apart that which God has joined together? Is that the value you put on your "traditional" marriage; that you can do something gays and lesbians cannot?
Posted by: willametteriveroutlaw

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 05:35 PM

Originally Posted By: alanmikkelsen

Bottom line: Creed of the left---Let the will of the people be done, until it doesn't meet with our goals and criteria. Agree with us and you're enlightened, disagree and you're a bigot, facist or both.

Not much room for intelligent discourse within those parameters.


That is truly spot on!
Posted by: alanmikkelsen

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 05:36 PM

Originally Posted By: stlhead
"

So you only get married to produce kids? Should all marriages that fail to produce a child be null and void?


Is that an attempt at some sort of intelligent debate, or do you really know how foolish that sounds?

OOPs, forgot, more enlightenment from the left, I'm sure.

I know several young couples, who I admire greatly, who have adopted two or more children, since they are unable to have any on their own. And before you ask, these are children from mixed marriages or different races, all adopted from inner cities here in the U.S. Loving parents and wonderful children.

But I know that doesn't probably count for much, since they are also 'conservative' young couples. That means there is no way they will be able to find enlightenment, I guess.
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 05:37 PM

Ya know Alan, I think if they put up a vote to bring back slavery you'd spin it that a vote against would be an attack on the traditional right to own slaves.
You really are obsessed with gay issues though.
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 05:40 PM

"But I know that doesn't probably count for much"

Doesn't count for squat Alan. It's their lives their "CHOICE". That whole freedom thing is amazing isn't it?
Posted by: alanmikkelsen

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 05:43 PM

Harley said:
"Is that the value you put on your "traditional" marriage;....."

No the value I put on my traditional marriage is 36 years of married life and 40 years of dating the most wonderful, intelligent, beautiful woman in the world. I put the value of three children, with great spouses and five grandchildren on my "traditional" marriage. I could go on..........
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 05:44 PM

Creed of the right "states rights".....oh wait you can't legalize pot, oh wait you can't allow marriage, oh wait you don't have a right to die.
Posted by: Oregonian

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 05:46 PM

I thought you were argueing for the piece of paper designating approval from the govt, and bringing certain legal/tax benefits..........not just the right to live together forever and do whatever they want to do in the sack.

The gay marriage issue is about the piece of paper...right ?
Posted by: alanmikkelsen

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 05:47 PM

Originally Posted By: stlhead
Ya know Alan, I think if they put up a vote to bring back slavery you'd spin it that a vote against would be an attack on the traditional right to own slaves.
You really are obsessed with gay issues though.


I really don't have a problem with gays. My son rents to a gay person, I've had a lot of social interaction with them and we've always come away friends.


Gay issues are just a microcosm of the left's intolerance for anything but their agenda.

Actually, now that you've brought up slavery, you've really hit a nerve with me. Frankly, I regard abortion as the civil rights issue of our time. If you look at the historical arguments to preserve slavery, they are almost word for word the same arguments used to preserve abortion rights. I would invite you to do some research on the language used to protect slavery and compare it to the language used to protect abortion.
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 05:56 PM

"civil rights issue of our time"
Really? Civil rights itself wasn't a bigger issue? Or weren't you alive then?
Posted by: stlhead

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 06:03 PM

"The gay marriage issue is about the piece of paper...right ?"

Don't know. Ask someone who is gay. I wouldn't ask the religious right though.

The only legal benefits I can think of are in lines with inheritance/retirement and medical decisions...again what do I care?

And there are no tax benefits. In fact until a few years ago you were penalized tax wise for marriage.
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 06:09 PM

Originally Posted By: alanmikkelsen
I really don't have a problem with gays people. My son rents to a gay person, I've had a lot of social interaction with them and we've always come away friends.


There now. If you truly had no problem with gay people, you would not mention that they are gay, just that they are people.

As far as abortion goes, it is a religious issue. If your faith does not allow it, so be it. Please refer to the legal notice attached:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ron Paul is anti-abortion, yet as a constitutionalist, he stated he would not interfere with states' rights to allow abortion. I appreciate his ability to set aside his personal beliefs to honor the constitution.
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: stlhead
Creed of the right "states rights".....oh wait you can't legalize pot, oh wait you can't allow marriage, oh wait you don't have a right to die.


