Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Blah blah blah I'm omnipotent now
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 23 22:12:28 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/23/obama-administration-drops-defense-anti-gay-marriage-law/?test=latestnews

So now our commander-in-chief thinks he can cherry pick our laws and only enforce the ones he likes ?
It doesn't matter whether it's a good law or not, it was duly enacted by congress and signed into law by President Clinton.
It was my understanding that Barack Obama was our elected president, not our king.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 24 07:47:43 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  oh great!
Now gays are going to be popping up all over the place, demanding to be married legally...just like in "Night of the Living Dead", only it'll be "Night of the Married Queers", and they'll be sashaying around all effeminate like faggy zombies with their arms outstretched trying to break into my pant trousers.

He should be called Queen Obama!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 24 10:43:08 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Doesn't matter where you stand on the law.
It's the law itself that matters.
He can't just arbitrarily decide what's legal and what is not legal. There's a procedure for that.


 
Kira Posted: Thu Feb 24 11:03:57 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I get where you're coming from Hif but I've got a hard time getting upset over this one. But I do realize if he can do this for one law I disagree with, he can do it for another law I actually think is just.

What would you have him do instead, to support gays' right to marry?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 24 11:30:50 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Kira said:
>I get where you're coming from Hif but I've got a hard time getting upset over this one. But I do realize if he can do this for one law I disagree with, he can do it for another law I actually think is just.
>
>What would you have him do instead, to support gays' right to marry?
>
Personally I think it should be left up to each individual state, but if he wants to change the law he should introduce legislation to do so.
If he is allowed to do this, surely he realizes the next president can upend any laws he feels like, including the right to marry laws.


 
Kira Posted: Thu Feb 24 13:45:55 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Oh I'm sure Obama realizes lots of sensible things, he's just very good at sticking his fingers in his ears and doing what he wants anyway.

Still, this is hardly the worst thing his egotistical obliviousness has led to.


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 24 14:47:32 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I understand where you're coming from as well, hif. I agree that we have checks and balances and legal processes for a reason. That is something I will ALWAYS be in favor of, but I think we also have to be very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. Any law that takes a right away from an entire group of people is up for question in my book.
What I find hilarious is this complaint coming from someone who supported G.W. Bush, who--backed by Cheney--instituted an entire culture of 'we do whatever the hell we want in the executive branch and you don't get to say anything.'
Look at the plethora of quotes from Cheney bending the entire constitution and arguing for greater executive power, and tell me who wants to be king.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 24 14:52:51 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>I understand where you're coming from as well, hif. I agree that we have checks and balances and legal processes for a reason. That is something I will ALWAYS be in favor of, but I think we also have to be very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. Any law that takes a right away from an entire group of people is up for question in my book.
>What I find hilarious is this complaint coming from someone who supported G.W. Bush, who--backed by Cheney--instituted an entire culture of 'we do whatever the hell we want in the executive branch and you don't get to say anything.'
>Look at the plethora of quotes from Cheney bending the entire constitution and arguing for greater executive power, and tell me who wants to be king.
>
Give it up Darlin', Bush is gone now.
Arguing for greater executive power and just bestowing it upon oneself are two very different things don't you agree ?
As for the law you speak of, no rights are being taken away from anyone.
Gay people have EXACTLY the same rights as I do.
That being said, I have no real opinion on the gay marriage thing. I see valid points for both sides and if push came to shove, I most definitely advocate civil unions with the same legal privileges that come with marriage.



 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 24 15:35:32 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:

>>
>Give it up Darlin', Bush is gone now.

He may well be, but we will be dealing with the ramifications of his administration for decades.

>Arguing for greater executive power and just bestowing it upon oneself are two very different things don't you agree ?

I'm not saying that they just argued for it, they did it. They ripped apart more of the constitution than probably any other administration in our history.

>As for the law you speak of, no rights are being taken away from anyone.
>Gay people have EXACTLY the same rights as I do.

