Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My prediction on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    That's pretty much what I posted originally, so why go round about to basically say what I posted?
    Nope you stated that liberals where going to be all upset when a case like that was filed, no they will not. They will laugh out load at such a case, as they should.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

    Comment


    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Actual and implemented, the feds were worse.

      Woodrow Wilson's administration codified segregation in the US government effectively excluding Black candidates and enforcing segregation in the military.

      You have things like the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court.

      Or, there's the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Remember, we put German Nazis and Japanese soldiers to death for such experimentation... Yet, the US government did likewise on a smaller scale.

      Sure, states could be oppressive to minorities but that pales in comparison to the federal government or all intents condoning it and even practicing likewise on a national scale.
      Once again hundreds and thousands effected over decades verses Millions effected on a daily basis. SCALE!!!!!!!

      What astounds me is the many conservative posters we have on this forum that simply let you post this stuff without yelling Stop. All in the name of not wanting to "Attack" a fellow conservative. That is embarrassing.
      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
      “To talk of many things:
      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
      Of cabbages—and kings—
      And why the sea is boiling hot—
      And whether pigs have wings.”
      ― Lewis Carroll

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
        Once again hundreds and thousands effected over decades verses Millions effected on a daily basis. SCALE!!!!!!!

        What astounds me is the many conservative posters we have on this forum that simply let you post this stuff without yelling Stop. All in the name of not wanting to "Attack" a fellow conservative. That is embarrassing.
        Because TA Gardner based his posts on facts. You don't. That's simple as it gets. I know, it's kind of embarrassing for you, right?
        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

        "Aim small, miss small."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
          Because TA Gardner based his posts on facts. You don't. That's simple as it gets. I know, it's kind of embarrassing for you, right?
          Another great example, thanks.
          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
          “To talk of many things:
          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
          Of cabbages—and kings—
          And why the sea is boiling hot—
          And whether pigs have wings.”
          ― Lewis Carroll

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Crash View Post
            I came here specifically to witness the wailing and gnashing of teeth...


            I have not been disappointed.
            When Clash posted this I ALMOST replied and said, "Hey, our con's have been pretty reasonable in this thread, leave them alone. I'm glad I did not, they mostly went to the nutter farm soon after. After that it just got worse....

            Sad.

            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
            “To talk of many things:
            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
            Of cabbages—and kings—
            And why the sea is boiling hot—
            And whether pigs have wings.”
            ― Lewis Carroll

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
              Nope you stated that liberals where going to be all upset when a case like that was filed, no they will not. They will laugh out load at such a case, as they should.
              Nope, you're making stuff up again. Here is what I posted:

              Originally posted by Nichols View Post
              It will be interesting seeing how people will react when the pro-gun lobby uses this to take fight against the current CCW restrictions.
              From the above you determine I stated that liberals where going to be all upset?
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                Nope, you're making stuff up again. Here is what I posted:



                From the above you determine I stated that liberals where going to be all upset?
                PRO GUN LOBBY does NOT equal the nutters that might actually file such suits. I was wrong on the 'upset' part, but right on the core. NO PRO GUN lobby will file any such suit. They have lawyers that actually understand why this case provides no such angle to file anything on.
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                  Please lets list the WORST violations of individual rights that this nation has witnessed and then lets list the source, state or fed. Want to bet on the outcome?

                  Why are you going of -topic ?

                  The 5 liberal judges of Scotus have imposed same-sex marriage on the nation ,something for which there is no ground .

                  Scotus can not use the Constitution nor a federal law as reason.

                  The reason of the Scotus judgement well hidden behind the usual liberal phraseology is political bias :they want to attack and destroy the existing marriage institution,something which is their right,but then they should become candidate for Congress .

                  The whole thing fits in the hidden liberal offensive to transform society .

                  After marriage, religion will follow (the attacks are already going),right on property, family,free speech,right to live,.....

                  Comment


                  • The federal government haa had to intervene again, again, again, again, and again to protect civil rights. It's honestly embarrassing. Slavery, black rights gay rights, equal wages, and many other violations,
                    First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                      Why are you going of -topic ?

                      The 5 liberal judges of Scotus have imposed same-sex marriage on the nation ,something for which there is no ground .

                      Scotus can not use the Constitution nor a federal law as reason.

                      The reason of the Scotus judgement well hidden behind the usual liberal phraseology is political bias :they want to attack and destroy the existing marriage institution,something which is their right,but then they should become candidate for Congress .

