NationStates Jolt Archive

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p

Umm... thats nice.

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p

Bush makes sense, that's dollar and cents for himself and friends.

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p
I thought that "vote for me, I'm not Bush" made more sense than having a draft dodger belittle Kerry's military career, put it that way.

Bush makes sense, that's dollar and cents for himself and friends.
I supported Bush only because there was no viable alternative. Kerry had so dishonored himself by being a glory-hound in Vietnam and then lying about his service that I could do little else.

I thought that "vote for me, I'm not Bush" made more sense than having a draft dodger belittle Kerry's military career, put it that way.
Kerry did that quite well all by his lil lonesome, thank you. :(

I wanted to support Kerry because Bush already screwed America and now it was Kerry's turn :D

Personally I'm voting democratic next time because Bush is always trying to push him morals and values on everyone

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p

The definition of someone having sense usually differs from viewpoint to viewpoint Eut, you should know this. So instead of something vague like sense, why not give out a list of factors and requirements?

It amazes me that the Republicans would even open the topic of military service considering how Bush went AWOL with the blessings of his daddy and the higher-ups.

And i don't characterize Kerry's post-war activities as glory-seeking. One does not go against Capitol Hill for glory, but for principle. Do you think Kerry didn't know he would be villainized for it? And yet he stuck to principles and spoke out, regardless of how unpopular his stance was to the powers-that-be.

Bush's military record seems to be in keeping with all of Bush's policies. Service and sacrifice, sound economic policy, and not developing more nukes are things that apply to others, not him.

I admit I am less than thrilled with the options offered by the Democrats. As long as this nation remains an entrenched two-party system, our choice is which side of the same useless coin.

It amazes me that the Republicans would even open the topic of military service considering how Bush went AWOL with the blessings of his daddy and the higher-ups.

And i don't characterize Kerry's post-war activities as glory-seeking. One does not go against Capitol Hill for glory, but for principle. Do you think Kerry didn't know he would be villainized for it? And yet he stuck to principles and spoke out, regardless of how unpopular his stance was to the powers-that-be.

Bush's military record seems to be in keeping with all of Bush's policies. Service and sacrifice, sound economic policy, and not developing more nukes are things that apply to others, not him.

I admit I am less than thrilled with the options offered by the Democrats. As long as this nation remains an entrenched two-party system, our choice is which side of the same useless coin.
I wasn't referring to Kerry's post-war activities. In the military, being a "glory-hound" means trying to get as many medals as possible, usually with the implication that it's done at the expense of those with whom you are serving.

It's been well-established that Kerry protested the war largely as a politically motivated maneuver intended to give him the cache of having been a "decorated" veteran who opposed the war, an approach which seemed like a good idea at the time, especially when you run for office in The People's Democratic Republick of Massachusetts. :)

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p

And they say standards of debate/argument on NationStates are falling??!!

Do you have a slightly more robust argument for your statement?

Kerry did that quite well all by his lil lonesome, thank you. :(
I don't recall seeing any photographs of dickheads with purple plasters stuck to their faces at Democrat party conferences, to be honest.

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p
I don't believe you. I think you'd be happier continuing to vote for completely non-sensical Republicans.

I don't believe you. I think you'd be happier continuing to vote for completely non-sensical Republicans.
You believe incorrectly, my friend. Deomocrats persist in running either people with little or no sense when it comes to a strong military ( which I consider vital in a dangerous world ), or candidates who lean too far to the economic left for my comfort.

I have a major problem with the fundamentalist religious right when it comes to social issues, and would love nothing better than to torpedo their agenda ( the "creationism" issue being a case in point! ). But if the Democrats don't wake the frack up and run someone who sees the necessity for a strong military and the need to support at least entreprenuerism, I will have no chocie but to vote Republican.

I supported Bush only because there was no viable alternative. Kerry had so dishonored himself by being a glory-hound in Vietnam and then lying about his service that I could do little else.

As opposed of course, to Bush who happily sends soldiers to war and run the risk of being killed, who when he was called up, served on the frontline of the national guard in Texas, avoiding the Vietnam War, to get drunk and drugged up.

