Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 streamdragon wrote:
I think Capt. Jake's point is that this proposal hasn't reached that point just yet, which is supported by this passage in the article:

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

Yep.

There is no way this gets the number of signatures required. To state it already has shows sirlynchmob is about as tolerant as the crap bag lawyer in the article, it is just that his tolerance is for religion. He WANTS it to have the signatures so he can condemn religion/Christianity, and is willing to build a straw man to support his view.

 streamdragon wrote:
I think Capt. Jake's point is that this proposal hasn't reached that point just yet, which is supported by this passage in the article:

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

The scarey part is he's going to get signatures.


http://fox40.com/2015/03/19/sacramento-reacts-to-proposed-sodomite-suppression-act/
So far about 4,000 people have signed on and she says the CA Bar Association is aware of the situation.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:
Amusingly, in response, the 'Intolerant Jackass Act' is being submitted in accordance with all proper procedure to the Cali AG that states:

Any person, herein known as an "Intolerant Jackass," who brings forth a ballot measure that suggests the killing of gays and/or lesbians, whether this measure is called the Sodomite Suppression Act or is known by some other name, shall be required to attend sensitivity training for at least three (3) hours per month for twelve (12) consecutive months. In addition, the offender or "Intolerant Jackass" must donate $5000 to a pro-gay or pro-lesbian organization.

IMO, It should be worded to also apply to the 500,000+ christians voters who signed the proposition to get this to the ballot.

It's not just this one nutjob, it's clearly indicative of his religion.

Also, no one has signed it yet, nor is it certain it would make it that far.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I want it to go through then, when voting is done, we see what districts voted yes, than nuke from sub orbit.

But that will take out the San Andreas Fault and then Lex Luthor will win.

He's from Huntington Beach. He probably just absorbed too much sun while swimming through sewage.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I think Capt. Jake's point is that this proposal hasn't reached that point just yet, which is supported by this passage in the article:

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

The scarey part is he's going to get signatures.


http://fox40.com/2015/03/19/sacramento-reacts-to-proposed-sodomite-suppression-act/
So far about 4,000 people have signed on and she says the CA Bar Association is aware of the situation.

You are aware those 4k people signed a petition to get the crap bag disbarred, not to support the proposition, right?

 Frazzled wrote:


You seem fixated on this. Its like me saying that because one Jew eats some bacon, its clearly indicative of their religion, despite being expressly against it.

It depends. Are we talking Reform Jews?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


You seem fixated on this. Its like me saying that because one Jew eats some bacon, its clearly indicative of their religion, despite being expressly against it.

It depends. Are we talking Reform Jews?

Sorry I can't think anymore. My mind is focused on the glory of bacon.

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I think Capt. Jake's point is that this proposal hasn't reached that point just yet, which is supported by this passage in the article:

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

The scarey part is he's going to get signatures.


http://fox40.com/2015/03/19/sacramento-reacts-to-proposed-sodomite-suppression-act/
So far about 4,000 people have signed on and she says the CA Bar Association is aware of the situation.

You are aware those 4k people signed a petition to get the crap bag disbarred, not to support the proposition, right?

I lol'd.

This thing will go no where. Anyone who thinks it will, is only fooling themselves.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


You seem fixated on this. Its like me saying that because one Jew eats some bacon, its clearly indicative of their religion, despite being expressly against it.

It depends. Are we talking Reform Jews?

Sorry I can't think anymore. My mind is focused on the glory of bacon.

I made bacon muffins the other day. Line the cups of a muffin baking tray with a slice of raw bacon and then pour in beaten eggs (I cheated and used Egg Beaters), add in some spices and cheese and bake.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I think Capt. Jake's point is that this proposal hasn't reached that point just yet, which is supported by this passage in the article:

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

The scarey part is he's going to get signatures.


http://fox40.com/2015/03/19/sacramento-reacts-to-proposed-sodomite-suppression-act/
So far about 4,000 people have signed on and she says the CA Bar Association is aware of the situation.

Even if he does, which I'm not naïve enough to rule out, THAT is the point at which (according to the article) the State Supreme Court can step in and can the whole thing.

The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

Oh dear god. Its like you discovered...EPICland!

I'm a Christian and I denounce this guy as a hatemonger who needs to be castrated so he can't be allowed to reproduce. Who's with me?

I'm offering bacon and boobs to whoever join my petition (this should get Fraz and Kronk, if there was ever any doubt).

As a jew (and a happy one at that), I support the idea of bacon and egg muffins.

I do not support the idea of killing off homosexuals. What's next, we exterminate the Greek Orthodox? Or the Irish? Maybe we should be allowed to put a gun to the heads of those who support the Green Party.

rant over.

Two pages, two blunders in your blind belief that all Christians are as bad as you've imagined sirlinchmob.


Of course, that one Christian would do such a thing is a blemish against all Christians.


