wavydaby

But the software can be made to exclude that.

Its not protection. Its being discrete. Like not saying "I f'ed your daughter" to your father in law, but saying, "hey, we are going to have a baby" Protection would be making the r and r forum special access

I participate quite often in the r and r section. However, I dont think that our bi***ing and moaning should be brought to the focal point like it is.

Thats a fire fight that happend before you joined. You dont wanna know... trust me.

Right now. looks like its running down the middle. However, its night time. this may be picked up more in the day.

All I would like is to see it made better. Its very disheartening to read an r and r post that goes like this: "im new here and saw this thread, why is this here.. isnt this a lapband forum?"

See that is my point. most political party representative toe the party line completely. IF they dont, they run the risk of being "shunned" buy there party. Gone are the days where the politicians are not sheep for the party. Why cant we get one that says, "yes I am a xxx, but sometimes the yyy's make good points" None of them do that anymore. Not the high ranking ones anyway.

The software is not making choices, but the software can be made to make a choice.. show last post except that in R&R

Again, Lapband board. Abortion is not part of getting a lapband. I like the R&R section. Give me a good reason why it has to be "shown off" though?????

Why do we need to add subterfuge to how we feel? "liberal Republican" Why can't we just say, "ya know, I m for XXX issue, but the ZZZ issue, well, Im totally against my party line" . Most of the time you do, you are pegged as being un-whateverican.

I love debates too, but why does it have to be "all out there"??????

So, ok, You're member of one of the people being talked about on the R&R threads. (A Mormon, a Homesexual, A person abused by a pro-boylove person, someone who is against abortion, a Christian, who ever) You come to LBT because you are thinking about getting a band or have one and need support and this is the main link that google posted. You look over the boards and you see the last 5 posted items, and one of them is one of those R&R threads, I'm gonna wager, its going to give you a very negative view of this board.

It figures, I thought that this suggestion would end in an, "do or damned free-speech" arguement. Yes, its in R&R. But first and foremost, this is an LBT board. And I know a lot of people who are upset by the stuff that goes on here and dont want to see it. AT ALL. I read what I want to read. I dont read what I dont want to read. As a lapband board, I dont think that the first 5 threads (and some times that happens) are on NOT LBT related things.

Dang, how many more times do I have to say what I already did? Be gay, be happy being gay, get married, adopt kids. I dont care. Its your right! And personally I think, and many of my Christian friend vehemently dissagree with me on this, I think if a Gay person has let a good life and believes in God and that one sin keeps him outta heaven, the Hetero's better watch out, because there are a lot of sins on that "keep you outta heaven list" just as bad. Im also pro-choice. I also believe in evolution. And I believe in God. But darn it, I just dont like the wording on the bill.

I think that the man may have some rights in this. If a man wants a woman to have an abortion and she doesnt, he can not make her. Make laws available that if he requested this and she denied that he can waive parental right and responsiblity, ie child support. If she wants one and he wants the child. Its gets very grey. My body and my right. Adoptions can get very harrowing due to the father rights. Its again, not cut and dry.

Well, as seeing as I can no longer post anything more that I dislike about this bill and it has nothing to do with Gays, and the non Christians keep throwing that in my face, I suppose we have nothing left to debate.

As seeing as recently as this afternoon, a newbie was potentially turned off by the board due to the rants and raves section because the thread title was in the top 5, I too wish that this particular part of the forum was not listed in the top 5.

I guess it would be impossible to remove God from the discussion of this bill?

Maybe thats what is the problem with the abortion debate. People confuse terminology of biology with what happens and use that to form opinions. Conception: When egg and sperm meet(fertilization) Implantation: When the fertilized egg imbeds itself in to the uterine wall. It is one thing to say that you think that abortion is "ok" until implantation has occurred, another to say that its not ok at conception. And again, the IUD works to prevent implantation, after fertilization has already occured.

There ARE people who do specifically target the military. Also, if a person of a minority killed a person of a majority due to "hate", it could not be called a hate crime See CNN about the group of terrorist who were targeting the military. Also.. more information I have found: (1) It is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment requires that all citizens be given equal treatment under the law. Hate crimes laws create special classes of victims and do not treat all victims fairly. (2) It could ultimately lead to prosecution for thoughts and restrictions on free speech and religious liberty. Although H.R. 1592 prosecutes only “acts of violence” and does not prosecute expressions or opinions, it opens the door to examining the thoughts of not only a criminal, but everyone with whom he may have come into contact. An overzealous prosecutor could turn a criminal prosecution into a political correctness prosecution. Broadly written hate crimes bills in other states and countries have been used to restrict the freedom of politically incorrect and unpopular speech. This bill could be used to advance the politically correct agenda in this country by providing greater protections for certain classes of people. Future legislation could expand these protections and place restrictions on religious liberty and free speech. http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/National/2007/HR1592/default.asp

Well, it was the inferrance that since I was against this bill, i was a hater. So, only if your disclamer says that Christians who are not infavor of this bill are not all haters. Unless, of course, you still think that way about me.

Because I am not infavor of one flawed bill being or not being passed I am now against gays? Oh please. Go find my other posts where I am totally in favor of gay marriage and I'm a Christian. That is a big ole brush you got there, you're just as bad any other bigot.

My arguement stands. I personally do not care if you agree with me or not. That is what living here is all about. I believe my way, you believe yours. Your argument about the lottery is a red herring and has not logical flow. When the original hate crimes laws where put out there, people wanted it more inclusive. So, now, we have to add more, and in coming years, add another. If they would fix it now, we would not have to waste time and money to keep adding groups of people. Also from Wiki: "Hate crime laws are intended to protect minority groups, yet any majority can be easily divided into subsets that are minorities" Also "Following this line of reasoning, violence targeting women, e.g. rape, should also be considered a hate crime against women. However, there is still virtually no recognition of women's rights in this regard." There are flaws in this bill.

The detriment is this. If a "hate crime" against someone is committed who is not part of the "special minority" is not considered a hate crime. What then, is this then, when a group of people, push down and kick a person and call them horrid names only because they are fat? Is that not a hate crime? Is the fat person not a "worthy enough" minority to have that extra penalty enforced? Either they COVER ALL SITUATIONS WHERE A HATEFULL CRIME OCCUR OR THEY DONT COVER ANY OF THEM. I would fully approve of a bill where anyone was a target of a hate crime, no matter what the hate was, is covered. But still is the case that if someone is that dam ignorant, they will do a hate crime anyway. Oh and dont tell me that crap doesnt happen, because it sure as hell happened to me. Equal coverage for all people!!!

Would you read the whole sentence PLEASE?! If the existing laws out there are not going to deter someone who already has it in thier head to destroy someone, a measley 10 addition to a crime is not going to stop them And I still stand by 95% of any violent crime is already fettered with some kind of hate. And in 20 years, instead of ENFORCING laws we already have to punish people for commiting a crime (No parole, no deferred sentencing for violent crime) we will probably have to go back and add another group we "missed" And another And another And another.