I don't mind draft-dodgers who do it because they oppose a war, killing etc.

That's their principle.

But a draft-dodger who later himself happily sends other people's sons and daughters into the firing line and run the risk of coming home disfigured or in a body bag in their thousands is just sick, and cowardly.

Kerry may have been a dishonorable glorifier, but Bush is a dishonourable, cowardly war-mongering turd, who advocates war while dodging it when he was called up.

You would not catch Bush fighting his own war that he declared, with a rifle on the frontline in Iraq, risking his neck.

But if the Democrats don't wake the frack up and run someone who sees the necessity for a strong military and the need to support at least entreprenuerism, I will have no chocie but to vote Republican.
*z-z-z-z*

Then vote for anyone running, as all candidates fully endorse the above-mentioned two stipulations, regardless of their political affiliations. :rolleyes:

Your political climate is so hopelessly skewed that all candidates must endorse these two criteria or face political suicide. Yet common perceptions still support this outdated notion that the Democrats are somehow anti-military and anti-capitalist. :rolleyes:

You should be so lucky as to have a political party that represents those points of view. Unfortunately, you're left with two identical parties with identical platforms and interchangeable personalities. Another great day for democracy. :rolleyes:

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p


I will vote Republican ....

... and our votes will cancel each others out :D

*z-z-z-z*

Then vote for anyone running, as all candidates fully endorse the above-mentioned two stipulations, regardless of their political affiliations. :rolleyes:

Your political climate is so hopelessly skewed that all candidates must endorse these two criteria or face political suicide. Yet common perceptions still support this outdated notion that the Democrats are somehow anti-military and anti-capitalist. :rolleyes:

You should be so lucky as to have a political party that represents those points of view. Unfortunately, you're left with two identical parties with identical platforms and interchangeable personalities. Another great day for democracy. :rolleyes:
The Democrats always get the full support of what remains of the "labor union vote," the "social welfare vote," and the "far left vote." This is indicative of their approach to economic issues. Most Democratic leaders also prefer throwing platitudes and promises at America's enemies and prospective enemies. I can't live with either of those positions. So sue me. :p

I will vote Republican ....

... and our votes will cancel each others out :D
Ok. Then neither of us will have to go to the polls, yes? ;)

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p

*Pats on head*
Well thats really nice dear, I hope you'll be happy.....

I wasn't referring to Kerry's post-war activities. In the military, being a "glory-hound" means trying to get as many medals as possible, usually with the implication that it's done at the expense of those with whom you are serving.

It's been well-established that Kerry protested the war largely as a politically motivated maneuver intended to give him the cache of having been a "decorated" veteran who opposed the war, an approach which seemed like a good idea at the time, especially when you run for office in The People's Democratic Republick of Massachusetts. :)

ESTABLISHED? By WHOM? Those "Swift Boat" liars? (they've been debunked as such)

Maybe Kerry protested the war for the same reasons that any of us would, and that's that this is a dumb war.

WWII - now there was a war that, were it going, I'd sign up for, because it's one that's got genuine reasons to sign up (my great-grandfather died in a concentration camp there). Sadly, to a lot of those people, the reasons for that war only came with 20/20 hindsight i.e. they didn't all know about the deathcamps until a fair while later.

But (and Eutrusca, with your history, I mean no special disrespect to you, BUT) Vietnam? HELL NO.

And I say it as an Australian citizen, and someone whose father almost got dragged into a war that was not of our making, because the French can't fight their own battles and the Americans were so anti-communist that they couldn't see the reason of staying out of a fight that was none of their business.
And, to make matters worse, my father had friends who died pointlessly in that war. They were drafted. And my father still hasn't fully forgiven the French for not being able to fight their own battles that they themselves pick, because it resulted directly in the deaths of his friends.

Thankfully Australia had a change of Prime Minister before it was my dad's time to be called up, otherwise your humble narrator might not be around to tell this tale, not having been born and all. A Prime Minister who can see the sense in not going to wars that aren't our business.
As I said, WWII - that was our business. Vietnam, NOPE. Not our business.
And America's "Preznit" hasn't learnt from history.