No...you can get married. They can't.


 
Kira Posted: Thu Feb 24 16:58:29 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Gay people have EXACTLY the same rights as I do.
>
>No...you can get married. They can't.

LOL no this is a smartass argument I've heard often on Neal Boortz's show.

If Hif wanted to marry a man, he couldn't.

If a gay man decides to marry a lady, he CAN.

Therefore they have the same rights.

Very clever, in a completely-besides-the-point kind of way.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 24 17:02:10 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>libra said:
>
>>>
>

>>Arguing for greater executive power and just bestowing it upon oneself are two very different things don't you agree ?
>
>I'm not saying that they just argued for it, they did it. They ripped apart more of the constitution than probably any other administration in our history.
>
Sorry, not true, that's only an opinion, one not shared by most people.

>>As for the law you speak of, no rights are being taken away from anyone.
>>Gay people have EXACTLY the same rights as I do.
>
>No...you can get married. They can't.
>
Actually they have the same marriage rights that I have.
You see, It's illegal for me to marry a man too.


 
Ahriman Posted: Thu Feb 24 18:20:27 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I just want to know why anyone that believes the government has its hands in to many cookie jars should have its hands in people's marital choices. Maybe if marriage wasn't so taboo and held on high, more people would do it for the right reasons.


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 24 19:17:59 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>>
>>I'm not saying that they just argued for it, they did it. They ripped apart more of the constitution than probably any other administration in our history.
>>
>Sorry, not true, that's only an opinion, one not shared by most people.

It's shared by a lot of people, actually. Lawyers, academics, researchers, journalists...If you read any kind of scholarly, researched account of the bush administration's tactics, this type of attitude is what you see.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004488

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html

http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/2008/powerplay.aspx

GW Bush: "You need to have a president who understands you can't win this war with legal papers. We've got to use every asset at our disposal." --May 13, 2003, ABC News' Nightline.

"GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions" of the Patriot Act "could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"'I donít give a goddamn,' Bush retorted. 'Iím the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.'
"'Mr. President,' one aide in the meeting said. 'There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.'
"'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,' Bush screamed back. 'Itís just a goddamned piece of paper!'" --Reported in Capitol Hill Blue, December 9, 2005.


>>
>Actually they have the same marriage rights that I have.
>You see, It's illegal for me to marry a man too.

I can marry the person I love and want to start a partnership with. They can't marry the person they love and want to start a partnership with.
I feel guilty, and like a total ass, when I talk to friends who are gay about our futures and I throw around marriage and stuff and then realize that that won't necessarily be an option for them.


 
Ahriman Posted: Thu Feb 24 19:51:13 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>I'm not saying that they just argued for it, they did it. They ripped apart more of the constitution than probably any other administration in our history.

