1.       Your intimacy issues make it impossible to get close to you.

2.       You are bipolar.   When you are up, things are great, when you are down, you make life miserable.

3.       You are able to destroy a friendship and then act like nothing is wrong.

4.       You claim to want to date guys but you also hate it when they flirt with you because of said intimacy issues.

5.       You let me do so many favors for you but cannot in turn act like a human being.

6.       You want to avoid awkward conversations and so would rather turn the entire semester into one long awkward encounter.

7.       You say cruel things to your closest friend in an attempt to drive him away.

8.       You waste money on gym memberships, Netflix, health food, etc, and then complain that you cannot afford to do things that you want.

9.       Because of your whining, you were the only grad student to get fully funded.  The rest of us are in essence paying for your school.

10.   You whine about being overly stressed yet you fill up your schedule with classes that you know will be stressful.

11.   You envy success, you are not happy for other people.

12.   You lack tact and people skills.   You are overbearing.

13.   You claim all guys want to do is use you and then discard you when they are done, but that is exactly what you did to me.  Once I had given you rides, helped you move, run your errands and even warmed your bed, you cut me off and now you won’t say three words to me.

14.   I cannot go a single day without seeing something that reminds me of some inside joke or experience we shared.

15.   Your insecurities about your appearance are tedious.  Every time we eat fast food I have to hear about how fat you are or how gross your double chin is.

16.   You freaked out and hurt me and then promised it would never happen again.  I believed you and it took all of two weeks before you did it again.

17.   You blocked your facebook profile from me.  How petty is that?

18.   You tell me you are depressed and then get angry when I get concerned by what looks like a cry for help.  At the same time, when I am depressed you could not care less.

19.   You lie to yourself.  You don’t examine your own intentions and act completely irrationally.

20.   We were best friends and then one day you decided I was dead to you but you did not even care enough to explain why.

There's been a lot of very angry blogging from a lot of very upset people whose indignation is only matched by their self-righteous superiority. In the interest of telling both sides of the story, here are a few articles from the side that was in favor of Proposition 8 (or in other words, the majority of California citizens that voted on it).

The first refutes an argument that gets parroted a lot by the zealots of 'tolerance'. It can be found here:
http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/11/18/is_gay_the_new_black

Is Gay the New Black?
by Dennis Prager


Gay is the new black is one of the mottos of the movement to redefine marriage to include two people of the same sex.

The likening of the movement for same-sex marriage to the black civil rights struggle is a primary argument of pro same-sex marriage groups. This comparison is a major part of the moral appeal of redefining marriage: Just as there were those who once believed that blacks and whites should not be allowed to be married, the argument goes, there are today equally bigoted individuals who believe that men should not be allowed to marry men and women should not be allowed to marry women.

It is worth noting that the people least impressed with the comparison of the gay struggle to redefine marriage with the black struggle for racial equality are blacks. They voted overwhelmingly for Californias Proposition 8 which amends the California Constitution to define marriage as being the union of a man and a woman.

One reason given is that blacks tend to be socially conservative. But another, less verbalized, reason may well be that blacks find the comparison demeaning and insulting. As well they should.

One has to either be ignorant of segregation laws and the routine humiliations experienced by blacks during the era of Jim Crow, or one has to be callous to black suffering, to equate that to a person not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex. They are not in the same moral universe.

There is in fact no comparison between the situation of gays in America in 2008 and the situation of most black Americans prior to the civil rights era. Gays are fully accepted, and as a group happen to constitute one of the wealthiest in American life. Moreover, not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex is not anti-gay; it is pro-marriage as every civilization has defined it. The fact is that states like California already grant people who wish to live and love a member of the same sex virtually every right that marriage bestows except the word married.

A certain number of gay men will feel better if they can call their partner husband and some lesbians will enjoy calling their partner wife, but society as a whole is not benefitted by such a redefinition of those words. Society as a whole does not benefit by removing, as California did, the words bride and groom from marriage licenses and substituting Partner A and Partner B.

But hoping that the more radical gays and straights of the gay rights movement will ask what benefits society? before what makes some gays feel better? is useless.

And so, the movement appropriates the symbols and rhetoric of the back civil rights struggle when that struggle and the movement to redefine marriage have next to nothing in common. How can a seriously moral individual compare forcing a black bus rider to sit in the back of a bus or to give up his seat to a white who demands it, or prohibiting a black human being from drinking from the same water fountain or eating at the same lunch counter as a white human being, or being denied the right to vote, or being prohibited from attending a school with whites, let alone being periodically lynched, to either the general gay condition today or specifically to being given the right to redefine marriage for society?