Eutrusca, you were there.
I'm surprised that you'd side with this man - and I use the term loosely - who insults the ghosts of your comrades-in-arms who died in 'nam by calling up another such war, in the name of something that it isn't actually (to those who haven't worked it out yet: it's not to defend against Terrorism. It's for OIL, the ARMS INDUSTRY and AMERICAN GLOBAL HEGEMONY), and also insults anyone who dons the uniform.

I'm generally speaking pro-peace.
I am what I am and what I say I am is true. I would only don the uniform of my country's military if it were a war that I personally agreed with.
I don't think it makes me a coward, but if it makes me a coward, at least I'm a coward who has the courage of his convictions to admit it.

And you have seen war and so you can actually legitimately claim to support a war. And you're NO coward.
Whether or not I agreed with Vietnam (I DON'T), I can see that you had the courage to do what you thought needed doing.

But GEORGE BUSH jr, who got "big daddy" to pull strings for him to keep him in the cushy life of the military and not have him go to war, who was planning to quash all sorts of benefits for soldiers (thankfully they called him on it and it backfired), http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=bush+cuts+soldier+benefits&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3Dlang_en%7Clang_fr%7Clang_es
and who, along with his cadre of a crime family that is his government which is singularly responsible for all of this, is NO SOLDIER.
And ALL COWARD.

Eutrusca, I recall you saying in a previous thread that you promised you'd never have anyone else insult another soldier.
Wouldn't you say that what Bush was planning to do to the benefits of the soldiers for fighting in his unjust war is insult enough?

*Pats on head*
Well thats really nice dear, I hope you'll be happy.....
How utterly ... innane! :D

The Democrats always get the full support of what remains of the "labor union vote," the "social welfare vote," and the "far left vote." This is indicative of their approach to economic issues. Most Democratic leaders also prefer throwing platitudes and promises at America's enemies and prospective enemies. I can't live with either of those positions. So sue me. :p
Right. Kennedy was so staunchly opposed to starting wars that it beggared belief, and Clinton didn't lay the legal groundwork for the invasion of Iraq back in '97.

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p

I agree 100%!

When the dems actually have a viable candidate then I will vote for them. Until then, I won't.

I thought that "vote for me, I'm not Bush" made more sense than having a draft dodger belittle Kerry's military career, put it that way.

You realize that Bush didn't dodge the draft. He joined the National Guard which is part of the Military!

And no one running on the "I'm not whoever" ticket never wins. The Republicans did that to Clinton in 1996 and it didn't work. What makes ya think it would've worked in 2004?

The Democrats always get the full support of what remains of the "labor union vote," the "social welfare vote," and the "far left vote." This is indicative of their approach to economic issues. Most Democratic leaders also prefer throwing platitudes and promises at America's enemies and prospective enemies. I can't live with either of those positions. So sue me. :p
You can't fault a political platform on the basis of what voters support it. That's asinine. And you know that's asinine. You fault a political platform on it's own merits, or lack thereof.

As far as this other business of "throwing platitudes" and "promises" at America's "enemies and prospective enemies" - could you be any more vague, Eutrusca?

This is not the basis for a credible critique of Democratic policy. This isn't even the basis for a credible op-ed piece on FOXnews. So you don't like Democrats, and you won't vote for them.

Is this really meant to be informative? 'Cause it sounds increasingly like you're mistakenly talking into a mirror while in fact you're speaking through a window... :rolleyes:

ESTABLISHED? By WHOM? Those "Swift Boat" liars? (they've been debunked as such)

But (and Eutrusca, with your history, I mean no special disrespect to you, BUT) Vietnam? HELL NO.

... the Americans were so anti-communist that they couldn't see the reason of staying out of a fight that was none of their business.

As I said, WWII - that was our business. Vietnam, NOPE. Not our business.
And America's "Preznit" hasn't learnt from history.