Hmmmmm....I'd say Lincoln and Bush are pretty neck and neck.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 24 22:04:20 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>>
>>>I'm not saying that they just argued for it, they did it. They ripped apart more of the constitution than probably any other administration in our history.
>>>
>>Sorry, not true, that's only an opinion, one not shared by most people.
>
>It's shared by a lot of people, actually. Lawyers, academics, researchers, journalists...If you read any kind of scholarly, researched account of the bush administration's tactics, this type of attitude is what you see.
>
>http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004488
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html
>
>http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/2008/powerplay.aspx
>
>GW Bush: "You need to have a president who understands you can't win this war with legal papers. We've got to use every asset at our disposal." --May 13, 2003, ABC News' Nightline.
>
>"GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions" of the Patriot Act "could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
>"'I donít give a goddamn,' Bush retorted. 'Iím the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.'
>"'Mr. President,' one aide in the meeting said. 'There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.'
>"'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,' Bush screamed back. 'Itís just a goddamned piece of paper!'" --Reported in Capitol Hill Blue, December 9, 2005.
>
So you've got a quote from a man who has lost his temper. Still you don't have a single issue that comes close to what Obama has just done.
>>>
>>Actually they have the same marriage rights that I have.
>>You see, It's illegal for me to marry a man too.
>
>I can marry the person I love and want to start a partnership with. They can't marry the person they love and want to start a partnership with.
>I feel guilty, and like a total ass, when I talk to friends who are gay about our futures and I throw around marriage and stuff and then realize that that won't necessarily be an option for them.
>
Please explain to me why they cannot get married in the church of their choice.
Why is it so important to have government sponsorship of their marriage?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 24 22:29:57 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>>
>>>I'm not saying that they just argued for it, they did it. They ripped apart more of the constitution than probably any other administration in our history.
>>>
>>Sorry, not true, that's only an opinion, one not shared by most people.
>
>It's shared by a lot of people, actually. Lawyers, academics, researchers, journalists...If you read any kind of scholarly, researched account of the bush administration's tactics, this type of attitude is what you see.
>
>http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004488
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html
>
>http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/2008/powerplay.aspx
>
>GW Bush: "You need to have a president who understands you can't win this war with legal papers. We've got to use every asset at our disposal." --May 13, 2003, ABC News' Nightline.
>
>"GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions" of the Patriot Act "could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
>"'I donít give a goddamn,' Bush retorted. 'Iím the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.'
>"'Mr. President,' one aide in the meeting said. 'There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.'
>"'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,' Bush screamed back. 'Itís just a goddamned piece of paper!'" --Reported in Capitol Hill Blue, December 9, 2005.
>>
So typical of the left, Bush is gone yet rather than address the current issue that is totally indefensible, you have to bash a guy that's been gone for two years now and has absolutely nothing to do with this argument.
>


 
Ahriman Posted: Thu Feb 24 23:46:41 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Please explain to me why they cannot get married in the church of their choice.
>Why is it so important to have government sponsorship of their marriage?

For the same reason straight couples get government sponsorship.

-Adoption
-Tax
-Health care benefits from spouse -Inheritance and access to probate Court
-Institutional visitation for things like prison or hospitals
-Institutional pairing, husband and wife bank accounts, club membership
-Public pronouncement and government enforcement of private commitment
-Access to domestic relations Court

At this point, if you don't support gay marriage then it's because you don't believe being homosexual is right. Just flat out. Obviously we all know that gay couples have lasted the test of time so it's not an issue of having real relationships. What your telling me is that because Obama is makin' the federal government step back from controlling another aspect of our lives that it's a bad thing? What would really change if gay people married?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 25 06:54:02 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ahriman said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Please explain to me why they cannot get married in the church of their choice.
>>Why is it so important to have government sponsorship of their marriage?
>
>For the same reason straight couples get government sponsorship.
>
>-Adoption
>-Tax
>-Health care benefits from spouse -Inheritance and access to probate Court
>-Institutional visitation for things like prison or hospitals
>-Institutional pairing, husband and wife bank accounts, club membership
>-Public pronouncement and government enforcement of private commitment
>-Access to domestic relations Court
>
>At this point, if you don't support gay marriage then it's because you don't believe being homosexual is right. Just flat out. Obviously we all know that gay couples have lasted the test of time so it's not an issue of having real relationships. What your telling me is that because Obama is makin' the federal government step back from controlling another aspect of our lives that it's a bad thing? What would really change if gay people married?
>
Looking at your list there, i would argue that you're telling me gays want MORE control over their lives from the govt, though I know what you meant.
Poll after poll have shown that the majority of Americans would support civil unions for gays with the same benefits as marriage. The only reason this law exists is the definition of marriage. That is the only roadblock for gays. If they would accept a civil union rather than a marriage, there would be no issues here.
That being said, Obama has no legal standing for what he's done.



 
addi Posted: Fri Feb 25 08:13:13 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Give it up Darlin', Bush is gone now.

oh dear god



 
Ahriman Posted: Fri Feb 25 11:27:46 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Looking at your list there, i would argue that you're telling me gays want MORE control over their lives from the govt, though I know what you meant.
>Poll after poll have shown that the majority of Americans would support civil unions for gays with the same benefits as marriage. The only reason this law exists is the definition of marriage. That is the only roadblock for gays. If they would accept a civil union rather than a marriage, there would be no issues here.
>That being said, Obama has no legal standing for what he's done.

Are you tryin' to tell me being aloud visitin' hours at the hospital is the government controlling me? Being given health insurance through your partner's work is the government pullin' a noose around my neck? In the end, you're arguing words. You sound like the United Nations.

That being said, almost every President in history has had no legal standing for many of the things they've done. This one would just benefit someone finally. Give it up, Fella. The world is changin' for the better.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 25 12:54:08 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ahriman said:
>ifihadahif said:
>d be no issues here.
>>That being said, Obama has no legal standing for what he's done.
>
>Are you tryin' to tell me being aloud visitin' hours at the hospital is the government controlling me? Being given health insurance through your partner's work is the government pullin' a noose around my neck? In the end, you're arguing words. You sound like the United Nations.
>
>That being said, almost every President in history has had no legal standing for many of the things they've done. This one would just benefit someone finally. Give it up, Fella. The world is changin' for the better.
>
I don't know of any president that has done anything so obviously illegal. Perhaps it's been done, but pretty much every example I've seen to date would be arguable in a court of law. what Obama just did cannot be defended in any court in America.
As for your list of benefits regarding government control, I would argue that access to family court is beneficial to no one other than lawyers.
As for the rest, if the government has the power to bestow anything on you, they also have the power to regulate it and/or withdraw it. That is control no matter how you look at it.


 
mat_j Posted: Fri Feb 25 14:57:55 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Fuck that horse shit, ban marriage outright!


 
Puck Posted: Fri Feb 25 15:13:21 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>That is control no matter how you look at it.

just like taxation?


 
Ahriman Posted: Fri Feb 25 15:20:47 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>I don't know of any president that has done anything so obviously illegal. Perhaps it's been done, but pretty much every example I've seen to date would be arguable in a court of law. what Obama just did cannot be defended in any court in America.

Hif...come on. Is he killing Habeas Corpus? Is he suppressing free speech? Has he started an unjust war? Is he sending American troops to kill American citizens on American soil? Oh oh oh maybe he's giving weapons to some rink-a-dink ass country so they can turn around and use 'em on us! Nooooo. He's tryin' to let two people get married because they have the same genitals. I don't caaaaare.

>As for your list of benefits regarding government control, I would argue that access to family court is beneficial to no one other than lawyers.

And how do you argue that? Have you ever been to family court? Do lawyers go there to chat and make'a'da money?

>As for the rest, if the government has the power to bestow anything on you, they also have the power to regulate it and/or withdraw it. That is control no matter how you look at it.

Yea, that would include everything we're ever "aloud" to do. Do you think they should take away all powers bestowed upon citizens then? What's the real world alternative?


Mat...well if it gets the job done...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 25 19:03:23 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ahriman said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>
>Hif...come on. Is he killing Habeas Corpus? Is he suppressing free speech? Has he started an unjust war? Is he sending American troops to kill American citizens on American soil? Oh oh oh maybe he's giving weapons to some rink-a-dink ass country so they can turn around and use 'em on us! Nooooo. He's tryin' to let two people get married because they have the same genitals. I don't caaaaare.
>
If he wants gays to be allowed to marry then he needs to introduce legislation for that. If you want to bestow this power on the president, then you are insane because the next guy will probably not like anything his predecessor did and just rescind it with a press conference. It doesn't matter to me whether gays can marry or not, what matters is whether or not the president can just choose which laws are constitutional and which are not. Why do we even have a Supreme Court ?
>>As for your list of benefits regarding government control, I would argue that access to family court is beneficial to no one other than lawyers.
>
>And how do you argue that? Have you ever been to family court? Do lawyers go there to chat and make'a'da money?
>
Yes I have been to family court, I know what I'm talking about.
As far as I'm concerned, family court = nazis.
>>As for the rest, if the government has the power to bestow anything on you, they also have the power to regulate it and/or withdraw it. That is control no matter how you look at it.
>
>Yea, that would include everything we're ever "aloud" to do. Do you think they should take away all powers bestowed upon citizens then? What's the real world alternative?
>
Citizens don't have "powers", they have rights.


