May 15, 2008 2:42 PM
California court: gay marriage is A-OK
The California Supreme Court - which counts six Republicans among its seven members - overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.
The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.
If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.
May 15, 2008
3:13 PM
Anonymous writes:
jay and JW should be very happy at this news.
See what happens in a Liberal State?
Just think if Obama becomes President.
No more guns
Abortions on every corner
no more military
no more border
more taxes
more ear marks
kids can have sex and abortions w/o parental consent
Schools will supply bc and contraceptives
the biggest nanny nation a radical loon could dream up
May 15, 2008
3:19 PM
Anonymous writes:
All of that is hunky dory with the left, its just when the right gets their way that its not okay, violates the constitution, police state, blah blah blah. All of this is going to come back and haunt the femdems and they will truly be a party of the past in 30 years.
May 15, 2008
3:41 PM
JW writes:
"All of that is hunky dory with the left, its just when the right gets their way that its not okay, violates the constitution, police state, blah blah blah."
Well, there is a fundamental difference in regards to social policy. When the left get their way you have MORE CHOICES, and consequently MORE FREEDOM to do as you please.
When the right get their way, everyone else has LESS CHOICE, and consequently LESS FREEDOM.
Its funny, because regarding economic freedoms, its exactly the opposite.
Anyway, you guys sure are worried about what these gay people are going to do. Still havent sorted out those "Funny feelings" you get around the guys huh? Here is some free advice...
Youre gay. Get on with it. The rest of us dont care.
May 15, 2008
3:55 PM
Shaggy writes:
And all these years I thought I was a lesbian.
May 15, 2008
4:26 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Somebody needs to castrate our Federal government writes:
JW,
The left is the very definition of no choice. The left has a long history of wanting to run everything and giving people no choice in the matter. Most on the right want less government control over everything.
That is very different from deciding what is considered legal behavior. The legitimate role of government is to enforce the laws that are democratically passed. This activist court does not represent the will of the people, it represents the move by courts to invent law out of thin air.
If the people of California want to pass a law banning same sex marriage, then that should be the law of California. If the American people want to enshrine the right to same sex marriage as a Constitutional right, that is their right, but to invent a Constitutional right out of thin air is a very bad policy.
May 15, 2008
6:07 PM
Tree writes:
Sorry Hogar,
Try the right wants a stacked deck of cards in every situation. Especially mixing political power with business. Cheney, perfect example.
Your saying the left doesn't want to give us choices? The right wants to do what with abortion? Could it be take away our choice? All the right wants is power over you. Even the power to take away your marriage to your loved one. So 2 same sex people love each other and want to marry. That bothers you so much, you'll do anything to take it away. Pathetic. Look in the mirror Hogar, why are you better than someone else.
May 15, 2008
6:25 PM
Liberals are Stupid writes:
The majority of Californians voted already on this subject. And 4 Supreme Judges overrule the people - again.
We are all waiting for California to crack off and float out to sea.
May 15, 2008
7:43 PM
Libs aren't that dumb writes:
6:25 pm-
"And 4 Supreme Judges overrule the people - again."
And your pissed off no name? Did you forget Bush was not elected, but appointed by "the" Supreme Court.
Oh, that mistake was ok with you. Good, then you can pay for the mess we are in today.
May 15, 2008
7:51 PM
Kevin Jones writes:
"Well, there is a fundamental difference in regards to social policy. When the left get their way you have MORE CHOICES, and consequently MORE FREEDOM to do as you please.
When the right get their way, everyone else has LESS CHOICE, and consequently LESS FREEDOM."
I want the freedom to live in a decent and sane society where these kinds of decisions are recognized for the ridiculous radicalism that they are.
Confusion is the enemy of freedom, and the deliberate legal confusion this decision represents will enslave us all.
Watch as judges and Justices of the Peace opposed to same-sex "let's pretend" marriage are driven from their posts by the forces of Sham Tolerance.
Watch as various businesses are sued into non-existence or compliance with the wretched laws created not by legislative deliberation, but judicial fiat.
Watch as Christian churches with millennium-old traditions of care for orphans are forced out of the adoption business.
Watch as children are indoctrinated in the school system their parents pay for to mock chastity and to sneer at their religion as bigoted.
And watch as Republicans use this as an issue to rally the base in the upcoming election. Six of the judges were Republicans? Could they really be cynical enough to mess up the law in such a huge state to win an election? All good Democrats should lambast this decision for handing ammunition to the GOP.
Except to themselves, the GLBT crowd is mostly harmless. More dangerous are the self-styled progressives for whom they serve as mascots, progressives of both parties who use them as battering rams to diminish their political opponents and to increase their own power. These mascots will be all used up soon enough. Then we'll have to suffer through the next radical fad.
May 15, 2008
8:03 PM
Anonymous writes:
Well thats ok for some but not for republicans
because we're not gay
Larry Craig
May 15, 2008
8:33 PM
Anonymous writes:
Liberals are stupid- 6:52pm post
Go %$ck yourself. And you do.
"The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in the majority opinion.
Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry "will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage," George said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BAGAVNC5K.DTL
May 15, 2008
8:47 PM
Yes, liberals are stupid writes:
As most liberals would no doubt agree, activist courts have no place changing social policy.
Right?
May 16, 2008
6:58 AM
Tree writes:
8Dude, Hogar-
Here's your Detroit scandal update. Can't say absolute power corrupts absolutely any better.
So when I'm in power and the media bust my chops for smoking weed, I'll just make it legal. Works for me. Enjoy your day, I'm out.
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080516/NEWS01/805160422
May 16, 2008
7:53 AM
jay writes:
I still find it hard to believe that folks like kevin jones et al are still using their religion as a basis for bigotry.
all the judges did was uphold the cali constitution which contains clear language about equal rights for all its citizens.
May 16, 2008
8:02 AM
Anonymous writes:
Actually the people of Colorado spoke, and the vast majority said no special rights will be granted to gays.
Next subject?
May 16, 2008
8:28 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
AH YES....KOLIFORNYAA!
The grass in Buena Vista Park above Fisherman's Warf is going to get a good work-out!
May 16, 2008
8:29 AM
JW writes:
"JW,
The left is the very definition of no choice."
Tree already gave you this example but Abortion is the perfect one. The left wants people to have the freedom to chose for themselves. The right wants to limit the freedom of choice through legislation.
I dont know how you spin that to "the left limits freedom and the right gives it out" Hogar, but have a go!
" The left has a long history of wanting to run everything and giving people no choice in the matter."
Oh please. Government has a history of this. Limiting it to the left is just partisan based blindness.
" Most on the right want less government control over everything."
Yea, thats why they want a contitutional amendment to control gays and flag burning. Thats why they are making every law they can to limit abortion rights. Thats why they push to have their religious text displayed in public places. I mean come on Hogar! What do you think "Social Conservatism" means? Look up the word "Conservatism" and then try to give me a definition of what you think Social Conservatism means.
"That is very different from deciding what is considered legal behavior."
What? Are you insane or something? What do you think laws ARE? Control on the behavior one can have, limiting it by what is considered legal. And who do you think makes laws? GOVERNMENT.
Its the right that loves this lever, and the left that fights to limit legislation that controls behavior. Freedom. Do you need to look THAT word up to? Every law we enact limits the freedom you have because it limits the behavior you can exhibit.
Although...I think I may understand how you can think this way. It reminds me of your position on how people end up in hell. God made the rules, but you absolve him of any control. Government makes the laws, but apparently that is not control either.
"The legitimate role of government is to enforce the laws that are democratically passed."
Add on, "Accept in cases where they conflict with the rights set down in the constitution." This is a fundamental part of America, and the founding fathers made it such because they understood "the tyrany of the majority". Arent you a foreigner? Didnt you have to learn about this to become a citizen? Why do I repeatedly have to explain this to you?
"This activist court does not represent the will of the people, it represents the move by courts to invent law out of thin air."
No, it represents exactly what the supreme court of california is supposed to represent; A check on the laws the majority can pass in regards to the rights set down in the California State Constitution. They simply took a look at that constitution, and saw that the law regarding same sex marriage was unconstitutional because even though the majority wanted it, it took away the constitutional rights of the minority.
Do you not understand that without this check, democracy is every bit as nasty as any dictatorship? Our founding fathers did.
