namelesstavern.net

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?

Themosticles wrote:

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.

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?

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?

Zanchief wrote: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.

Eziekial wrote:Police (administrative branch of government) enforce laws.

Eziekial wrote:"Police (administrative branch of government) enforce laws.

I'm talking about the division of government as defined by our constitution. You know, that old rag that we use to have our government based on."

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.

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."

xaoshaen wrote:Executive, Judicial, Legislative...

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.