 
Ahriman Posted: Fri Feb 25 20:53:02 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hif...what are you arguing? All the president have done things that are wrong. Many unconstitutional. Do I have to reiterate?

Is he killing Habeas Corpus? Is he suppressing free speech? Has he started an unjust war? Is he sending American troops to kill American citizens on American soil? Oh oh oh maybe he's giving weapons to some rink-a-dink ass country so they can turn around and use 'em on us! Nooooo. He's tryin' to let two people get married because they have the same genitals.

Once again, why is the family court only beneficial to lawyers?

Powers...rights...so sorry I wasn't pullin' out my Black's dictionary. Stop side steppin'. This isn't t.v. You're talkin' to an irish-american with two generations of trial lawyers. Give real answers. Not tryin' to make this personal but god damn it man.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 25 21:13:14 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ahriman said:
>Hif...what are you arguing? All the president have done things that are wrong. Many unconstitutional. Do I have to reiterate?
>
>Is he killing Habeas Corpus? Is he suppressing free speech? Has he started an unjust war? Is he sending American troops to kill American citizens on American soil? Oh oh oh maybe he's giving weapons to some rink-a-dink ass country so they can turn around and use 'em on us! Nooooo. He's tryin' to let two people get married because they have the same genitals.
>
>Once again, why is the family court only beneficial to lawyers?
>
>Powers...rights...so sorry I wasn't pullin' out my Black's dictionary. Stop side steppin'. This isn't t.v. You're talkin' to an irish-american with two generations of trial lawyers. Give real answers. Not tryin' to make this personal but god damn it man.
>
Look back to the original post of this thread. There is my argument.
I challenge you to cite a specific instance where a sitting president has done anything as blatant as saying he will choose to declare a law to be unconstitutional.
Everything you have cited above are things that could be argued in a court of law. Obama's current transgression could not.
Even if it were so, that in itself wouldn't make it any less wrong this time.


 
beetlebum Posted: Fri Feb 25 21:34:54 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I will agree that Obama is abusing the power vested in him by the people, but Presidents do it all of the time. And it's not only the Executive Branch-- the legislature pulls so much rubbish as well.

For example (I tried to choose some good presidents, too. Even the good guys think that they know best.):

* Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase. Many historians claim that he was one of the few who didn't trample the Constitution, but at the time the Louisiana Purchase was considered unconstitutional. He claimed he couldn't wait for an amendment even though the Constitution didn't give him the right to buy 1/6th of a continent. He blatantly abused Article 1, Section 18, Clause 8 and he even admitted it. Even had to take a loan from the UK to make it happen.

* Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation-- oh, and the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus! I mean, no one can argue that slavery is completely horrific and moronic and disgusting, but he used the excuse of war to chime in on a civil rights, state (not federal) matter.

*FDR and the New Deal- what a joke! He said that the Constitution is 'quaint' and 'written in a horse and buggy era.' He threatened to pack the Supreme Court, which would have been a huge blow to checks and balances and the Constitution. The threat was enough to undermine the protectors of that document and so the Supreme Court Justices 'let' the other two branches undertake one of the most miserable economic experiment failures in American history. (not including the recent bailout)

I understand why you don't like Obama's move.

But! Nothing new under the sun.