I heard some great history on the radio this morning positing that prohibition was repealed for financial reasons. The government was making $500 million per year on alcohol taxation in 1920 when prohibition started. When it was repealed in 1933 during the great depression, income tax revenues had fallen 46%. If the economy goes the way some are predicting, NORML might get their dream come true!
Posted by: goharley

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 06:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Oregonian
The gay marriage issue is about the piece of paper...right ?
If that piece of paper guarantees them the same legal rights and privileges of hetero married couples, then yeah, I guess you could reduce it to that.
Posted by: Illahee

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 06:46 PM

Why should two women, or two men get the right to marry?
Those same two men or women, can legally adopt children, so they should be afforded all rights and privileges given to a man and a women that get married, to say otherwise would punish the children.
Posted by: Oregonian

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 07:04 PM

Would it be okay for a man, or a woman, to marry a dog, or a horse ?
Posted by: willametteriveroutlaw

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Mikespike

There now. If you truly had no problem with gay people, you would not mention that they are gay, just that they are people.


Mike,

Whats the proper terminology then.. People who have penises and like them too, Fairy, Cocksucker, WTF? How do you describe someone who has an alternative lifestyle without labeling?
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 07:10 PM

Is there a dog or horse giving its consent for you to marry it, Oregonian, or are you just waving that red herring around to show it off?
Posted by: Oregonian

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 07:30 PM

Just wondering if there was a line or not...
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 07:46 PM

I'm sure there IS a line...............just not sure where.
Posted by: Illahee

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 08:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Oregonian
Would it be okay for a man, or a woman, to marry a dog, or a horse ?


To my knowledge dogs and horses can't adopt children in Oregon, not sure about Wash.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 10:19 PM

In California the Gays right issue is just about a piece of paper, as they already have domestic partnership laws that give all the other rights. I really find it funny that most people who are argueing about the sanctity of Marriage really have no problem with no fault divorce, but that is another story. The truth is, the California conservatives do have a right to feel this is about making homosexuality acceptable, as there is no other reason for the issue to come be fought. Millions of dollars wasted on people trying to make a stupid point. The state should just stop issueing marriage licenses, switch strictly to domestic partnerships, leave marriage to the churches, and the issue goes away. But I guess that is too easy.
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/08/08 10:24 PM

Quote:
The state should just stop issueing marriage licenses, switch strictly to domestic partnerships, leave marriage to the churches, and the issue goes away. But I guess that is too easy.


+1
Posted by: goharley

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/09/08 12:36 AM

The irony is that conservatives can't seem to get gay sex out of their heads so they want to stop gays from having it all together. Yet they fail to accept the simple fact that allowing two people to marry is the surest way of stopping them from having sex.

Hell, every married man knows that....












don't they?
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/09/08 10:02 AM

Originally Posted By: willametteriveroutlaw
Originally Posted By: Mikespike

There now. If you truly had no problem with gay people, you would not mention that they are gay, just that they are people.


Mike,

Whats the proper terminology then.. People who have penises and like them too, Fairy, Cocksucker, WTF? How do you describe someone who has an alternative lifestyle without labeling?



Don't label anyone. People are people.

If you follow this line of thinking far enough, it comes down to being offended by homosexual sex, and you have the right to be offended. I don't care what other people do in private as long as they are mutually consenting adults. Personally, I think about fishing all the time and how I used to do it a lot more when I was younger! wink rofl
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/09/08 10:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Oregonian
Would it be okay for a man, or a woman, to marry a dog, or a horse ?


C'mon people, nobody is gonna play the Enumclaw card with this one?
Posted by: alanmikkelsen

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/09/08 10:21 AM

Well, I have to make one last post before I bid you all adieu, to go fishing for the next six days. This has been a pleasant diversion, tying knots in knickers for the past few days.

The argument that the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority completely misses the point in Proposition 8. Our rights come from the people, not the courts. The only body with the power to grant the right to same-sex marriage is the people, acting through the legislature or a ballot initiative.

Therefore, the "right" to gay marriage created by the California Supreme Court last a May was never a legitimate right. A right to something is not legitimate unless it is granted by the body that has the power to grant such rights.

Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education did not end segregation, not even close. Congress did, through the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

American history shows that a right is secure only when it has been ratified by the people, through legislative acts or constitutional amendments.