And agiain, didnt you have to take a citizenship test showing you understand this stuff? "This activist courth does not represent the will of the people"? No shit. Its the SUPREME COURT. They arent SUPPOSED TO! They are supposed to judge the constitutionallity of laws. DUH!
"I want the freedom to live in a decent and sane society where these kinds of decisions are recognized for the ridiculous radicalism that they are."
On the other blog I was discussing "Social Conservatism" with Dustin, and I said something like the following;
Social Conservatives covet their own freedom to behave as they wish while at the same time working to limit the freedoms of others to behave differently through legislation.
Thanks for giving me a perfect example KJ. You covet the freedom to live as you think best, while at the same time wanting society to assimilate those same values, limiting their freedom to decide for themselves what behavior they think best. And you will legislate away their freedom to behave in a way you dont agree with if you can.
So...tell me the "Right" are the ones who want freedom in the social realm again Hogar. I need a good laugh.
That said, if you look at "Fiscal Conservatism", it is just the opposite of social conservatism. It says that the government should spend conservatively, while taxing conservatively, giving individuals more freedom over their income.
May 16, 2008
8:32 AM
JW writes:
"The grass in Buena Vista Park above Fisherman's Warf is going to get a good work-out!"
Hehe. Buena Vista Park is in the Height, which is nowhere near Fisherman's Warf. Also, the only people who go to Fisherman's Warf are tourists.
Since youre obviously worried about where the gays are (wana go have a peek huh?) try the Castro.
May 16, 2008
8:49 AM
Mark Wolf writes:
"See what happens in a Liberal State?"
Anon at 3:13
Surprised nobody has retorted:
See what happens in a state with a Republican governor and six Republicans out of seven on the state Supreme Court?
May 16, 2008
9:13 AM
just sayin' writes:
your logic is flawed in this case Hogar. A majority of people, the will of the people if you will, supported bans on inter-racial marriage in the 50's and 60's. Using your logic that should have been the law of the land. I guess it took activist judges to overturn what we now know was an obviously wrong situation. I completely support the right of gay people to get married. No effect on my marriage at all. Anytime you are basing a law on peoples religious beliefs rather than logic and basic human rights you are making a bad law. Look at the countries that ban gay marriage. Is that the company you would like to keep? Iran, Saudi Arabia etc etc. Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, I've seen that somewher.
May 16, 2008
9:21 AM
KW writes:
But jay - The overwhelming majority support a ban on same sex marriages in California so it's only a matter of time. In Nov they will amend the state constitution and make the ban permanent.
And since this will be the will of the people, you'll be ok with that, right?
Hogar - A very valid point. Nowhere in the CA state constitution is this right the judges claim to have found. It was manufactured out of thin air as you said, and only a slim majority of the judges agreed.
Nov will be when the citizens of CA will make there voices heard, and counted, again.
May 16, 2008
9:30 AM
jay writes:
that is highly inaccurate, kw (thanks for signing a post). the majority of americans don't support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
and since laws depriving americans of their equal rights are being consistently deemed unconstitutional....it's only a matter of time before the bigots who are against equal rights for gays are thought of in the same light we now resereve for those bigots against interracial marriage...and giving blacks the right to vote...and giving women equal rights....etc...etc...etc...
May 16, 2008
9:31 AM
Anonymous writes:
And locally, here's another fine example from our friends on the far left:
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=91870
May 16, 2008
9:43 AM
KW writes:
jay - You're the one with an alias complex, I sign ALL my posts. So up yours on that issue.
I guess this means you missed me the last couple of weeks. Thanks for the thought!
Two huge mistakes in your post though...
1) The majority of CALIFORNIANS do support the ban as evidenced by the 70% voting in favor of it already.
2) This isn't about what "Americans" want as it's a state issue. And the US Supreme Court has never made any decision saying that gays have a "right" to marry.
You just pulled that piece of misinformation out the same hole I mentioned earlier.
Congrats though. Your last post only contained two lies which is a record low for you.
Keep up the good work and we'll keep praying for you and this progress on your journey to the land of truth.
May 16, 2008
9:47 AM
Anonymous writes:
Ok, here we go again for the far left cheap seats:
Being gay is a choice, that we have debunked many times on this thread.
Given that, the people of Colorado stated overwhelmingly taht there will be no special rights for gays. They already have the same rights as normal people the fact that they choose to exercise those rights does not mean they get to demand special rights.
Thanks for playing though. We have some lovely parting gifts.
May 16, 2008
9:55 AM
Shaggy writes:
"See what happens in a state with a Republican governor and six Republicans out of seven on the state Supreme Court?"----Mark Wolf
Everyone knows that Republicans in California are just blue sheep dressed in red wolf clothing....same as the Rush clones voting for Democrats.
They are decoys.
What I find disgracing is that they have the nads to think they are the Almighty's and know what is best for the overwhelming number of people who voted against this to end run it behind their back anyways....sounds just like our very own Governor TaxRitter and what he did with HB 1313.
What will be interesting is how this will effect Obama....is he going to flip flop on his stance as an opponent to gay marriage or stick to his guns and tell these dweebs he disagrees with their overturning this Law?
anyhoo, doesn't matter, the people will just have to vote it down a few more times just like we all had to do with the amnesty bills being crammed down our throats.
This is why Democrats do not like people to vote on their personal agandas...they cannot control the outcome.
Perfect example of why Super d's and delegates even exist...if they don't like what the "dumb & ignorant" people are doing....they can change it and be the final decider's.
May 16, 2008
10:00 AM
Shaggy writes:
Afterthought:
If Obama, by some ungodly & unforeseen reason, happens to get into the WH, we can all be assured he will try to pack the Supreme Court with Liberal Judges...I wouldn't be surprised if we see new Laws letting people marry and have sex with their pets..
May 16, 2008
10:04 AM
just sayin' writes:
this is the type of crap that makes people (like me) who are not religious hostile towards religion. Generally I take a "to each his own" attitude. Why do people use the Bible to tell them who it is OK to hate?
May 16, 2008
10:07 AM
Oracle writes:
Shaggy - Obama has no chance of getting into the WH. Just ain't going to happen. McCain will win it in a walk, after the dumocrats self destruct and rend themselves asunder.
Following his landslide, he will appoint two more supremes that will halt the movement of special rights for gays, and will also overturn roe v. wade as a barbaric practice once and for all. Take it to the bank.
May 16, 2008
10:16 AM
Ben-Former Democrat writes:
this is the type of crap that makes people (like me) who are not gay hostile towards homosexuals. Generally I take a "to each his own" attitude. Why do people use the the courts to tell them who it is OK to impose their minority agenda on? -- paraphrasing just sayin--
May 16, 2008
10:24 AM
jay writes:
you guys can rationalize your bigotry any way you want...but you're still fighting against an inevitability.
history will paint you the same way it views those against equal rights for minorities and women.
save the superstitious beliefs for campfires.
May 16, 2008
10:31 AM
just sayin' writes:
so you could stick "black" into that little paraphrasing rant Ben and it would make just as much sense. Do you hate all minorities? It sure appears to be the case with you history. Oh and oracle your dreamland does exist. It's called Iran.
May 16, 2008
10:32 AM
JW writes:
LOL. Social Conservatives.
You all covet the right to marry who you want, and god forbid anyone ever got in your way.
But you all want to tell others who it is acceptable for them to marry, because you cannot stand the fact that they might chose to do something differently than you.
Pathetic.
May 16, 2008
10:43 AM
Shaggy writes:
"But you all want to tell others who it is acceptable for them to marry"---JW
Thats right JW, we are trying to protect Liberals from marrying 3 and 4 year olds and from keeping Liberals from marrying barnyard animals.
You get the picture now.
Someone needs to protect the "at risk" from Liberal predators.
Pathetic, but you are on your way to winning the stupidest post two days in a row....
May 16, 2008
10:47 AM
Anonymous writes:
The fallacy in comparing special rights for gays to interracial marriage is that as we have thoroughly established in the past, one's choice to be gay is just that: a choice. One's race is NOT a choice. Please try to keep up.
May 16, 2008
10:56 AM
JW writes:
"Thats right JW, we are trying to protect Liberals from marrying 3 and 4 year olds and from keeping Liberals from marrying barnyard animals.
You get the picture now.
Someone needs to protect the "at risk" from Liberal predators."
Who is asking to marry barnyard animals?
"Pathetic, but you are on your way to winning the stupidest post two days in a row...."
Yea, my posts are stupid because you understand what is written in plain english. WTF ever.
May 16, 2008
10:57 AM
Straw Man writes:
You go jay!
May 16, 2008
11:03 AM
Shaupeen writes:
One doesn't choose to be gay, you dolt! It's innate. Stop being afraid of and threatened by people who are different than you. And who are you to control what they can or can't do? Mind your own business.
May 16, 2008
11:14 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
Once again a very liberal court legislates from the bench. This is scheduled to get overturned in about 45 days, so you Golden Gate libdems can plan to return that industrial-sized 55-gallon barrel of K-Y jelly back to Chevron.
May 16, 2008
11:20 AM
Ben, just sayin writes:
"so you could stick "black" into that little paraphrasing rant Ben and it would make just as much sense. Do you hate all minorities? It sure appears to be the case with you history." just sayin
You could also stick "redneck" in there as well, just sayin, as you did yesterday. I guess I learned my "bigotry" from you.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy is all. Do you see yours?
May 16, 2008
11:24 AM
Shaggy writes:
"One doesn't choose to be gay, you dolt!"---Shaupeen
Neither does a child molester.
You mean to tell us that all those gay pornstars are really gay?
What about the the bi-sexuals, are they born that way too?
May 16, 2008
11:25 AM
Anonymous writes:
Shaupeen - Good to see that your ignorance is not just limited to your blatherings in the Letters to the Editor section. Good to see that you are branching out.
May 16, 2008
11:40 AM
Shaupeen writes:
Shaggy, I'm surprised at you. You're equating gays with child molesters? I figured you to be smarter than that. And yes, gay people are born that way--that's what innate means. If you don't believe me, then ask a gay person. Unless you're afraid that talking to one might make you gay too. (And by the way, it doesn't.)
May 16, 2008
11:45 AM
Anonymous writes:
Here's some truth: The vast majority of Americans do not see the need for special rights for a VERY fringe minority. Case closed. As RObin Willimas said: "Reality. What a concept"
May 16, 2008
11:49 AM
Shaupeen writes:
And when did I write a Letter to the Editor, anon @ 11:25? Oh, I get it--you're afraid to own your ignorance. Probably a good call.
May 16, 2008
12:06 PM
Anonymous writes:
Actually the biggest difference between gays and child molesters is the fact that molesters do not demand that their lifestyle be made mainstream.
May 16, 2008
12:08 PM
Shaupeen writes:
Case closed anon? Hardly. First you presented no facts--just some narrow opinion of yours, and then you quoted a comedian who has lived in San Fran for decades and openly supports gay peoples' desire for equal rights. Not special rights, mind you, but equal rights. Come back when you can use logic and facts to support yourself, instead of fear and ignorance.
May 16, 2008
12:11 PM
Ben- member of the 90% of population heterosexuals writes:
It's for the people to decide not the courts.
Marriage is for building families.
Families are for building nations.
Homosexuality is for what now?
Anon @ 12:06- Not yet anyway.
May 16, 2008
12:44 PM
Stone Cold writes:
With all the problems facing this nation - REAL problems - why are we spending even two minutes on something as much of a NON-ISSUE as Gay Marriage?
It's so far down on the priority list it deserves no attention.
May 16, 2008
12:48 PM
All of us writes:
"Shaggy, I'm surprised at you. You're equating gays with child molesters? I figured you to be smarter than that." - Shaupeen
Shaupeen- You figured wrong. We don't even read his post anymore.
May 16, 2008
12:50 PM
Anonymous writes:
Stoned,
Then why are bloggin on it?
May 16, 2008
1:03 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Somebody needs to castrate our Federal government writes:
Just for the record, it is not my job to make everyone live the way that I do. I do believe that laws can change as societies change, but I want them to change the way the founders set it up to change. Women and blacks had no voting rights and did not have full representation in the original constitution. Do I think that was a good idea? No. But they were both changed by Constitutional amendment, not an activist court. I hope Californians get outraged enough to amend their constitution, but I do believe this will be overturned on appeal, because the court did not decide on the language of law, but rather on the basis that they want to redefine the definition of marriage. Can the polygamists and those who engage in bestiality be far behind?
We are hurdling toward a society where no behavior can be restricted, unless it is an act engaged in by conservatives or religious people.
So the court says that the definition of marriage which is millenia old can be changed with the stroke of their pen, but a high school senior cannot share her faith at a graduation ceremony. No that is a clear violation of the first amendment, but not in our brave new post modern world.
Conservatives want a weak Federal government and strong local government. Liberals want a supreme Federal government run by them with a weak local government that only carries out the orders of the supreme Liberal Federal government.
May 16, 2008
1:04 PM
just sayin' writes:
Ben, I will come clean. I am bigoted against racists rat b%st%rds and homophobes. I am intolerant of intolerant people. You know a lot of people who have such strong feelings against gay people do so only because of their own latent homosexual tendencies. Larry Craig comes to mind.
May 16, 2008
2:02 PM
Ben-shooting down hypocrisy writes:
So where do you fit in just sayin? You used this term (redneck) yesterday or the day before?
red·neck (rěd'něk')
n. Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.
Is this okay because the slur is against poor whites? You may need to take a long look in the mirror before you call people bigots because you don't agree with them or their advocacy for their socio-ethnic group.
May 16, 2008
2:22 PM
JW writes:
"Just for the record, it is not my job to make everyone live the way that I do."
No, you just vote for those who promise to do it for you.
"I do believe that laws can change as societies change, but I want them to change the way the founders set it up to change."
Then why are you so pissed when the model the founders put in place works as it should and strikes down laws that are unconstitutional, but which you agree with? Its what the founders intended.
"Women and blacks had no voting rights and did not have full representation in the original constitution. Do I think that was a good idea? No. But they were both changed by Constitutional amendment, not an activist court. I hope Californians get outraged enough to amend their constitution, but I do believe this will be overturned on appeal, because the court did not decide on the language of law, but rather on the basis that they want to redefine the definition of marriage."
So wait, let me get this straight. The constitution didnt do something it was supposed to, so we amended it, rather than activist judges legislating from the bench. But in california, where a law was passed that the consititution said was invalid, those judges are activists? Yea, ok.
If they do pass the constitutional amendment, then the judges wont strike it down on the grounds that it goes against their constitution! That is how ITS SUPPOSED TO WORK!
"We are hurdling toward a society where no behavior can be restricted, unless it is an act engaged in by conservatives or religious people."
Hehe. Little melodramatic arent we?
"So the court says that the definition of marriage which is millenia old can be changed with the stroke of their pen"
No. The court says the constitution of Cali doesnt allow for the discrimination their anti-gay marriage law put in place. Quite different.
"but a high school senior cannot share her faith at a graduation ceremony."
If one kid gets to pimp their religion, then to be fair, everyone gets to pimp theirs. Do you really want your daughter to get up and preach about Christ, and then have to sit through a few more kids preaching about budda, mohammed, and even satan?
"Conservatives want a weak Federal government and strong local government. Liberals want a supreme Federal government run by them with a weak local government that only carries out the orders of the supreme Liberal Federal government."
Well, this is a blanket statement breaking society into two parts alone, and we are more diverse than that.
It remains that the right tries to legislate social behavior far more than the left, and the left tries to legislate economic behaviour far more than the right.
I wish they would both fucking quit it. I can decide what to do with my money, and my morals, thanks.
May 16, 2008
2:32 PM
just sayin' writes:
I used the term to describe racist whites. You know the people who used to hang blacks and burn crosses in their yards. If I used the term incorrectly then I apologize. I don't have any ill feelings towards poor white people. Hell I have relations that are poor white people.
May 16, 2008
2:55 PM
Ben-just askin writes:
So just sayin,
What do you call: Racists blacks? Racists browns? Racists Yellows? Secularist bigots (against relious folk)? Bigots against heterosexuals? Do you just reserve the slurs for whites becuase you have been taught that is okay?
May 16, 2008
3:26 PM
just sayin' writes:
I guess I just call those people racists. I don't really know any secularists bigots, I guess there could be some but I can't really think of any. There are some people who think some religious people are fanatics and are over the top and I agree with them. However, I think of most religious people as someone like my 84 year old aunt who gets dressed up and wears a corsage every Sunday. Sweet person who volunteers a lot and had some pre-conceived notions about gays that were changed when a super nice lesbian couple moved next door and really help her a lot. My aunt changed churches when she found out here old church was against gay rights. And bigots against heterosexuals?? really? who are they? Can you tell me someone that doesn't treat heterosexuals with respect? From now on I will just be sure to say "white (fill in color etc) people that are racists". Fair enough?
May 16, 2008
3:28 PM
Kevin Jones writes:
". You know a lot of people who have such strong feelings against gay people do so only because of their own latent homosexual tendencies."
So does this mean people who have strong feelings in favor of gay people have latent homophobic tendencies?
What makes you think this kind of mail-order pop psychoanalysis is a worthy contribution to a discussion?
May 16, 2008
3:33 PM
JW writes:
"What makes you think this kind of mail-order pop psychoanalysis is a worthy contribution to a discussion?"
You seeem to think your 2000 year old fairy tail is rock solid evidence. I dont know where you get off critisizing ANYONE for ANYTHING they chose to believe.
May 16, 2008
3:47 PM
Shaggy writes:
"I dont know where you get off critisizing ANYONE for ANYTHING they chose to believe."--JW
You mean like you do to everyone who Voted for Bush twice and are going to vote McCain this November?
Can you see the hypocrisy?
Or does that not apply to Liberals?
May 16, 2008
4:16 PM
Anonymous writes:
just, "I don't really know any secularists bigots, I guess there could be some but I can't really think of any."
Don't protect our little wooden boy jay. He is the manifestation of religious bigotry on the blogs, but has toned it down a little bit, for his own credibility restoration.
I think we all know religious people that are over the top. We needn't then stereotype people of faith, specifically Christians since they are the target of choice by liberals.
I also know people who are Secularist and over the top, to the point of being culturally biased and down right bigotrous and narrow minded.
As for bigotry and bias against heteros by homos, search the computer. It just doesnt get exploded and blown up by the liberal main stream media like the homos being discriminated against. Go to San Fran and parade your heterosexuality around. I guarantee you will see bigotry against you and you sexual orientation.
May 16, 2008
4:19 PM
jay writes:
i'm not a religious guy, but if i were, i doubt i'd choose one that teaches hate and bigotry. kind of defeats the purpose i would imagine.
anywho...had to pick on our usual test subjects:
"You mean like you do to everyone who Voted for Bush twice and are going to vote McCain this November?"
come on shaggito, we're not criticizing you when we simply ask what bush accomplishments warrant a continuation of his policies under mccain. how can a question be criticism?
now....if you still can't answer....i guess that's a self-fulfilled criticism...no?
"Marriage is for building families"
who said? jesus? can i not follow jesus's law? is that alright with everyone? what about those hetero couples who choose not to procreate? are they not fit to be married in ben's bizzaro world?
and by the way ben...calling out one's bigotry doesn't make that person a bigot. nice try though. that would certainly make your own bigotry a little easier to take i guess. be strong. it's a choice...unlike homosexuality....no matter what our crazy cruton likes to believe in his world of talking snakes and sky daddies.
May 16, 2008
4:22 PM
Ben- High Tech Redneck writes:
Whoops.. Ben @ 4:16.
May 16, 2008
4:39 PM
Ben-Snake Handler and Hitman for Jesus writes:
C-mon jay, You haven't lived until you've handled a rattlesnake while speaking in tongues and dancing around a room. Don't knock it til you try it.
Oh, Jesus had laws? Lol
May 16, 2008
4:55 PM
just sayin' writes:
I think of true Christians as people who actually believe and follow what Jesus was teaching. Just believing Jesus was the son of God does not make you a Christian. In my book anyway. I notice that some of those white supremacists hate groups (KKK, Skinheads etc) all thump the Bible and proudly display Christian emblems. They are not Christians.
May 16, 2008
5:14 PM
JW writes:
"You mean like you do to everyone who Voted for Bush twice and are going to vote McCain this November?
Can you see the hypocrisy?
Or does that not apply to Liberals?"
There is a difference. I dont take 2000 year old stories and make them the "facts" with which I judge peoples worth and dictate how they should act.
I use the best evidence I can find. And when judging specifically your voting for Bush twice, the writing is on the wall regarding the facts, whether or not you chose to believe it.
Im no saint, thats true. And perhaps you have a point that I judge people too harshly. But criticizing someones beliefs as "pop psychology" when yours are two thousand year old stories with no factual evidence themselves is ridiculous.
May 16, 2008
6:53 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Somebody needs to castrate our Federal government writes:
JW,
The only reason the Cal. supreme legislators said it was unconstitutional is that they redefined marriage. Marriage has been a relationship between one man and one woman since the creation. I have no problem if people want to create a name for relations between same sex partners, but they have to pick something other than marriage, that one is already taken.
Now if the gay crowd wants to amend the constitution to redefine marriage, that is their right also. But it needs to be done legislatively, not be judicial fiat.
The whole basis of our constitution is that you cannot invent rights out of thin air and you cannot redefine something that has always meant one thing without legislative action. The left is in love with changing this by just changing the definition. That is not how the system is supposed to work.
May 16, 2008
7:32 PM
Shaupeen writes:
Actually, Ben (if thats your post @ 4:16) I go to San Fran three or four times a year at the least--business and pleasure--for a couple of weeks every year. It's one of my favorite places. I'm an avid bicycle rider, so it's a joy to bring the road bike along and ride the city. As a heterosexual, I've never been discriminated against by gay people while I was there-probably over 200 days in all. And I've stayed in the Castro with my girlfriend and alone. She and I have walked the whole area hand in hand quite often and never have I encountered any form of discrimination. If anything, I got a lot of compliments on my shoes (sorry--had to make one joke!). I have friends who are gay, and I've stayed with them and met their circles of friends, and not once have I heard any animosity. Certainly nothing like the hatred I've seen on this thread today. I'm disgusted by what I've read. I think you are grabbing air to say there is discrimination against heteros there. I simply haven't seen it. People are just different, and not everyone is so shallow as to hate and fear what they don't understand.
May 16, 2008
8:57 PM
Ben-Super Hero writes:
just sayin,
Why are you so hung up on white supremasists? Good lord. You are a regular gung ho Morris Dees wannabe. How about empathy for white Americans? You cry about racial injustices of 100 years ago as if they are relevant in today's currency of politics. Jeez dude, what are you an 85 year old liberal pre hippie stuck in Civil rights struggles of 1965 and still trying to get play out of it?
Shaupeen, Have you ever hear of the "Gay Mafia"? If you were real creative with your computer you would find instances of homos being discriminatory towards heteros.
May 16, 2008
9:08 PM
Ben-Has queer friends doesn't support gay agenda writes:
Here is some irony, while I was replying to the last blog of 8:57, a lesbian aquaintance/friend of my wife and I, whose "wedding" I attended last fall, and whose book my wife edited, was on the phone, and I didn't even snap to mention in that blog as I was typing away. What a crazy world we live in.
May 16, 2008
11:08 PM
Shaupeen writes:
Ben, I don't doubt it exists--there are narrow-minded individuals in every type and group of people. I'm just saying it hasn't happened to me, and I have been in the City a lot.
May 17, 2008
9:41 AM
jay writes:
ben does your imaginary friend know that you don't support giving gays equal rights?
i wonder if the bigots in the early part of this century had black imaginary friends.
May 17, 2008
11:33 AM
Ben-Against the gay agenda writes:
Pinochio, I do support gays having equal rights and they do. Gays can marry members of the opposite sex, raise children and have families. I don't think them marrying each other should be given special recognition by the state and all benefits therein.
May 17, 2008
11:39 AM
MoveOn writes:
When you practice an abnormal sexual orientation and live an abnormal lifestyle, you are not in a position to demand parity with the majority normal population.
Next.
May 17, 2008
12:19 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
GOLDEN GATE PARK GOATS PROTEST!
They don't like the new competition.
May 17, 2008
1:32 PM
jay writes:
wake up and smell the rationalization of your bigotry based on a 2000 year old fairy tale, ben.
" I do support gays having equal rights and they do"
really? they have the equal right to marry the one they love?
not so much.
nice try.
ben's bizzaro world isn't exactly a great frame of reference here my little bigot.
May 17, 2008
2:06 PM
jayisanidiot writes:
Equal rights is a smokescreen for those whose sexual orientation and lifestyle puts them on the fringe.
Abnormal behavior can never be mainstreamed no matter how many activist liberal judges say so.....
May 17, 2008
2:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
jay - we've debunked the "equal rights" myth on here more times than I can count. Try to keep up with the class, ok?
There is ONE Colorado constitution. It applies to ALL citizens. Irrespective of their orientation.
Case closed.
May 17, 2008
3:23 PM
just sayin' writes:
Ben, I don't believe that I have a hang up about White Supremacists. I used to work with a guy who happened to be gay and was jumped by 3 skinheads. He is a pretty big guy so it took more than one. They beat him with a tire iron and he would be dead if someone hadn't happened along. (Wwere you part of that group? 10years ago) Congratulations on having a gay acquaintence. I hope for your wife's sake you don't refer to her as a "queer". Oh, and "Yellow" isn't really the proper term for Asians. I think less and less of you all the time.
I don't know what your hang ups are with minorities but you need help. I am guessing that you've been passed over several times by minorities that are infinitely more qualified.
May 17, 2008
3:30 PM
just sayin' writes:
Some of you tools are completely obsessed by Jay.Congratulations Jay, you must make them realize how really stupid they are.
May 17, 2008
3:59 PM
Ben-distant nephew of Darwin writes:
"really? they have the equal right to marry the one they love?" Pinochio
Sure gays can marry the one they love, and many do. So why is a minority demographic group (gays) pushing it's agenda on 90% of the population. The people have spoken. Gays can marry if they want, and that's it. No special governmental recognition or priviledges that belong with a 2000 year old tradition. A traditon that is historically, culturally, constructually, biologicaly and evolutionary by design.
The reason homosexuality exists in all species is for population control mechanisms per evolution and survival of the species.
Marriage is for building families. Families for building nations.
Homosexuality is for what now?
just sayin,
Your assumptions are wrong at every juncture, ignorance, for lack of a more diplomatic term. I would bet I personally know more minorites than every single person combined who blogs regularly here. Just sayin, you are mistaking my advocacies and experiences for "hang ups". You disappoint.
May 17, 2008
7:12 PM
good news for homos and illegals writes:
NEWS: The Senate bill for war funding included a provision to help farmers struggling with labor shortages.
Sen Larry Craid R idaho (bens hero) added a provision to give up to 1.35 million undocumented farm workers temporary legal status for 5 years.
in the only unanimous action of the moment, lawmakers rushed to begin their long weekend.
May 17, 2008
7:38 PM
Ben writes:
Correction;
Democrat Diane Feinstein put the rider on for illegal alien amnesty for 1.35 million using "labor shortages" as the excuse. That's your Democratic party at work folks.
May 17, 2008
10:42 PM
Anonymous writes:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-warvote16-2008may16,0,6330757.story
"The Senate bill also included a provision to help farmers struggling with labor shortages. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) added a provision to give as many as 1.35 million undocumented farm workers temporary legal status for five years."
Correction: its Dianne Feinstien and Bens hero
Larry Craig.
Remember Republicans like illegals and homos
May 18, 2008
2:49 AM
Barbara writes:
Abnormal sexual orientation and practice is not a minority issue. Trying to normalize it via activist judges in a liberal court do not change anything.
May 18, 2008
6:56 AM
Ben- Stamping out socio/ethnic ignorance writes:
Anonymous @ 10:42 and 7:12, Why did you conveniently leave out the main architect (Democrat Diane Feinstein) of giving amnesty to over a million illegal aliens? Larry Craig must have picked her up in a bathroom stall. They are both full of ..... That's coming from your Democratic Party and a homo Democrat posing as a Republican.
just sayin, Let me help you get in touch with what is happening in our country.
http://www.aztlan.net/brown_berets_de_aztlan.htm
and Almost all the "white" hate crimes are actually committed by Latinos, usually gang members fighting for turf against African-Americans. The rare real whites who commit hate crimes become national news and examples of the hate that lives in the heart of every white man, woman and child. But in reality, Hispanic immigration, and not white supremacy, is the reason why "white" hate crime is on the increase - more Hispanics means more anti-black hate crime.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=222638
May 18, 2008
8:55 PM
It's Clear writes:
Maybe you should sign your posts:
Ben- Anonymous Neo-Nazi
May 18, 2008
9:05 PM
Sharon b writes:
Humans invented marriage, animals just mate. We can change marriage any time we want.
If gays get married to each other, you are not expected to except or approve of their marriage, you are just expected to go on with your own lives and keep your nose out of their business.
If you don`t like a redefined marriage, don`t have one.
they may be on the fringe, but bet you there are many more than you ever thought. When they all come out you may get the shock of your little lives.
May 19, 2008
6:15 AM
Justice Scoliosis writes:
"A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution"
The US supreme court would no doubt strike this measure down. Cal supreme court did the right thing. Its no different than some people trying to ban interracial marriages.
May 19, 2008
7:27 AM
Anonymous writes:
Justice, No it's not. That myth has been debunked every time multiple times.
May 19, 2008
7:37 AM
Mormon Mitt writes:
Actually marriage should be redefined as one man and many wives
May 19, 2008
9:37 AM
JW writes:
"JW,
The only reason the Cal. supreme legislators said it was unconstitutional is that they redefined marriage."
Actually Hogar, it had nothing to do with the definition of marriage. You should try reading the decision before you go making claims like that. It had to do with the equal rights enshrined in the California constitution. If you were correct, there would be some kind of definition in the California constitution saying marriage is one man and one woman. There isnt. The "Definition" of marriage YOU CHOSE is not enshrined in the California constitution, its not protected by that constitution, and therefore the justices didng have to take it into account. They made their decision based on the equal rights guaranteed in that constitution, not some definition.
"Marriage has been a relationship between one man and one woman since the creation."
But NOT by law. Just by tradition.
"I have no problem if people want to create a name for relations between same sex partners, but they have to pick something other than marriage, that one is already taken."
Well, I do believe you vote against those kind of things every time they come up, so Im not sure youre being truthful here. That said, if you can get a definition like you want put into a constitution, you get that kind of protection for it.
Id point out that YET AGAIN this is an example of a social conservative coveting his own freedom to chose, while believing he has the moral grounds to deny that choice to others, this time based on something so pathetic as a WORD. You covet your right to marry whom ever you want...yet seek to deny that right to others base purely on the fact that you dont like them calling their relationship the same thing you call yours. Thats one hell of a thin ass argument for denying people the same choices you get. You'd make a damn good tyrant though.
"Now if the gay crowd wants to amend the constitution to redefine marriage, that is their right also."
Again, they dont have to because there is no constitutional definition of marriage in California. Youre making up legal necessities that DO NOT EXIST.
"But it needs to be done legislatively, not be judicial fiat."
Id agree. The funny thing here is that there is no definition of marriage in the California constitution, yet you want YOUR definition of marriage protected by...judicial fiat.
"The whole basis of our constitution is that you cannot invent rights out of thin air and you cannot redefine something that has always meant one thing without legislative action."
Good god. Where to start? The whole basis of our constitution is to set rights that CANNOT be infringed upon. They are inviolate. Its got nothing to do with setting other rights at all. It only limits legislation, because it says those rights cannot be broken by anything, including legislation. It has NOTHING to do with protecting definitions of ANY KIND. For fucks sake man, show me where it says in the constitution that "Ye shall not redefine words."
"The left is in love with changing this by just changing the definition."
Hehe. Yea, the right isnt guilty of that at all (creationism/intelligent design comes to mind).
"That is not how the system is supposed to work."
You might have a point here. The problem is youre saying definitions of marriage are protected by the constitution, and its ridiculous (accept where it has been defined by an amendment that passed. I dont know for sure, but I though Michigan or some such did actually do that. If that were the case, then your argument would be good. As it stands, they are just hot air based on willfully forgeting what you know of how our system works. Your argument that the constitution stops people from making up rights isnt included here, because its just ridiculous).
May 19, 2008
9:50 AM
Judge scoliosis writes:
First the US constitution amendment 14 guarantees equal treatment of all. Which means Gays should be treated the same as non gays. Thats why laws designed to deny priveleges to gays that non gays enjoy will continue to be thrown out.
Second. The rational to use religion as the basis for denying rights to gays is also unconstitutional. There is no state religion.
Relgious reasons are why people are trying to change the fetus person question too.
May 19, 2008
10:47 AM
The people writes:
No judge, you are trying to supercede the will of the people. Let's let the populace decide what marriage is not 9 people.
May 19, 2008
11:04 AM
JW writes:
"No judge, you are trying to supercede the will of the people. Let's let the populace decide what marriage is not 9 people."
Its really sad to see how many of you dont understand a constitutional representative democracy, and how it works.
You live in one. Take a civics class.
May 19, 2008
11:19 AM
jay writes:
"Sure gays can marry the one they love, and many do."
"they do [have equal rights]"
---benny-former realist
ben...if gay people already have equal rights, why all the push to grant them equal rights? do millions of people just have that wrong, in your world? do they just not know, according to you, that gays already have equal rights in the US?
weird, huh? is there some kind of conspiracy theory you'd like to share with us?
May 19, 2008
1:00 PM
Anonymous writes:
all the clueless idiot femdems celebrating this like a victory. If the judges would have left it alone the people of California would have given gays rights in due time. Now this is going to piss off the voters and they will surley vote to overturn the judges decision and make it a constitutional ban. Way go libtards! you won nothing and as usual will cause more missery for the people you claim to want to help, like the black community
May 19, 2008
1:04 PM
Ben-Former Democrat writes:
jay, Let the millions of Californian citizens decide, not just 9 of them. It really is that easy, democracy you know.
May 19, 2008
1:19 PM
jay writes:
so is the media involved with this conspiracy theory of yours, benny? you know...the one where millions of people mistakenly believe that gays don't have equal rights?
furthermore, aren't judges supposed to determine the constitutionality of laws...now matter how they came to be?
quick question...but do you really believe that not granting an american citizen equal rights is constitutional in your world?
May 19, 2008
1:42 PM
Shaggy writes:
Looks like jay drank too much Liberal kool-aid-ism this past weekend.
The vast Majority of Californians Voted loudly that they believe marriage should be between a Male and a female.
These Liberal judges(even though some were supposedly Republicans, I think they are actually Liberals in red wolf clothing, but anyhoo)decided they know whats best for the people and took away their votes.
Also,
Why do you think Super delegates even exist?
Because if they don't like the will of the overwhelming majority of peoples choice for President, they can over ride it.
Same thing, Liberals don't believe in Democracy, they believe in Dictatorship, as long as they are the Dictators.
The overwhelming majority of people also spoke out loudly against any bill giving illegals amnesty...Two times.....Liberals are still trying to change this.....
Liberals don't seem to be the sharpest loons in the flock, that is for sure.
May 19, 2008
1:43 PM
Ben-Former Democrat writes:
How is marriage a right? Is it declared as such in the Constitition?
May 19, 2008
1:54 PM
jay writes:
ben, are you still sticking to your "theory" that gays already have equal rights or are you going to continue to run from that little gaffe?
shaggy...take a civics class. even the republicans on the ca supreme court understand that it is unconstitutional to discriminate against others.
you guys sure hold tight to your bigotry. not very christian of you.
or is it?
May 19, 2008
2:12 PM
Ben- aka Gepetto writes:
Pinochio, I would refer you to all my previous postings instead of me having to repost chronically for you.
May 19, 2008
2:30 PM
jay writes:
i don't mind reminding that you haven't given an answer to this question:
"if gay people already have equal rights, why all the push to grant them equal rights? do millions of people just have that wrong, in your world? do they just not know, according to you, that gays already have equal rights in the US?"
you said this:
"Let the millions of Californian citizens decide, not just 9 of them. It really is that easy, democracy you know."
but that has nothing to do with the question. after which you posted this also nonrelated ditty:
"How is marriage a right? Is it declared as such in the Constitition?"
is that question an answer of some kind?
May 19, 2008
4:16 PM
JW writes:
"The vast Majority of Californians Voted loudly that they believe marriage should be between a Male and a female.
These Liberal judges(even though some were supposedly Republicans, I think they are actually Liberals in red wolf clothing, but anyhoo)decided they know whats best for the people and took away their votes."
Shaggy,
We've been getting along pretty well lately (Thx btw on the congrats) so Im just going to ask you one question;
What is the purpose of the supreme court?
Doesn't matter if its state or federal, their jobs are essentially the same.
On a side note, this use of "Vast majority" has got to stop on both sides of these debates. 60% of Californians voted in that legislation. Thats not "Vast". Thats just a majority.
I figure you need to save that "vast" tag for at least 85% plus.
"jay, Let the millions of Californian citizens decide, not just 9 of them. It really is that easy, democracy you know."
This is essentially the same thing that Shaggy was saying so Ill ask you the same question Ben;
What is the function of the supreme court. Again, state or federal, they do basically the same thing.
Here is a hint;
The function of the supreme court, state or federal, is NOT to piss off conservatives. It is also NOT the function of a supreme court to judge based on the will of the majority. Its just not their job.
And before you bash the idea of a supreme court, but AFTER you actually know what they do (like any AMERICAN should), understand that the idea of a supreme court was put in place by the founders of this nation for GOOD REASON.
May 19, 2008
5:10 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Republican, because not everyone can be on welfare. writes:
JW,
Laws don't mean a thing if a words definition does not have authority and meaning. This whole thing reminds me of Clinton's "it depends on what the definition of the word "is" is."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
May 19, 2008
5:34 PM
JW writes:
Jeez.
Hogar, let me ask you...
What is the FUNCTION of the supreme court?
"Laws don't mean a thing if a words definition does not have authority and meaning. This whole thing reminds me of Clinton's "it depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.""
Blah blah Clinton out of context blah.
Jackass.
On second thought, never mind. I dont care that youre an ignorant ideology pimping useless sack of stupid. Just quit posting to me.
May 19, 2008
6:11 PM
Shaggy writes:
Come on JW, you know I get along with anyone and everyone that agrees with me and what is right:)
Serious,
"What is the purpose of the supreme court?"---JW
They have many purposes but I can safely assume you are talking about the one upholding the Constitution and not the will of the vast....errrrr...scratch that...the majority of the people who have already spoken, even though I think a 60-40 is a vast majority. 20 % spreads in Vegas is a vast amount.
The Supreme Court is not about taking the will away from the people regardless of their Political affiliation....That is what.....I THINK.....has happened here.
Remember that the Supreme Court is not GOD nor MOTHER NATURE.
May 19, 2008
6:15 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Republican, because not everyone can be on welfare. writes:
JW,
First let me congratulate you on your engagement.
Secondly the job of the Supreme Court is to determine whether a law is Constitutional. What is the CA supreme legislative body going to do next? Declare that women only giving birth is a violation of the CA constitution?
Marriage is an institution that has always meant the same thing, a union between one man and one woman. Now that they have broken it, what is to stop marriage from being defined as a union between two men and a woman, two women and a man or any combination that floats someone elses boat. If the definition of marriage is subject to being defined by the court, then nothing is off limits.
May 19, 2008
6:36 PM
Shaggy writes:
Hey JW & Hog...Notice the time line...no one can ever accuse me of being a Hogar:)
Nice post Hog....as usual......
btw I only post as Shaggy or the guy from Canada:)
May 19, 2008
6:47 PM
Shaggy writes:
JW, got one for you my friend or any of your left handed friends.
Why do you think Super delegates even exist?
May 20, 2008
8:32 AM
Anonymous writes:
"Why do you think Super delegates even exist?"
For fucks sake Shaggy, Ive NO IDEA. It could be its just a hold over thats no longer necessary, like the electoral college. Or it could be that back in the day the Dems had some idiot that said they needed to do things differently than the Repubs. Ive got no clue.
And quit calling me a lefty man. Id vote republican if you ran someone other than Bush Jr. Im socially liberal, but Im a fiscal conservative. Unfortunatley, McSame is NEITHER. The sad fact is that for this election, I can vote for a social liberal who is more fiscaly conservative than the Republican candidate. That being the case, Im going to, because I like freedom; both with my morals and personal life, and with my money.
"First let me congratulate you on your engagement."
Damnit Hogar! Youve just jinxed my marriage. If YOU approve, its got to be a mistake.
Seriously though, thanks.
"Secondly the job of the Supreme Court is to determine whether a law is Constitutional."\
Yep. You just keep screaming that they undermined the will of the people. You've done NO research as to whether or not the law was unconstitutional. If it was unconstitutional, then they did their job.
I actually read the decision. It wasnt about pissing off conservatives. It wasnt about setting policy because they knew better than the people. It was about "The constitution says this, and this law goes against that. The law is unconstitutional. Try again."
Deal with it.
Look man, just because a decision goes against you doesnt automatically make it "judicial activism".
Here is an example;
The partial birth abortion ban. I took a look at that and figured that it was judicial activism because they ignored the principle of "Stare Decisis", president.
But, there is some leway for courts to do that. And it appears that it could be a legitimate decision based on the fact that there is another method of late term abortion that is used far more frequently. They heard out the doctors, both those that said there were legit health reasons for PBA, and those that said there was no health reason for it. They made a decision.
Ok. Its probably legit, despite the fact that I would have disagreed. I think that it should have been required to have a health exemption like all the other laws were (president) because I think that one woman's health is more important than greater societies dislike for a proceedure. But...the court disagreed. Well, thats life in a constitutional democracy, and my disagreement doesnt make it "Judicial Activism". The decision conforms to the rule of law, and the process of law, regardless.
Anyway, WTF is the purpose of our constitution if people like you are just going to throw a hissy fit every time something isnt exactly the way you want it? The fact that you use fallacy and straight up incorrect info based on ignorance as the foundation of your rant makes it even worse.
And finally,
Hogar, did you vote for Amendment 2?
May 20, 2008
9:12 AM
Shaggy writes:
Super delegates were formed so they could be the final decider's if they don't like the will of the majority of people.
One could argue that these Justices are just Super Delegates with robes on telling the people they don't care how they Voted, majority of Votes means nothing to them if they don't like the out come, they know what is best for all and they will tell you how it is going to be.
Still not sure why you felt the need to get all excited about my question...too much caffeine I suppose.
May 20, 2008
9:44 AM
JW writes:
"Still not sure why you felt the need to get all excited about my question...too much caffeine I suppose."
I was just trying to say Im annoyed that they do it that way because it is BS, and because its BS I have NO idea why they do it.
"Super delegates were formed so they could be the final decider's if they don't like the will of the majority of people."
Did you find a written statement to that effect from the person who put that policy in place? Or is this just "Shaggy's decided this is why, and so it must be."
"One could argue that these Justices are just Super Delegates with robes on telling the people they don't care how they Voted, majority of Votes means nothing to them if they don't like the out come, they know what is best for all and they will tell you how it is going to be."
No. This argument is totally wrong. Period. Sorry. Just the way it is.
We have a CONSTITUTION Shaggy. It is THE ULTIMATE LAW IN THE LAND. Every single law that is passed MUST conform to the constitution. If a law is in conflict with the constitution, then it is thrown out REGARDLESS of its origin. Whether its congress, or a popular vote doesnt matter.
The reason this is in place is because the Founders were well familiar with the tyranny of the majority. In England, for example, the Church of England was the only legal religion. People that followed other religions were branded criminals. The majority of the people agreed with this. However, this is a case where the majority was undermining the fundamental human right to freedom of religion. The constitution guarantees that right so that some majority cannot come along and vote to force everyone to follow their religion, or be branded a criminal.
Do you understand this concept? You are entitled to rights that NO ONE can take away. If the "Vast Majority" of people in this counrty decide that you cannot chose to worship whatever religion you currently do, you are safe, because what they think doesnt matter. You have a FUNDAMENTAL right...regardless of how many people say otherwise, to worship the religion you want.
Get it?
In simple terms, sometimes the "Will of the People" is wrong, because it strips certain groups of fundamental rights that everyone is entitled to, regardless.
And basically what you are arguing here is for a perfect democracy. Id suggest you read Plato's "The Republic". It is the foundation for the thinking of our fathers, and why they formed a democratic constitutional republic , rather than a democracy.
May 20, 2008
10:23 AM
jay writes:
"One could argue that these Justices are just Super Delegates with robes on telling the people they don't care how they Voted, majority of Votes means nothing to them if they don't like the out come, they know what is best for all and they will tell you how it is going to be."
alright, we're once again at what i am now calling the shag paradox.
either shaggy is truly ignorant about what role the supreme courts play in this country....or he is once again doing his best to be willfully ignorant about yet another inconvenient truth that decimates his position on yet another issue.
the shag paradox...because he's ignorant either way.
May 20, 2008
12:59 PM
Shaggy writes:
jay are spreading conspiracy theories about me again?
And quit being a popinjay!!
popinjay "a person given to vain, pretentious displays and empty chatter; coxcomb; fop."
I know what the Supreme Courts Justices obligations are fellas, they are there to make sure people like Obama won't take our right to bear arms away like he voted to do in the past!!
btw jay, talk about inconvenience truths...
I am still waiting for you to send me a link backing your previous statment up.
I have looked at the couple of Government links you sent but they stated nothing of the sort.
"did you see mccain's chief economic advisor admit in the last week that mccain's economic plans would actually increase the deficit? he also admitted that his planned corporate tax cuts alone would add another 1.7 trillion dollars to the debt over the next 10 years."----jay
May 20, 2008
1:25 PM
JW writes:
"I know what the Supreme Courts Justices obligations are fellas, they are there to make sure people like Obama won't take our right to bear arms away like he voted to do in the past!!"
For the sake of argument Ill just say this is true. I like owning a gun, so I certainly support the individuals right to bear arms. Having read the actual text in the constitution, well, I think its an arguable point...unfortunately.
Their job is also to make sure that Bush doesnt imprison people with no habeus corpus, access to a lawyer, or right to a speedy trial. Sadly, they have failed in this regard.
The point of the whole thing was that screaming "legislation from the bench!" and "activist judges!" and "the will of the voters!" every time some judge rules that a law you agree with is unconstitutional is silly, annoying, and intellectually lazy.
May 20, 2008
1:58 PM
jay writes:
i told you last time you brought up your willful ignorance on that issue, shag, that i was going to quiz you on the three links I posted as proof of my statement so that i can ensure that you've actually read them. so...let's start small...who is mcbush's chief economic advisor?
May 20, 2008
3:26 PM
Shaggy writes:
jay I don't need three or four 500,000 page Government PDA's like you sent me, just send me a link showing me where he said it is all, it really isn't that tough.
Here like this.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/11/mccain_picks_hi.html
You see jay, we do not need to hold a day long seminar on this simple question.
JW,
If Obama does become President, does it scare you or concern you that he will probably pick very Liberal Supreme Court Justices?
Yes it is a Hypothetical but Obama is very Liberal and I don't think that is even debatable, maybe debatable how far left but definitely left of left.
As you probably know, he scares the hell out me in all sorts of areas.
May 20, 2008
3:52 PM
JW writes:
"If Obama does become President, does it scare you or concern you that he will probably pick very Liberal Supreme Court Justices?"
No. He will be able to put maybe two on the bench. With Bush's appointments, Id say that will just keep ballance in the future. Besides, I dont know that he would pick "Very Liberal" judges anyway. It would be pretty hard to get them through the Senate. Liberal in comparison to what Bush put up? Yea, but again, I think that ballance tends to be the best for the country. You put a few more "Strict Constructionists" on that bench and I think you may be looking at some serious civil unrest in the next 20 years, because not everyone would like their decisions like you would. We need a ballance, because this nation is made up of many different people with different beliefs. One group getting their way all the time is a good way to piss off ALOT of people who are not in that group.
"Yes it is a Hypothetical but Obama is very Liberal and I don't think that is even debatable, maybe debatable how far left but definitely left of left."
Depends on the policy you pick. I've done some digging into that "most liberal" label. Turns out the publication that did that rating based it on THREE VOTES. Thats hardly idicitave of a voting history of...well, more than three votes.
Looking directly at his policies, socially Im content with the guy. But then, Im socially liberal. Freedom and all that. Fiscally, hes a bit more liberal than Id like. That said, hes way more CONSERVATIVE fiscally than what McSame is saying he will do, and what Bush has done.
"As you probably know, he scares the hell out me in all sorts of areas."
Yea, but I think that comes with being partisan. The crazy left freaked out when Bush was elected. It took Bush 7 years of completely cracked policy, and some serious collusion with the Republican majority AND the Democratic minority for part of that to finally hurt our economy. Iraq is complicated. Suffice to say that could have gone another way. But, in the end, Bush did mismanage that about as badly as he could.