                      The whole thing fits in the hidden liberal offensive to transform society .

                      After marriage, religion will follow (the attacks are already going),right on property, family,free speech,right to live,.....
                      If there was no grounds for it why did 37 states already allow it?

                      SCOTUS can't use the Constitution as a reason for their decision on a case? Are you kidding?

                      This part makes zero sense.

                      Uh, transform it into a society without repression for minorities?

                      I laughed out loud at this part.
                      First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                        Why are you going of -topic ?

                        The 5 liberal judges of Scotus have imposed same-sex marriage on the nation ,something for which there is no ground .

                        Scotus can not use the Constitution nor a federal law as reason.

                        The reason of the Scotus judgement well hidden behind the usual liberal phraseology is political bias :they want to attack and destroy the existing marriage institution,something which is their right,but then they should become candidate for Congress .

                        The whole thing fits in the hidden liberal offensive to transform society .

                        After marriage, religion will follow (the attacks are already going),right on property, family,free speech,right to live,.....
                        The topic goes were it goes, I ask questions, if you feel they are off topic, ignore them and the post that answer them.

                        not at all, if you read the opinion and read the references to the case law in the opinion you'd know that. NOTHING new hear at all concerning the 14th and how it was applied and how it was applied in the past.

                        You need to start at the beginning, the opinion, and try again.

                        WAR ON RELIGION!!!!! Special report on Fox News featuring Todd Starnes... watch it tonight at 2200 hours..... Meanwhile continue watching your minimum CEC requirement daily. That is all.... now back to Hannity.....

                        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                        “To talk of many things:
                        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                        Of cabbages—and kings—
                        And why the sea is boiling hot—
                        And whether pigs have wings.”
                        ― Lewis Carroll

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                          Once again hundreds and thousands effected over decades verses Millions effected on a daily basis. SCALE!!!!!!!
                          You want to compare people who were refused service at a café or told to sit at the back of the bus to people who were killed, dispossessed of their property, and had their lives uprooted or ruined? Strikers machine gunned? Look what the feds did to the WW 1 "Bonus Army."
                          That is the worst moral equivalence argument I've ever heard. Being inconvenienced and put in a second class citizen status pales to losing your life, your possessions, or being put in what amounts to concentration camps and apartide.

                          What astounds me is the many conservative posters we have on this forum that simply let you post this stuff without yelling Stop. All in the name of not wanting to "Attack" a fellow conservative. That is embarrassing.
                          What is astounding is the lack of moral backbone on the Left. You respond to every one of my posts with either a dismissal out-of-hand or an ad hominem. I understand you don't like my positions and that they are hard to refute so I cut you some slack for that. It isn't uncommon for Progressives to lack an ability to hold a rational discussion with someone who disagrees with them.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                            Not at all. Because your trying to use forum debate logic to cover legal case law etc. It doesn't work that way. Getting a wee bit embarrassing....
                            Legal precedents have to be grounded in logical argument or they are, by definition, "arbitrary and capricious." This means "at will."

                            I'll try to make this easier for you.

                            Let's assume arguendo that the 14th Amendment is relevant here.

                            Given that prohibitions of interracial and homosexual marriages violate the 14th Amendment, why don't prohibitions of polygamous and incestuous marriages violate the 14th Amendment?

                            It's easy to come up with a logical answer for why pedophile marriages still don't qualify for 14th Amendment protections. It is also easy to logically explain why the amendment applied to interracial marriages.

                            However, it is impossible to logically explain how it can apply to homosexual marriages and not to incestuous and/or polygamous marriages.

                            Without a logical argument, this ruling sets a wide open precedent because it is 100% arbitrary and capricious.
                            Last edited by The Doctor; 27 Jun 15, 23:11.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                              Given that prohibitions of interracial and homosexual marriages violate the 14th Amendment, why don't prohibitions of polygamous and incestuous marriages violate the 14th Amendment?
                              Aren't polygamy and incest illegal?

                              Isn't that kinda like asking why isn't illegal speech not protected by the 1st Amendment while other forms of speech are?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                                Aren't polygamy and incest illegal?
                                Marriages are illegal. However incestuous and multi-partner sexual relations between consenting adults is not illegal, in part because SCOTUS has ruled that the 14th Amendment protects these private activities.

                                They are exactly analogous to homosexual relations and marriages.

                                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay
                                Isn't that kinda like asking why isn't illegal speech not protected by the 1st Amendment while other forms of speech are?
                                No.
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X