Themosticles wrote:The point here is that you and others like you (On both fucking sides) are bitching and whining that those opposed to your views are so, simply because they are intolerant or un-educated or a religious nut, etc. Yet you are the exact same, perfectly intolerant of anyone who doesn't share your view. You're not at all interested in actually debating the merrits of the multiple sides of any issue unless those you're talking with totally agree with you, and can then just avoid debate all together.
How again is this shining through as representation of the "bastion of tolerance and inclusion" that you imply your belief system preaches?
Take a poll and find me one person on the other side of the fence who feels you are at all interested in rationally listening to the other side of any view and debating it. Sure, you cordially allow others to post and are respectful, but again there is no give and take, merely you saying what you think is right and pushing your side without really caring about others views.
Everything Themo said above has been used. People are intolerant. people are uneducated. People are religious zealots, etc.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step. – C. S. Lewis
mofish wrote:Right. The Republican party, bastion of tolerance and inclusion. Unless youre gay. Or non christian. Or poor.
Not the point. No where in my post did I comment on Arlos' political views. No where did I mention D's or R's. You did that.
The point here is that you and others like you (On both fucking sides) are bitching and whining that those opposed to your views are so, simply because they are intolerant or un-educated or a religious nut, etc. Yet you are the exact same, perfectly intolerant of anyone who doesn't share your view. You're not at all interested in actually debating the merrits of the multiple sides of any issue unless those you're talking with totally agree with you, and can then just avoid debate all together.
How again is this shining through as representation of the "bastion of tolerance and inclusion" that you imply your belief system preaches?
I see people comment DAILY on their desire to NOT have to have other people's views crammed down their throat, then in the very next sentence they don't even hesitate to tell me that what I think is wrong. Perhaps you'd like to explain how its NOT pushing YOUR agenda when the state of Nebraska votes in a 70% majority against same-sex marriage, only to have a judge basically throw out that VOTE with one swing of a hammer on Thursday?
This crap reminds me of the line from Goldmember that went something like, "There are only two things I hate in this world. Intolerant people and the Dutch." Everyone knows why this line is funny. This is why the post I highlighted is also funny.
But that flew right by you in your rush to prove just how smart, whitty, and in the know you are.
K thanks Finawin 2.0
Step up and tell everyone what we already know about your political view and stop bitching about people bitching.
This isn't a place for debate, it's a place for opinion.
Themosticles wrote:Perhaps you'd like to explain how its NOT pushing YOUR agenda when the state of Nebraska votes in a 70% majority against same-sex marriage, only to have a judge basically throw out that VOTE with one swing of a hammer on Thursday?
You just, dont, get, it. You come down on a comment Arlos made about the right and their intolerance and exclusion with a sarcastic remark, and in the very next post attempt to defend some bullshit law passed in Nebraska that discriminates against same-sex couples. Funny!
Thank god for judges in this country not intimidated by the right into allowing unconstitutional bs like these low-brow gay marriage laws to stand.
Themosticles wrote:Perhaps you'd like to explain how its NOT pushing YOUR agenda when the state of Nebraska votes in a 70% majority against same-sex marriage, only to have a judge basically throw out that VOTE with one swing of a hammer on Thursday?
oh that's easy to explain:
70% of nebraskans are retarded
Judge Bataillon realized "oh, wait, i shouldn't let a bunch of retards intimidate me into ignoring what i feel is an unconstitutional law, since making that kind of decision is my job."
Step up and tell everyone what we already know about your political view and stop bitching about people bitching.
This isn't a place for debate, it's a place for opinion.
You post shit like this and compare others to Finawin? Hello, Mr Kettle.
Don't be part of the problem, then you can talk. Try and make an intelligent post every 4th or 5th time that is more than 1/2 a sentence of repetition followed my a simplistic point and Senor Hypocrisy might not be slapping you in the face.
Brinstar, changing definitions of 200 year old laws are indeed legislating from the bench. Let's just do away with any law that someone doesn't like and has no effect on others.