Whether gay marriage threatens traditional marriage is not a judgment that can be made by the courts. Gay marriage supporters may be right that gay marriage poses no threat to traditional marriage, and that gay couples should be allowed to adopt and be foster parents. Fine, make those arguments--but these kinds of arguments are properly addressed to the legislature, or the people in a statewide ballot initiative. It is the function of legislatures to make those kinds of value judgments, not the courts.

All states also ban polygamous marriages and incestuous marriages. Most of those kinds of marriages would also only involve consenting adults. But the state has the power to ban them because a majority of the people have judged those kinds of marriages to be immoral, or harmful to society.

Is gay marriage the moral equivalent of polygamy? That is essentially the issue being raised here. And when a majority of the people of a particular state, and a majority of the American people, have made a clear judgement on this issue, as they have, the courts should give deference to this decision.

Therefore, the only way Proposition 8 or similar initiatives can be legitimately overturned is through another ballot initiative granting the right to gay marriage. Have at it, folks.

I'll check in next Monday, just to see how many panties have been wadded and how many knickers knotted here. For now, it's off to fish! (I do have open seats on Thursday and Friday, if anyone cares to fish Idaho's Clearwater River for big B-runs.)
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/09/08 10:52 AM

Alan-

First, knock 'em dead on your trip!

Second, forget the moral issue of Prop. 8 down here, legally it would amend the state constitution, which can only be done by the state legislature.

Third, the first amendment says the government will not establish a religion - gay marriage is a religious issue, therefore, it is protected by the first amendment. If you want a non-secular style of government, look to the hated middle-east to see what religious run governments can do for you. I hear that there are no homosexuals in Iran rofl

Be sure to post pics from your trip, or else, I think... smile
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/09/08 05:22 PM

Hankster-

As always, language is key to legal BS. The argument is that Prop 8 is a revision of the state constitution, not an amendment, and requires the legislature to act first.

Gay marriage is a religious issue - I haven't seen, heard or read about any agnostics or atheists protesting gay marriage, yet. The US constitution does not ban gay marriage and an omission is just as binding as the printed stuff (it also says nothing about marijuana or prostitution, for what it's worth). The issue is left to the states, as long as states' rights still exist, which brings us back to Prop. 8 and what it's legal status/definition turns out to be.

I'm not holding my breath or losing any sleep either way smile
Posted by: Vidiotic

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/09/08 06:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Mikespike
Originally Posted By: willametteriveroutlaw
Originally Posted By: Mikespike

There now. If you truly had no problem with gay people, you would not mention that they are gay, just that they are people.


Mike,

Whats the proper terminology then.. People who have penises and like them too, Fairy, Cocksucker, WTF? How do you describe someone who has an alternative lifestyle without labeling?



Don't label anyone. People are people.

If you follow this line of thinking far enough, it comes down to being offended by homosexual sex, and you have the right to be offended. I don't care what other people do in private as long as they are mutually consenting adults. Personally, I think about screwing all the time and how I used to do it a lot more when I was younger! wink rofl
Fixed it for ya!
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/09/08 06:08 PM

Zzzzing. rofl
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/09/08 06:54 PM

C'mon! My profile states that I'm married.

I really appreciate a good zing though thumbs
Posted by: Mikespike

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/10/08 09:56 AM

Hankster!

I love playing devil's advocate. smile Prop 8 will also be contested under the equal rights act. You know what it's like here, it's only a matter of time before Prop 8 is rescinded on some legal procedure.

I'll go out on a limb again and say that gay marriage is probably less offensive than the public nudity issue that started this thread - it won't be in the face of people like the attention seeking extroverts. It will just be another feature and benefit of living in California! rofl
Posted by: alanmikkelsen

Re: Seattle the new San Francisco - 12/15/08 02:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Mikespike
Alan-

First, knock 'em dead on your trip!

Second, forget the moral issue of Prop. 8 down here, legally it would amend the state constitution, which can only be done by the state legislature.

Third, the first amendment says the government will not establish a religion - gay marriage is a religious issue, therefore, it is protected by the first amendment. If you want a non-secular style of government, look to the hated middle-east to see what religious run governments can do for you. I hear that there are no homosexuals in Iran rofl

Be sure to post pics from your trip, or else, I think... smile



Ya mean like this?: