Posts made by raphjd

I've been with Sky for years and I have to keep resetting my "allow adult sites" thing every few months.  It's fucking annoying.  The law says I only have to do it once but can change it at any time, at least the last time I looked it did.

I'm from the generations, as mentioned in a previous post, where "queer" was nothing but a hate-filled word.  I can't stand that word.

Skyrim Remastered, about 30 minutes ago.

I just bought the remastered version and it's still downloading.

I played the original version.

I play on and off.

I'm not really a fan of the fact that there is no matchmaking for the more advanced content, since there is no chat system.

I agree with marriage tests when it applies to immigration, but not in general.

In the post-election interview Trump did with CBS, he said that gay marriage was "set in stone" as the law of the land and had no intention of trying to change that.

Also, since the US Supreme Court rules that marriage equality was a constitutional issue (equal under the law), it would take a constitutional amendment to change get rid of gay marriage.  It would take between 7 and 14 years for that to happen, based on previous constitutional amendments.

The sad part is, liberals are the worst when it comes to voting.  Proof of this is the US election, Brexit and Houston.  Everyone thought they didn't need to vote because others would ensure the election would go their way.  If all the rioters actually bothered to vote, Hillary would have won.

Well, it looks like there's hope on the horizon.  If all goes well, it should be on the shelves in less than 10 years.

@tempbo:

Reading this and other political boards has really opened my eyes. I used to believe that, because of the things we've been through individually and as a group, gay people were a little better than average. A little smarter, a little braver, a little more aware. Now I see that we really are just as prone to the same stupidity and blindness as everyone else, clearly evidenced here by every mouth-breathing Trump voter. Congratulations, my fellow gays: you just as dumb and self destructive as straight people. Thanks for disillusioning me that way.  :nutki:

:police: Please watch the flaming.  :police:

Ok, so you don't read any of your links.  That explains why you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Popper's comments make sense.

The built-in forum PM system had a security flaw (don't ask, I'm not a techie) so it had to be shut off to protect our members.

Ok, I removed the sample warning.  Don't worry, it has no effect on your forum use.  I just wanted you to see what happens when you get one.

Forum and site (torrent based) warnings use different systems.  It's been absolutely ages since I did site warnings, so maybe it's a part of that from the last site upgrade???????  But why would it have my name attached????

I have absolutely no idea what this is about.   I haven't given you any warnings on your account.

I'll give you a "sample" warning so you can see what it looks like.

The warnings have different colors, going to red, depending on how serious the level is.

@Loki100:

@raphjd:

The USSC rarely reverses it's decision and it's never done it to strip a group of their rights.    And as with all supreme court cases, it takes years to wind their way through the courts and by then too much time would have passed.

You are getting hysterical over something that has worse odds than winning the lottery.

Your entire argument is idiotic on its face. Trump has outright stated that overturning Roe v. Wade is a litmus test for his judicial nominations. So yeah, his whole goal is to overturn a supreme court decision that would strip rights from millions of people.

The fact that it would take years is why it will likely happen. RBG, Kennedy, and Breyer aren't all going to stick around waiting for a more ideologically friendly president and senate to replace them.

And, let's not forget that Supreme Court can rip apart state level ENDAs. Also let's not forget what an SC can do with RFRA in its back pocket.

We had a chance to secure decades of progress, but instead we now have a tin hat dictator surrounded by anti-gays.

Trump has already said (post-election CBS interview, I think it was) that he considers marriage equality set in stone as law.  He said he has no interest in even trying to undo it.

Roe v Wade can't be viewed in the same way as marriage equality.  Abortion laws affect ALL people that are able to get abortions, not just a subset.

Religious Freedom laws are impossible to enact without hindering believers' rights.  Allowing them to only discriminate against fags will hinder some's religious beliefs against blacks, etc, etc, etc, etc.

@Loki100:

@raphjd:

Some of you people need to stop believing the ultra liberal lies!!!!!!

MARRIAGE EQUALITY IS PART OF US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.   IT WOULD TAKE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THAT.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ARE EXTREMELY HARD TO PASS AND THE PROCESS TAKES YEARS.

Dude, no it wouldn't. All it would take is a sympathetic supreme court. And any supreme court that was willing to overturn Roe v. Wade (which Trump has promised) is willing to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges).

I wouldn't try to lecture people on Constitutional Law when don't seem to be aware of what it is in the first place.

The USSC rarely reverses it's decision and it's never done it to strip a group of their rights.    And as with all supreme court cases, it takes years to wind their way through the courts and by then too much time would have passed.

You are getting hysterical over something that has worse odds than winning the lottery.

Some of you people need to stop believing the ultra liberal lies!!!!!!

MARRIAGE EQUALITY IS PART OF US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  IT WOULD TAKE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THAT.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ARE EXTREMELY HARD TO PASS AND THE PROCESS TAKES YEARS.

UMMM, at about 2:10 he praises Lindsey Graham but claims Trump is a homophobe?!  How fucking clueless is this guy?

Sorry, but he's an idiot and doesn't deserve my time.