Or better, lets actually keep our democratic form of Government and allow us to vote on these matters.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step. – C. S. Lewis
Its fairly easy to find information on this, and I have read up on this. When something is fought for by the Lambda Legal and the Lesbian and Gay Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, I'm sure it wasn't predominately about pushing gay agendas into the mainstream? Oh, wait, yes it was.
I've read up on it, and while the judge said it was too over the top, its not his place to change laws, merely enforce them. Not to mention this was a Federal Judge. His decision will get overturned.
Eziekial wrote:Police (administrative branch of government) enforce laws.
Not in San Diego... they twist the law so they can write insane amounts of tickets, DUI's and other such nonsense because the money they receive and the amount of people getting assfucked by the *justice* system is the only real income that failing city now has.
Tossica: No, you're gay because you suck on cocks.
Darcler:
Get rid of the pictures of the goofy looking white guy. That opens two right there.
Mazzletoffarado: That's me fucktard
Vivalicious wrote:Lots of females don't want you to put your penis in their mouths. Some prefer it in their ass.
Lyion wrote:I've read up on it, and while the judge said it was too over the top, its not his place to change laws, merely enforce them. Not to mention this was a Federal Judge. His decision will get overturned.
Actually, it is his place to change laws. He is there to enforce laws and to change laws that are not contitutional. He beleives that this law was uncontitutional. On that premis, it is his place as a judge to say that law is not constitutional and therefor should not be a law.
One of the biggest reasons for having a judicial division is to maitain a system where laws can not be created or upheld that violate the supreme law, the constitution. If he deems this law unconstitutional, its his duty to change it.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
Actually, changing laws and declaring laws unconstitutional was never a judicial perq. They just sort of started doing it and no one said no.
Inside each person lives two wolves. One is loyal, kind, respectful, humble and open to the mystery of life. The other is greedy, jealous, hateful, afraid and blind to the wonders of life. They are in battle for your spirit. The one who wins is the one you feed.
Gidan wrote:"Actually, it is his place to change laws. He is there to enforce laws and to change laws that are not contitutional. He beleives that this law was uncontitutional. On that premis, it is his place as a judge to say that law is not constitutional and therefor should not be a law."
"One of the biggest reasons for having a judicial division is to maitain a system where laws can not be created or upheld that violate the supreme law, the constitution. If he deems this law unconstitutional, its his duty to change it."
Long time since civics, but I don’t remember it being this complicated:
1. Legislative branch – Creates and change Bills
2. Judicial branch – Decides if the Legislative branches Bills (I’m just a bill, just a lonely old bill…) are fit to become Laws, or not. If not, it is kicked back down to the Legislative branch to be changed.
3. Executive branch – Enforces Laws
"Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage."
Judicial Review is widly accepted but still argued to this day. However I think Cheif Justice Marshall said it best when he said
Suppose that Congress laid a duty on an article exported from a State or passed a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law or provided that treason should be proved by the testimony of one witness. Would the courts enforce such a law in the face of an express constitutional provision? They would not, he continued, because their oath required by the Constitution obligated them to support the Constitution and to enforce such laws would violate the oath.
If a judge takes an oath to uphold the constitution, how can he/she uphold a law that is in violation of the constitution without breaking that oath?
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
Also, I must have missed the day they talked about the Gay Marriage Section of the Constitution...someone refresh my memory....
What's that? There isn't one? Then what was that judge basing his ruling on?
Inside each person lives two wolves. One is loyal, kind, respectful, humble and open to the mystery of life. The other is greedy, jealous, hateful, afraid and blind to the wonders of life. They are in battle for your spirit. The one who wins is the one you feed.
A judge isn't supposed to uphold a law, regardless of its constitutionality. He's supposed to decide the merits of a case based on the laws established by the legislative branch. If he doesn't think the laws are correct, tough shit, he should've run for Congress.
