Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My prediction on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Charger View Post
    Why don't you just answer me?

    I've read the delusional opinion. Now once again, please tell me where in the Constitution is marriage deemed to be a right?
    Why should I cut and paste from the ruling when you've read it. Rather silly and a waste of time.
    “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


    • #62
      Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
      Oh, they can do something about it, campaign the heck out of 'WAR on RELIGION!" etc. Already started. The question is the what effect it will have on the GOP base during the Caucuses and Primaries....
      It will fire us up... right on through Election Day.

      More importantly, it will add momentum to this...

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f89_story.html
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        It will fire us up... right on through Election Day.

        More importantly, it will add momentum to this...

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f89_story.html
        Which would be a fantastic thing.

        My rules to good government? Keep the conservatives away from social issues, and keep the liberals away from economic ones. The more the GOP focus on taxes, the budget, and a chronically overspending federal government and less on the social choices they are offended by, the better.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          It will fire us up... right on through Election Day.

          More importantly, it will add momentum to this...

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f89_story.html
          It will lose the election for the GOP.
          “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


          • #65
            Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
            Only a little longer that to realize that money = speech and that corporations are people.....
            Amendment XIV was not basis of Citizens United v FEC. It was Amendment I...

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

            No miracles involved.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
              Why should I cut and paste from the ruling when you've read it. Rather silly and a waste of time.
              I'm waiting for your explanation. Do you not have a mind of your own? Do you blindly regurgitate what you read? Are these rhetorical questions?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                It will lose the election for the GOP.
                Firing up the base will lose the election... That's a good one!!!

                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                  Amendment XIV was not basis of Citizens United v FEC. It was Amendment I...

                  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

                  No miracles involved.
                  Did not say it was, they used a different amendment to pull out the white rabbit from.....
                  “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


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    Firing up the base will lose the election... That's a good one!!!
                    Yup, if it's the Social Con base, sure, it'll even cost them some GOP voters that will sit out if a Sen Cruz or Mike Huckabee wins because of this, without a doubt.
                    “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


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Charger View Post
                      I'm waiting for your explanation. Do you not have a mind of your own? Do you blindly regurgitate what you read? Are these rhetorical questions?
                      Already answered, you just don't like it. The Constitutional argument is covered quite well in the opinion. Want to discus one of those? Post it and we can discus. Pretty easy.
                      “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


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                        Already answered, you just don't like it. The Constitutional argument is covered quite well in the opinion. Want to discus one of those? Post it and we can discus. Pretty easy.
                        I guess they were rhetorical questions after all.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Charger View Post
                          I guess they were rhetorical questions after all.
                          That and silly ones to boot. I guess you don't have an issue from the opinion you want to discuss after all???? Or is that a rhetorical question?
                          “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


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                            Did not say it was, they used a different amendment to pull out the white rabbit from.....
                            They used the Amendment that said...
                            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                            Campaign finance laws which restrict Free Speech violate the First Amendment.
                            Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.

                            https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                              Yup, if it's the Social Con base, sure, it'll even cost them some GOP voters that will sit out if a Sen Cruz or Mike Huckabee wins because of this, without a doubt.
                              Huckabee is a GOP establishment plant... His job is to split the base, so neither Cruz nor Paul can gain traction...

                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                                Firing up the base will lose the election... That's a good one!!!
                                #occupyarmchairgeneral.
                                Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
                                Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X