And sorry if I wasn't clear-- I support gay marriage, but I would also support gay civil unions if heterosexual couples were only allowed civil unions going forward. The union is a contract before our government and guarantees us, through multiple other laws, additional advantages. That's it.

If people want to be 'married' (the word 'marriage' indicates a religious belief that excludes a homosexual marriage covenant before a Higher Power), they can also get married in a church or synagogue or whatever religious institution makes them happy. I firmly believe in separation of Church and State even though I recognize the United State's Judeo-Christian heritage.

However, I will never stand by the 'separate but equal' argument, because let's not be pedantic or fool ourselves: to say that one group gets to call it this, and another group get's to call it that-- but they are the same-- well, that's bullshit. There is inequality and prejudice and hate implied (and supported) in not allowing one group to call a right 'this' and another group to call a right 'that'. If they really bestow the same rights, then the government should just call it the same thing.

Anyway, if I were in charge and abusing the Constitution, I would start with the fact that everyone should have the right to one or the other, civil unions or marriages. Frankly, I'd prefer that we all have the right to a civil union so far as the state is concerned, and whether people get 'married' is a matter to be handled as a part of the religion(s) to which the couple subscribes (if any).




 
beetlebum Posted: Fri Feb 25 21:38:25 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ** Sorry, when I said this:

(the word 'marriage' indicates a religious belief that excludes a homosexual marriage covenant before a Higher Power)

I didn't mean that anyone who believes in marriage is homophobic or doesn't believe in gay marriage.

I just think that people who do not support gay marriage, but support heterosexual marriage, are implying that gay marriage is immoral. There is no legal argument for why homosexuals should not have the right to marry one another.

Whew. Okay, done.

Seriously, it has been such a long time since I have been here and I write ten boring pages! I'm sorry! Meep!


 
Ahriman Posted: Fri Feb 25 21:43:02 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Blah blah blah the CIVIL WAR! You know that guy on our pennies. He killed habeas corpus. Suppressed free speech. Started an unjust war. KILLED American citizens with American troops on American soil. I could go into what Bush did but you like the guy too much to even bring it up. As to being argued in a court of law, well I know cases of people arguing coffee being too hot (and winning) in a court of law so what does the "court of law" matter. Let's talk reality. Why is the family court only beneficial to lawyers? Why does gay marriage matter? Cherry pick the law? Shit yea he can because it's an instance of proper justice. Would you like it if a child rapist got let go because of double jeopardy? "Well it's the law"


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 25 21:57:14 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ahriman said:
>Blah blah blah the CIVIL WAR! You know that guy on our pennies. He killed habeas corpus. Suppressed free speech. Started an unjust war. KILLED American citizens with American troops on American soil. I could go into what Bush did but you like the guy too much to even bring it up. As to being argued in a court of law, well I know cases of people arguing coffee being too hot (and winning) in a court of law so what does the "court of law" matter. Let's talk reality. Why is the family court only beneficial to lawyers? Why does gay marriage matter? Cherry pick the law? Shit yea he can because it's an instance of proper justice. Would you like it if a child rapist got let go because of double jeopardy? "Well it's the law"
>
So how are you going to like it when his successor decides it's time to enforce that law in a couple more years ?
Or if his successor decides that he doesn't like any number of things that Obama signed into law ?


 
Ahriman Posted: Fri Feb 25 22:07:18 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>So how are you going to like it when his successor decides it's time to enforce that law in a couple more years ?

I won't like it.

>Or if his successor decides that he doesn't like any number of things that Obama signed into law ?

side step...



 
addi Posted: Sat Feb 26 08:32:35 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  beetlebum said:

>I understand why you don't like Obama's move.

>But! Nothing new under the sun.

Now that's an understatement.


>Frankly, I'd prefer that we all have the right to a civil union so far as the state is concerned, and whether people get 'married' is a matter to be handled as a part of the religion(s) to which the couple subscribes (if any).