Eutrusca, you were there.
I'm surprised that you'd side with this man - and I use the term loosely - who insults the ghosts of your comrades-in-arms who died in 'nam by calling up another such war, in the name of something that it isn't actually (it's not to defend against Terrorism. It's for OIL and AMERICAN GLOBAL HEGEMONY) insults anyone who dons the uniform.

I'm generally speaking pro-peace.
I am what I am and what I say I am is true. I would only don the uniform of my country's military if it were a war that I personally agreed with.

I don't think it makes me a coward, but if it makes me a coward, at least I'm a coward who has the courage of his convictions to admit it.

Eutrusca, I recall you saying in a previous thread that you promised you'd never have anyone else insult another soldier.

Wouldn't you say that what Bush was planning to do to the benefits of the soldiers for fighting in his unjust war is insult enough?
Um ... no. I don't say that.

You mention that the "death camps" weren't discovered until after WWII was almost over, then say that you will only serve if your Country is in a war with which you "personally agree." Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't help when trying to decide of which war you "approve."

You can't fault a political platform on the basis of what voters support it. That's asinine. And you know that's asinine. You fault a political platform on it's own merits, or lack thereof.

As far as this other business of "throwing platitudes" and "promises" at America's "enemies and prospective enemies" - could you be any more vague, Eutrusca?

This is not the basis for a credible critique of Democratic policy. This isn't even the basis for a credible op-ed piece on FOXnews. So you don't like Democrats, and you won't vote for them.

Is this really meant to be informative? 'Cause it sounds increasingly like you're mistakenly talking into a mirror while in fact you're speaking through a window... :rolleyes:
Oh? And none of your opposition to the current structure and politics of the Republican Party is related to the fact that it supports the political agenda of the Christian fundamenalists. Riiiiiight. :rolleyes:

Right so we're all in agreement.


Both the main parties in the US are shithouse.






hm?

FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN FONDA KERRY SHEEHAN

Someone has got a few demons running around in the attic?

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p

Vote third party Eut. Destroy the corrupt and confrontational two party system!

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p

As long as you don't vote Republican, all is well.

And, hey, Kerry did have 1/2 an ounce ... not much more ... but at least that. :p

Bush has zero.

Looks like Al Gore may run again. He won in 2000, so he's electable.

As long as you don't vote Republican, all is well.

And, hey, Kerry did have 1/2 an ounce ... not much more ... but at least that. :p

Bush has zero.

Looks like Al Gore may run again. He won in 2000, so he's electable.

Dude, Kerry was like Herman Munster. Also the LL Bean coat he wore to relate to the "common" man looked ridiculous.

Say what you like about GW, he is far better at hiding his skull and bonesness than Kerry.

Right. Kennedy was so staunchly opposed to starting wars that it beggared belief

No, he was extremely pro war, proved by his last-second backing out of the Bay of Pigs that led to the rise of communist Cuba and eventually caused the Cuban missile crisis, which he handled diplomatically.

and Clinton didn't lay the legal groundwork for the invasion of Iraq back in '97.

Of course, and he even dropped a few bombs four years after the first attack on the World Trade Centers, proving that he actually did have military backbone and that he would defend our country from shit like that - granted, he hit an aspirin factory and lots of sand, but we can't hold that against him.

As long as you don't vote Republican, all is well.

Hmmm, a statement like that can only be made by a highly intelligent individual. Let's see what else you said.

And, hey, Kerry did have 1/2 an ounce ... not much more ... but at least that. :p

No.

Bush has zero.

Yes.

Looks like Al Gore may run again. He won in 2000, so he's electable.

No.

1 for 3, that's not too bad. :rolleyes:

I thought that "vote for me, I'm not Bush" made more sense than having a draft dodger belittle Kerry's military career, put it that way.
I supported Bush only because there was no viable alternative. Kerry had so dishonored himself by being a glory-hound in Vietnam and then lying about his service that I could do little else.
Why does the 1960s military career, if any, of either man matter in 2004? You both should have decided on the issues of today, not of 40 years ago.