Also, if I was being paid $5 per signature I could get a thousand people to sign ANY petition.

 Frazzled wrote:
You seem fixated on this. Its like me saying that because one Jew eats some bacon, its clearly indicative of their religion, despite being expressly against it.

 Scrabb wrote:
Two pages, two blunders in your blind belief that all Christians are as bad as you've imagined sirlinchmob.


Of course, that one Christian would do such a thing is a blemish against all Christians.

He's satirizing the insane claims conservative Dakka members made in the ISIS thread- that the international Muslim community tacitly supports ISIS because of the lack of international condemnation of ISIS' actions.

That people are getting butthurt about Sirly's comment gives me a bit of an erection honestly, because if I were a Muslim it's probably how I'd feel when I see conservative Christians advocate painting my 1+ billion strong religion as a terrorist organization because of the actions of a relative few.

It would go down better if what he said were factual.

Those claims are also stupid and I wouldn't have said anything about it one way or another if he had limited himself to saying things that are, rather than things that are what he would wish.

Fair enough?

That people are getting butthurt about Sirly's comment gives me a bit of an erection honestly, because if I were a Muslim it's probably how I'd feel when I see conservative Christians advocate painting my 1+ billion strong religion as a terrorist organization because of the actions of a relative few.

Really thats what gets you going? Son there's a whole wide internet out there for you to explore. Fly little bird fly!

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You seem fixated on this. Its like me saying that because one Jew eats some bacon, its clearly indicative of their religion, despite being expressly against it.

 Scrabb wrote:
Two pages, two blunders in your blind belief that all Christians are as bad as you've imagined sirlinchmob.


Of course, that one Christian would do such a thing is a blemish against all Christians.

He's satirizing the insane claims conservative Dakka members made in the ISIS thread- that the international Muslim community tacitly supports ISIS because of the lack of international condemnation of ISIS' actions.

That people are getting butthurt about Sirly's comment gives me a bit of an erection honestly, because if I were a Muslim it's probably how I'd feel when I see conservative Christians advocate painting my 1+ billion strong religion as a terrorist organization because of the actions of a relative few.

Bull gak. He even tried posting a links to prove his numbers, both his claim of 500k signatures and then to 4k who 'signed!'. And he was wrong about what they signed.

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I think Capt. Jake's point is that this proposal hasn't reached that point just yet, which is supported by this passage in the article:

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

The scarey part is he's going to get signatures.


http://fox40.com/2015/03/19/sacramento-reacts-to-proposed-sodomite-suppression-act/
So far about 4,000 people have signed on and she says the CA Bar Association is aware of the situation.

You are aware those 4k people signed a petition to get the crap bag disbarred, not to support the proposition, right?

I apologize for the previous error on the number of signatures. If anyone can find the actual numbers I'd appreciate it.

Seeing as how prop 8 got enough signatures, then actually got voted on and passed, I bet this guy can get the signatures he needs to get it on the ballot.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Seeing as how prop 8 got enough signatures, then actually got voted on and passed, I bet this guy can get the signatures he needs to get it on the ballot.

I'll bet you a $100 you are wrong. We can put into an escrow account.

Winner takes it.

EDIT: Wife informed me betting a pay check was dumb, even if it was guaranteed. Changed amount to $100.

US$100 or CD$100?

I'll hold the money.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'm offering bacon and boobs to whoever join my petition (this should get Fraz and Kronk, if there was ever any doubt).

You left out bourbon

 Frazzled wrote:
US$100 or CD$100?

I'll hold the money.

Either way, as long as both use the same.

 CptJake wrote:
Bull gak. He even tried posting a links to prove his numbers, both his claim of 500k signatures and then to 4k who 'signed!'. And he was wrong about what they signed.

Neither of those posts has to do with the opening remark that I'm referring too.

 Frazzled wrote:
Really thats what gets you going?

I'm easy to please. My ex would probably disagree.

 djones520 wrote:

I lol'd.

This thing will go no where. Anyone who thinks it will, is only fooling themselves.

If for no other reason than that it would outlaw lesbian porn!


Also, how long until George Takei catches wind of this and mentions/ridicules it somewhere? I give it a week.

Outlawing lesbian porn is the worst crime that could be committed against the human race.

Dear, God. How idiotic. Of course proposing something that won't get anywhere isn't that huge. Still this guy needs disbarring pronto!

The bar for "Most Idiotic Post of 2015" has really been raised in this thread though. Any higher and we'll have to get the ISS to help out with raising it. (Bonus points for linking to "supporting facts" though lol)

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Outlawing lesbian porn is a crime punishable by death.

WHOA WHOA WHOA HOLD THE HECK UP!!!!!!
Little to far there buddy

Ah, california, the US state that practiced eugenics longer and more harshly than any other state (and just about every other country)

To be fair, it isn't California, it is a single feth stick wanting his name in the news, and maybe a handful of his supporters.