Can I get an "Amen" on this.
Nicely said, Meg.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Feb 26 09:20:04 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  beetlebum said:
>** Sorry, when I said this:
>
>(the word 'marriage' indicates a religious belief that excludes a homosexual marriage covenant before a Higher Power)
>
>I didn't mean that anyone who believes in marriage is homophobic or doesn't believe in gay marriage.
>
>I just think that people who do not support gay marriage, but support heterosexual marriage, are implying that gay marriage is immoral. There is no legal argument for why homosexuals should not have the right to marry one another.
>
>Whew. Okay, done.
>
>Seriously, it has been such a long time since I have been here and I write ten boring pages! I'm sorry! Meep!
>
No need to apologize, I very much enjoy your posts and you make a very good argument this time.
I don't think any of us are very far apart on gay marriage, it's the fact that Obama has declared himself a one man supreme court that bothers me.
It doesn't seem to bother any of the libs here because it favors their ideology and that bothers me.
When the shoe goes on the other foot they will be up in arms railing against
whatever the "other foot" might be.
Either we are a nation of laws or we're not.
Perhaps the next guy will decide that Rowe vs Wade is unconstitutional ?


 
Ahriman Posted: Sat Feb 26 10:55:14 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.theonion.com/articles/marauding-gay-hordes-drag-thousands-of-helpless-ci,19325/


 
addi Posted: Sat Feb 26 16:31:21 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Perhaps the next guy will decide that Rowe vs Wade is unconstitutional ?

Papa and son Bush's Supreme Court placements are already doing what they can to make this a reality.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Feb 26 19:27:58 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Perhaps the next guy will decide that Rowe vs Wade is unconstitutional ?
>
>Papa and son Bush's Supreme Court placements are already doing what they can to make this a reality.
>
I hope so.
At least they will be doing it legally and not the Obama way.


 
Puck Posted: Sat Feb 26 21:20:21 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Feb 26 23:36:00 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  A successful rancher died and left everything to his devoted wife.

She was a very good-looking woman and determined to keep the ranch, but knew very little about ranching, so she decided to place an ad in the newspaper for a ranch hand. Two cowboys applied for the job. One was gay and the other a drunk. She thought long and hard about it, and when no one else applied she decided to hire the gay guy, figuring it would be safer to have him around the house than the drunk.

He proved to be a hard worker who put in long hours every day and knew a lot about ranching.

For weeks, the two of them worked, and the ranch was doing very well. Then one day, the rancher's widow said to the hired hand, "You have done a really good job, and the ranch looks great. You should go into town and kick up your heels." The hired hand readily agreed and went into town one Saturday night.

One o'clock came, however, and he didn't return. Two o'clock and no hired hand.

Finally he returned a round two-thirty, and upon entering the room, he found the rancher's widow sitting by the fireplace with a glass of wine, waiting for him.

She quietly called him over to her.

"Unbutton my blouse and take it off," she said.

Trembling, he did as she directed. "Now take off my boots."

He did as she asked, ever so slowly.. "Now take off my socks."

He removed each gently and placed them neatly by her boots.

"Now take off my skirt."

He slowly unbuttoned it, constantly watching her eyes in the fire light.

"Now take off my bra.." Again, with trembling hands, he did as he was told and dropped it to the floor.

Then she looked at him and said, "If you ever wear my clothes into town again, you're fired."




 
mat_j Posted: Mon Feb 28 01:19:02 2011 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ahriman said:

>Hif...come on. Is he killing Habeas Corpus? Is he suppressing free speech? Has he started an unjust war? Is he sending American troops to kill American citizens on American soil? Oh oh oh maybe he's giving weapons to some rink-a-dink ass country so they can turn around and use 'em on us! Nooooo. He's tryin' to let two people get married because they have the same genitals. I don't caaaaare.

>Mat...well if it gets the job done...

Sheeeiiiitt you made me LOL with that maybe it was even a LMAO!

:-)




 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]