The vast majority of Americans, including those who oppose same-sex marriage, know that the homosexual is created in Gods image every bit as much as is the heterosexual; and acknowledge that the gay man or woman has a right to love whom he or she wants and that commitment has the right to be given legal protections.

But radically redefining the most important institution in the life of a civilization; and routinely labeling as the moral equivalent of racists every individual who does not want children regularly asked whether they will marry a boy or a girl when grown up, and who rightly fears that every traditional religious community will be labeled as a hate group -- these are not commensurate with civil rights.

Gay and straight activists who liken their demand to redefine marriage to black suffering under Jim Crow merely cheapen historic black suffering. Most blacks know this but for the sake of their political coalition wont say it. They should. Rosa Parks is in a different moral category than the protestors against Proposition 8.


The next article questions the mindset of those who expect to win and riot when they don't, written by a black professor from Harvard, and can be found here:
http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067

Thomas Sowell: The right to win

By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2008


Among the many new "rights" being conjured out of thin air, a new one seems to be a "right" to win.

Americans have long had the right to put their candidates and their ideas to a vote. Now there seems to be a sense that your rights have been trampled on if you don't win.

Hillary Clinton's supporters were not merely disappointed, but outraged, when she lost the Democrats' nomination to Barack Obama. Some took it as a sign that, while racial barriers had come down, the "glass ceiling" holding down women was still in place.

Apparently, if you don't win, somebody has put up a barrier or a ceiling. The more obvious explanation of the nomination outcome was that Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary. There is not the slightest reason to doubt that she would have been the nominee if the votes in the primaries had come out her way.

See related column Affirmative Action and Gay 'Marriage'As the election approached, pundits warned that, if Obama lost, there would be riots in the ghetto. We will never know. But since when does any candidate have a right to win any office, much less the White House?

The worst of all the reactions from people who act as if they have a right to win have come from gay activists in the wake of voter rejection of so-called "gay marriage," which is to say, redefining what marriage has meant for centuries.

Blacks and Mormons have been the main targets of the gay activists' anger. Seventy percent of blacks voted against gay marriage in California, so racial epithets were hurled at blacks in Los Angeles -- not in black neighborhoods, by the way.

Blacks who just happened to be driving through Westwood, near UCLA, were accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, "You better watch your back."

Even blacks who were carrying signs in favor of gay marriage were denounced with racial epithets.

In Michigan, an evangelical church service was invaded and disrupted by gay activists, who also set off a fire alarm, because evangelicals had dared to exercise their right to express their opinions at the polls.

In Oakland, California, a mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in such numbers that officials shut down a nearby freeway exit for more than three hours.

In their midst was a San Francisco Supervisor who said "The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs." He added, "This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons."

Apparently Mormons don't have the same rights as other Americans, at least not if they don't vote the way gay activists want them to vote.

There was another gay activist mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in Orange County, California.

In the past, gay activists have disrupted Catholic services and their "gay pride" parades in San Francisco have crudely mocked nuns.

While demanding tolerance from others, gay activists apparently feel no need to show any themselves.

How did we get to this kind of situation?

With all the various groups who act as if they have a right to win, we got to the present situation over the years, going back to the 1960s, where the idea started gaining acceptance that people who felt aggrieved don't have to follow the rules or even the law.

''No justice, no peace!" was a slogan that found resonance.

Like so many slogans, it sounds good if you don't stop and think -- and awful if you do.

Almost by definition, everybody thinks their cause is just. Does that mean that nobody has to obey the rules? That is called anarchy.

Nobody is in favor of anarchy. But some people want everybody else to obey the rules, while they don't have to.

What they want is not decisive, however. It is what other people are willing to tolerate that determines how far any group can go.

When the majority of the people become like sheep, who will tolerate intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far any group will go.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.


Finally, and most convincingly, Chuck Norris himself has arrived to deliver a swift roundhouse kick into the face of hypocrisy: http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/11/18/if_democracy_doesnt_work,_try_anarchy

If Democracy Doesn't Work, Try Anarchy
by Chuck Norris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protestors of Proposition 8 in California (the marriage amendment) shoved aside a 69-year-old woman who was bearing a cross. They reportedly spit on her and stomped on her cross. They then aligned themselves in a human barricade, blocking the media from getting to or interviewing the woman.

Prop. 8 supporter Jose Nunez, 37, was assaulted brutally while distributing yard signs to other supporters after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto.

Calvary Chapel Chino Hills was spray painted by vandals after they learned that the church served as an official collection point for Prop. 8 petitions.

Letters containing white powder (obviously mimicking anthrax) were sent to the Salt Lake City headquarters of the Mormon church and to a temple in Los Angeles. (Thankfully, the FBI said the substance was nontoxic.)