Did you just ignore the rest of the article and focused on the brief bit where they said michael brown was unarmed? How about you read it and look at all the sources and statistics they cite and get back to me instead of just rpeating what you said earlier.

Here's some more info on the topic since you don't seem to want to hear any mentions of michael brown.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/12/12152772/rudy-giuliani-black-on-black-crime-police

I'm sorry, but I discount any article that claims that Michael Brown a victim of police brutality.  That narrative has been proven a total lie. All but 2 of the black "witnesses" were proven to be liars in the case.

OK, our black President and black Attorney General (and previous black AG) disagree with you and that biased article.  As the article mentions, they support community policing and have been pumping extra money into it.

I love people that say that we should stop policing black communities because we know within a year you'll be screaming for blood because of massive skyrocketing of crime rates there.

Ultra liberals hate "black on black crime" because it goes against their narrative.  They want everyone to think that everything is racist white on black crime.  Of course, from federal stats, we know that is a load of BS because the worst interracial crime rates are black on white.

So-called "racist ticketing" is bullshit at best.  Every race gets tickets for various things.  Tickets for littering and general trash offenses tend to go to the less educated, it's not a racial thing, except to racists.  Smoking in banned places is another thing the less educated get the majority of tickets for.  Again, it only a race thing to racists.

Loretta Lynch grew up in the racist south and managed to become Attorney General.

It was 20 years ago that we got the first ever whites-only scholarships.  Oddly enough, it was at historically black universities in Alabama. Of course, it was after several lawsuits.  Nobody was willing to give whites their own scholarships without a fight.

When looking at poor students (qualify for free school lunches), white boys do the worst.  This is because girls and racial minorities get subsidies (paid to the schools) to help with their education.  Boys of all races and incomes do worse than girls due to the feminizing the education system in the early 1970s.  There are no student subsidies for being white or a boy.  This issue affects ALL western countries and for the same reasons.

In the UK, the media is required by law to have 35% representation of "visual" minorities, which is 3 times greater than their actual portion of the population.  Other European countries have similar rules.  One example of this crap is the UK's "Being Human".  They had to recast if because 1 white (Russell Tovey), 1 white girl and 1 ethnic guy wasn't diverse enough to meet the rules.  They kept the 1 white guy, but recast to 1 black girl and 1 more obviously ethnic guy.

If you want to cry for someone, think about the reality of the situation.  White males are the most discriminated group under the law in the west.

@cannonmc:

Heavens, haven't you lot got over it yet.

What we need is a good forum administrator to police this so we don't don't have long rambling messages with huge quoted replies 

I take it that that is a shot at me.  I guess I can't voice any opinions.

The difference is that my social justice is provable by facts.

Actually, in many places certain "unacceptable" speech is illegal.  Lot's of places in Europe have criminalized denying the holocaust.  It's illegal to dispute the official version of the holocaust.  You can't even accept the holocaust in general while disputing certain facts of the official history.

Canada is now in the process of criminalizing if you don't use some special snowflake's made up personal pronouns.  We aren't just talking calling someone he or she, but anything they make up and claim as their personal pronouns.

Back in 2013, feminists in Scandinavia tried to ban criticism of feminists/feminism.  I don't know how successful that was.

The EU banned "hate speech" but LGBTs aren't included in that.

In the UK it's illegal to cause offense.

By "free speech" most people refer to the kind granted by the US constitution.

You still haven't answered me.  Why do you need a room full of stuffed toys and Disney films, because of a lecture you have no intent on going to?

Schools are being forced into become echo chambers, not places of learning, by whiny selfish brats.  Thankfully, some universities are now starting to fight back.

TRUE, some MRAs are pigs, but there are only 2 types of feminists; those that hate men and those that do nothing but sit on the sofa.  You will never find a feminist campaign that directly benefits men, or has a negative effect on women, in the name of gender equality.    For example, the RAPE IS RAPE campaign claimed that they wanted ALL rape made illegal.  However, they did not include men being raped by women, even when the woman was in a position of authority, such a prison guard or teacher.  Not surprisingly, they said that women can rape other women.

In several countries, feminists have fought to keep the sex crimes laws biased against men.  This the same with domestic violence laws.  In fact in India, it is legally impossible for a woman to commit a sex crime of domestic violence.

Feminists around the globe are fighting to stop sending women to prison while fighting to make it easier to send men to prison.  In fact, in the west, most universities are losing "due process" for males accused of any sort of sex "crime", even if it would not be a crime in the same town.

In several countries, feminists fought to prevent equalizing the retirement ages. This happened in the UK, but eventually the government got some balls and started the process anyway.  Last I heard is that when I retire in 20 years, women will still get to retire 2 years earlier.

The official UK judge's manual states that women are to be treated with "extra special leniency".  This in both the so-called "equalities" section and the sentencing section.  Where are the feminists who believe in gender equality on this one?

The only gender-neutral sex crime law in the UK is; (paraphrasing) anyone who has sex with a person under the age of 16 is guilty of having sex with a child.    Where are all the gender equality feminists when all these women walk out of court with nothing but a slight slap on the wrist while men go to prison for up to 20 years.