So it took all of that to get us where we are today, and while Id say Bush has obviously hurt this nation...it hasnt exploded like the partisan left was screaming it would when Bush was elected. The sky didnt fall. We arent a third world nation. etc etc.
So when you say you are afraid of Obama, I just think thats kind of the same. Youre over reacting. He simply could not do as much damage as you think he could, even if he does the WORST he could possibly do. And you can see it with Bush, because he probably did about the WORST he possibly could, and while it did hurt us, we are still doing ok.
May 20, 2008
4:34 PM
Shaggy writes:
JW this is just one more reason why I think Obama is ignorant.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2018654/posts
His label did not come from just three votes.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
May 20, 2008
4:50 PM
jay writes:
that's what i thought, shaggy. read up then come back if you have any questions.
May 20, 2008
6:32 PM
Shaggy writes:
No jaysters, thats what I thought..you don't have a link....you are just playing games....again!!!
Those links you provided were Government documents and the opinion of a liberal columnist.
Come on man, it, winky winky "supposedly" just happened recently...shouldn't be too hard to find...
I'll be waiting.
May 20, 2008
8:06 PM
Shaggy writes:
Hey JW & jay,
What are your thoughts of Hillary running as a independent?
She has been spending a large amount of her own $!!!
May 20, 2008
9:42 PM
JW writes:
"His label did not come from just three votes."
Tricky wording in that link shaggy. It says that of 270 votes, Obama only differed on 10 from Clinton.
But it doesnt say how many of those were used to rank them. :)
And since Hillary is a centrist, with social liberal leanings and fiscally conservative leanings...that kind of does point to Obama being similar...a centrist, rather than flaming liberal.
May 21, 2008
8:01 AM
JW writes:
"What are your thoughts of Hillary running as a independent?"
I think that would ensure McSame wins, and I do not think she would do that.
May 21, 2008
8:37 AM
JW writes:
Shaggy,
Why is it you will not even LOOK at information if it comes from moveon.org, but you actually consider Freerepublic.com a legitimate source? I mean, that is just the most amazing double standard. Don't you think a bit of consistancy is in order?
That said, lets take a look at your freerepublic link's claims.
"According to Barack Obama, there is no need to worry about the "tiny" threat from countries like Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc."
Did Barack say there was "no need to worry"? No. This is called "spin". Barack said he would TALK to Iran. He didnt say there was no need to worry about them.
"That's interesting because I do recall Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the planet."
I've talked about this in the past. The full quote from Amenidinanutjob is that Israel will be wiped off the map AS THE USSR WAS. As there were no nukes involved in the fall of the USSR, I find it a bit dificult to jump on the "Iran wants to nuke Israel" train. The concept of "Mutually assured destruction" adds to that sentiment. That said, the media in general has been running with this bs for a very long time as well, so this isnt just freerepublic putting this particular spin on the issue.
"I do recall Iran developing a nuclear program."
No. You dont. What you recall were claims from the Bush admin that Iran is trying to develop nukes. Thats it.
Now, the main argument people would use here would be that Bush was wrong about Iraq WMD's. Well, that is a fallacious argument, because while Bush was wrong on Iraq, it doesnt automatically mean he's wrong about Iran. That said, our most recent NIE says that Iran doesnt appear to be attempting to make nukes. NIE VS. Bush...you just cant be sure. I think the one thing you can be SURE of in this case is that we shouldnt just go bombing Iran without proof.
"I do recall Iran offering its nuclear expertise to other Muslim countries."
WTF is this? I never heard anything about this. And as they are Shia, who are they offering it to? The Saudis? Hell no. And what expertise does Iran have to give? They dont even have reactors on line! They are trying to get help from the Russians, because they CANNOT DO IT THEMSELVES! They dont HAVE any expertise! As far as Im concerned, this statement is just plain BULLSHIT.
"I do recall Iran funding and training terrorists that are killing American troops in Iraq."
This has been beaten into the dirt. McSame is making these claims as well. There are two problems with it;
The military hasnt backed it up. The military has said that the might have some arms from Iran, but mostly not.
Second, the word "terrorists". There is a difference between Al Qaeda, who will follow us to America once Iraq is over, and Iraqis fighting Americans because they see us as occupiers, but will not chase us home if we leave.
"Oh and by the way, this threat from Iran is all George Bush's fault, according to Barack Obama. Well guess what, it wasn't George Bush's fault when Muslim terrorists decided to attack our country in September 2001. Rather than "talk" and appease the enemy – radical Islam – George Bush stood up and defended the greatest country in the world with the greatest military."
First off, when did Obama blame the "Threat from Iran" on Bush? Hes said the threat from Iran is "Tiny". Hes said Bush's foreign policy is a failure. But I havent heard him say Iran is GW's fault. Additionally, we are talking about Iran. WTF does that have to do with 9/11? If you want to go there, how about admitting that Iran HELPED US in Afghanistan?
"Yes, Barack Obama, Iran is a threat to the United States because it is engulfed in a religion of hate."
This...is just Bullshit. The majority of Iranians are moderates, period. They have the Iranian equivelant of GW as a figurehead at the moment, but the man is really just a squack box mouthpiece.
"It is ruled by a mad mullah who wants nothing more than to extinguish the Western way of life "
This is also rank bullshit. The Iyatollah (sp?) has allowed some moderate reform. He allowed the former president to send us a treaty proposal that gave us EVERYTHING we wanted, and all they wanted in return was a guarantee we would not try to institute regime change in Iran. You probably wont beileve that Shaggy, but I have SEEN Richard Armitage, former deputy Secretary of State talk about it, admit that we did in fact get the doc, and that they (the Bush admin) just ignored it.
"all of those homosexuals they don't have over there, for example. "
Admittedly, Iran's policy on homosexuallity is barbaric.
"Not recognizing your enemy is just as bad as not fighting it to begin with."
Well, Obama has recognized that Iran is our enemy. He also recognizes how much of a threat that particular enemy actually poses. Hell, Chavez is our enemy, and they actually pose a greater threat because they sell us a hell of alot more oil. We are far more dependant on Venezuela than Iran for our energy needs. Again, the above statement is nothing more than emotionally based spin.
"John McCain has already called out Obama on this statement. He says that this statement shows the depth of Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. "
Yea. Unfortunatley, John McSame was advocating talking to Iran less than a year ago. Flip flop.
May 21, 2008
8:45 AM
JW writes:
"I do recall Iran developing a nuclear program."
Sorry, this should have been;
Yes, a nuclear POWER program.
Nuclear Weapons? No. You dont. What you recall were claims from the Bush admin that Iran is trying to develop nukes. Thats it.
Now, the main argument people would use here would be that Bush was wrong about Iraq WMD's. Well, that is a fallacious argument, because while Bush was wrong on Iraq, it doesnt automatically mean he's wrong about Iran. That said, our most recent NIE says that Iran doesnt appear to be attempting to make nukes. NIE VS. Bush...you just cant be sure. I think the one thing you can be SURE of in this case is that we shouldnt just go bombing Iran without proof.
May 21, 2008
9:26 AM
Shaggy writes:
JW,
moveon is ran by George Soros...enough said.
In my opinion they are a bunch of radical left wackos that run that site and it is one of the main fund raiser for Obama.
Another side of Obama people are starting to see....his far left Liberal side and why I don't think he will be elected as President.
How do you know Iran isn't talking about using Nukes to wipe Israel off the map?
Are you that confidant with Nutjob to ASSUME what he means by it?
This is a guy that denies the holocaust!
"Did Barack say there was "no need to worry"? No. This is called "spin". Barack said he would TALK to Iran. He didnt say there was no need to worry about them."
Have you heard his speech? It wasn't his greatest moment, it really showed his inexperience and lack of knowledge.
Does this dunce understand Germany was a small Country?
Does this dunce understand that Iran is training insurgents that are killing Americans yet he wants to sit down and talk to them?
What is he going to say to him?
Whether or not you personally don't see a problem with this, I don't think that is a popular opinion amongst the rest of us.
I don't understand why you keep trying to cover for Iran but I see them as a Major threat that will have to be dealt with sooner rather than Later.
Bottom line and the problem with Liberals is that they think that if they can only talk to the terrorists who have hated us since Hector was a pup, they can change them and become friends with them. They can make them see our point of view and how wrong they have been for all these years.
Carter comes to mind.
Obama reminds people of Carter.
Yet another reason w