The 25-year artistic director of the California Musical Theatre, who also happens to be a Mormon, was muscled to resign because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California.

A pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back marched into the middle of a church service and flung fliers and condoms to the congregants. They also hung a banner from the balcony that featured two lesbians in provocative positions at the pulpit.

And lastly, the tolerance-preaching activists also have taken their anger to the blogosphere, where posts have planted ideas ranging from burning churches to storming the citadels of government until our society is forced to overturn Prop. 8. You even can find donor blacklists online. The lists include everyone who financially backed Prop. 8 -- even those who gave as little as $46 -- with the obvious objective that these individuals will be bantered and boycotted for doing so.

What's wrong with this picture? Lots.

First, there's the obvious inability of the minority to accept the will of the majority. Californians have spoken twice, through the elections in 2000 and 2008. Nearly every county across the state (including Los Angeles County) voted to amend the state constitution in favor of traditional marriage.

Nevertheless, bitter activists simply cannot accept the outcome as being truly reflective of the general public. So they have placed the brainwashing blame upon the crusading and misleading zealotry of those religious villains: the Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and especially Mormons, who allegedly are robbing the rights of American citizens by merely executing their right to vote and standing upon their moral convictions and traditional views.

What's surprising (or maybe not so) is that even though 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, protests against black churches are virtually nonexistent. And everyone knows exactly why: Such actions would be viewed as racist. Yet these opponents of Prop. 8 can protest vehemently and shout obscenities in front of Mormon temples without ever being accused of religious bigotry. There's a clear double standard in our society. Where are the hate-crime cops when religious conservatives need them?

There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don't see us protesting in the streets or crying "unfair." Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president. Just because we don't like the election outcome doesn't give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn't tip our direction, we don't swing to anarchy. That would be like the Wild West, the resurrection of which seems to be happening in these postelection protests.

I agree with Prison Fellowship's founder, Chuck Colson, who wrote: "This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live in a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs."

Regardless of one's opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat-out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques are used that restrict voting liberties and even prompt fear of safety, activists have crossed a line. There is a difference between respectfully advocating one's civil rights and demanding public endorsement of what many still consider to be unnatural sexual behavior through cruel coercion and repression tactics. One thing is for sure: The days of peaceful marches, such as those headed up by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., seem to be long gone.

The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.

On Nov. 4, the pro-gay community obviously was flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony. But that's exactly what happened; the majority of Californians -- red, yellow, black and white -- voted to define the margins of marriage as being between one man and one woman. California is the 30th state in our union to amend its constitution in doing so, joining Florida and Arizona in this election. Like it or not, it's the law now. The people have spoken.

Gav is back and he's in 4th edition mode.  Behold all his swashbuckling glory!

Name: Gavilan  Race: Eladrin      Class: Rogue       Level:    1              Exp: 0

HP:  22  Bloodied: 11      Initiative: +4     AC:  14   Fort: 11  Ref: 14  Wil: 14    Healing Surges: 6

Str:  13  +1                           Skills: Stealth, Thievery, Acrobatics, Bluff,  Streetwise, Perception, Insight
Dex:  18  +4                         Feats: Weapon Proficiency: Rapier
Con:  10  0                            Class Features: First Strike, Artful Dodger, Rogue Weapon Talent, Sneak Attack
Int:  13  +1                                          
Wis: 8    -1
Cha:  16  +3

Rapier: +4 1d8
Armor:  None
Gear: Fine Clothing, Thieves’ Tools , Standard Adventurer’s Kit

Gold: 10

Powers:

At Will:

Deft Strike Rogue Attack 1

A final lunge brings you into an advantageous position.

At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade,
or a sling.
Target: One creature
Special: You can move 2 squares before the attack.
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier at 21st level.

Sly Flourish Rogue Attack 1

A distracting flourish causes the enemy to forget the blade at his
throat.

At-Will ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade,
or a sling.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier + Charisma modifier
damage.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier + Charisma
modifier at 21st level.

Encounter:

Fey Step Eladrin Racial Power

With a step, you vanish from one place and appear in another.
Encounter ✦ Teleportation
Move Action Personal
Effect: Teleport up to 5 squares (see “Teleportation,”
page 286).

Positioning Strike Rogue Attack 1

A false stumble and a shove place the enemy exactly where you
want him.

Encounter ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Will
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage, and you slide the
target 1 square.
Artful Dodger: You slide the target a number of squares
equal to your Charisma modifier.

Daily:

Trick Strike Rogue Attack 1

Through a series of feints and lures, you maneuver your foe right
where you want him.

Daily ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade,
or a sling.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Dexterity modifier damage, and you slide the
target 1 square.
Effect: Until the end of the encounter, each time you hit the
target you slide it 1 square.