User: dorcsssc

The very TITLE of this poll makes it clear it's not a genuine poll. It's like taking a poll on WHY you should be beaten before being certain that there's a reason you should be beaten.

So the bias is hopelessly pervasive. "Theo-fascist", for example: that term just doesn't even exist hardly anywhere (except here). This is the first I've heard of it. Now I know what the term "theo" means, and I know what a fascist is [you obviously don't, and/or are in deep denial about the fact our presidents are elected. George Bush was ... twice]. so at least I can BEGIN to project how warped your mind is by combining the two terms. I suppose that'd mean somebody who dictates his beliefs in God upon you - - which is obviously ridiculous, as nobody can impose a belief upon anybody anyway. Practising Christians should be especially sensitive about that. Christ himself was. I suspect your problems, like mine, lie with the MALpracticing Christians.

I believe I can oppose homosexual "marriages" without being a "Theofascist". I have my reasons (damn good ones, I believe): but how am I to believe you'll ever consider them serioualy if I'm pre-labelled as a "theo-fascist".

It is so sad that you cannot even concede the very means by which you actually came into existence.

Actually, the ruling by a court that ANYTHING is an "untruth" is already fundamentally flawed. It is the gateway by which the government can end up censoring anything it decided should be ruled an "untruth".

(Example: what woman can do [never mind even considering whether they can or cannot do it better than men] or should be entitled to (owning property, choices in marriage, divorce, abortions, visitations, whatever) could easily be simply ruled an "untruth" in Islamic cultures or courts].

Courts deciding what is "untruth" is merely the back-door way of them deciding what IS "truth". Even Pontius Pilate had enough sense to steer clear of that one.

This is how they can (will?) circumvent/obviate your Constitutional protections of religion, speech, and every other form of expression. Courts must (and we must insist) continue to be in the business of LAW and not "truth" (or his recently-allowed brother, untruth)

A good example of this was the sham trials in the original "Planet of the Apes" movies, remember? The defense team wasn't allowed to introduce rather obvious matters of fact regarding their unique human specimin because pointing out the undeniable facts meant also breaking laws by stating manifestly "untrue" things.

Holocaust denial must NOT be banned: it must be allowed to make its case so that its flaws can be exposed. Key Allied generals (Eisenhower? Marshal? Not sure) in WWII demanded copious documentation of the holocaust horrors, because "someday, somebody somewhere is going to claim all this never happened". (I remember the exact quote, just not which general said it)

You don't bring down a house of cards by banning playing cards. Even a regular card game isn't won by banning the opposition. Genuine and complete victory is only achieved if (1) you first let them deal the deck, and (2) beat them fair and square.

'Nuff said.

Since a reasonable definition of a "costume" would most plausibly be clothing (make-up, and other garb) whose combined effect is to project a role, function, or identity, the fact that even the judges were fooled about the man's gender makes it rather obvious that he had the best costume.

Unless gender misrepresentation was clearly prohibited in advance, apparently the judges were merely being offended that the cheerleader costume was, in fact, TOO GOOD an entry.

I think Clint's too old for the job; not in the sense of him being inherently too old for its duties, but because I believe that, as Vice-President, he'd be exposed to such much bureaucratic crap that he'd simply puke too often for his system to be able to handle it. A man's esophogus at that age can only take so much.