04-12-2022, 07:58 PM
(04-12-2022, 10:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: It was fixed after being sponsored by multiple people who I assume didn't read the bill? Anyway, once that was fixed YOU brought up the anti-gay part of the bill.
Correct
Quote:To which I replied that yes, the entire bill is bad and maybe it can be stopped with further
Then you've spent days asking why I'm now talking about something that the age problem in the OP. After you brought it up.
Incorrect.
You're misrepresenting this entire discussion. I haven't once asked you why you're talking about the anti-gay part of the bill. You took the time to repost multiple things that I said but decided to ignore what you said that started this whole back and forth in the first place.
I was specifically concerned with what you meant when you said "doesn't change the fact that it was originally ommitted". That's specifically what I was asking about. Your "argument" about the anti gay portion was not what I was responding to. I asked you to explain what your point was in pointing out that "the bill was only amended because of public opinion" to which your response to that was basically "because people need to be reminded of what they did, then we can move on".
How could I move on from that when you initially never actually explained your previous position regarding your comments in regard to the bill being amended? Saying, "because people need to be reminded of what they did" is not an argument and does not explain your post prior to that in which you said "Doesn't change that it was omitted when the bill was drafted and sponsored by the gop".
Quote:You've asked if the sponsors and authors of the bill should be "tarred and feathered" and I responded again that it was still a bad bill.
Then you said "this isn't about the rest of the bill"...and you "were more than willing to move on"...but keep asking for a response.
Yeah, for the reasons I just stated above. I precisely said "It's not about the rest of the bill" because your response to me from the beginning was about the amendment of the bill and then the 2nd part of that exact same post was a segue into the rest of the bill, to which I was saying "Well hold on, what did that first comment mean?".
Quote:I feel compelled to post what I feel like. Maybe you have some sort of proof that I have defended Democrats doing the same thing? Or perhaps you just don't like it when republicans are called out for anything?
I used Democrats as an example, but you seem to have no problem squaring up against the GOP with every chance you get. You couldn't even accept the fact that the bill was amended and felt so "compelled" that you had to respond to me with "That doesn't change that the bill was wrong in the first place".
Quote:Your singular obsession with the age component and how *I* shouldn't talk about the rest of the bill even when you asked me about it is a bit odd.
Singular obsession? It's literally what the thread is about. Please point me in the direction of which post in this thread mentioned anything about the anti-gay angle until I brought it up? And again, I didn't say you couldn't talk about the rest of the bill, I was just specifically asking what your response to me meant in regards to the bill being amended. If you're going to frame the discussion, at least frame it properly.
I posted that the whole pedophile thing was just typical media/political dramatics.
You responded to me word for word with....
"Yeah public opinion finally caught up with them...lol. Doesn't change that it was omitted when the bill was drafter and sponsored by the gop"."
You then continued by saying....
"And yes it is also an attempt to get around "gay marriage" but specifically only applying it to "one man" and "one woman". But we already knew the gop would do that as it was in the bill originally.
It is just another law, based on religion, looking for a problem to fix that didn't exist and blew up in their face."
Which I find funny because that part of your post actually seems pretty dismissive to the anti gay discussion but you're now acting as if that was something even worth discussing.
At the end of the day, what you're not understanding about all of this is that I was never asking you to talk about the rest of the bill. I was always asking you to explain what you meant in your first response to me in regards to the amendment of the bill.