But if the Democrats don't wake the frack up and run someone who sees the necessity for a strong military and the need to support at least entreprenuerism, I will have no chocie but to vote Republican.
You have a point on the military, which I agree with, but hardly any Democrats, least of all Kerry, are economic leftists.

No, he was extremely pro war, proved by his last-second backing out of the Bay of Pigs that led to the rise of communist Cuba and eventually caused the Cuban missile crisis, which he handled diplomatically.



Of course, and he even dropped a few bombs four years after the first attack on the World Trade Centers, proving that he actually did have military backbone and that he would defend our country from shit like that - granted, he hit an aspirin factory and lots of sand, but we can't hold that against him.

Someone's been listening to too much Hannity. That stuff will rot your brain.

The Democrats always get the full support of what remains of the "labor union vote," the "social welfare vote," and the "far left vote." This is indicative of their approach to economic issues. Most Democratic leaders also prefer throwing platitudes and promises at America's enemies and prospective enemies. I can't live with either of those positions. So sue me.
*feels sympathy for Dobbsworld*

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p
Better hope that Zell Miller doesn't accept a nomination then.

Someone's been listening to too much Hannity. That stuff will rot your brain.

:D Why, was there something wrong with what I said? Besides, Hannity's funny to watch, because he's arrogant and obnoxious and thinks he's always right, regardless of whether or not he actually is.

PS: I actually watch more CNN than anything, not because I want to, or because I think they're more balanced or more fair, just out of habit.

Still whining about the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy like the good little Bushevik you are.

Hmmm, a statement like that can only be made by a highly intelligent individual. Let's see what else you said.

No.

Yes.

No.

1 for 3, that's not too bad. :rolleyes:

Boy, you're so very smart. You can pick up on wit and sarcasm so well that I bet your mama bugs the shit out of everyone at social gatherings with her bragging.

Now go and spread your wisdom and intelligence and rapier wit across the internet for all the world to see.

Oh ... though I wasn't kidding about Republicans ... they really should get out of my country.

Boy, you're so very smart. You can pick up on wit and sarcasm so well that I bet your mama bugs the shit out of everyone at social gatherings with her bragging.

Are you implying that there was wit in your post? :confused: Or maybe you are suggesting that you were being sarcastic in your partisan rant...

Oh ... though I wasn't kidding about Republicans ... they really should get out of my country.

...I guess not.

Are you implying that there was wit in your post? :confused: Or maybe you are suggesting that you were being sarcastic in your partisan rant...


Not really Partisan ... I just can't stand a certain faction of Republicans, who happen to be in power, doing everything they can to ruin my country.

They're dissolving the separation of church and state.
They're calling dissidents "traitors".
They're turning the temporary steward of a permanent office into King.
They're making every effort to abridge Constitutional freedoms.
They're working to legislate that certain citizens aren't really citizens.

They need to go. Every last one of them.

Not really Partisan ... I just can't stand a certain faction of Republicans, who happen to be in power, doing everything they can to ruin my country.

Not really partisan? "Oh ... though I wasn't kidding about Republicans ... they really should get out of my country" isn't really partisan? Have wit, you do not, young Keruvalia. :rolleyes:

They're dissolving the separation of church and state.
They're calling dissidents "traitors".

A small percentage of the Republicans. You saying this would be like me saying of Democrats, "They're shooting up all day and trying to push their communist beliefs upon the rest of America, then killing people on the street to feed their nasty habits."

They're turning the temporary steward of a permanent office into King.

Who's doing this?

They're making every effort to abridge Constitutional freedoms.

Or this?

They're working to legislate that certain citizens aren't really citizens.

And no one's doing this.

I hate the religious right. The religious right != the Republican majority, just like crack addicts != the Democratic majority.

Not really partisan? "Oh ... though I wasn't kidding about Republicans ... they really should get out of my country" isn't really partisan? Have wit, you do not, young Keruvalia. :rolleyes:

To be Partisan, I must be using this rhetoric to promote a particula Party. I am not.

A small percentage of the Republicans.

Who happen to be in power.

Who's doing this?

Everyone who calls someone out for questioning any Bush appointee ... or are you not paying attention to the Roberts thing ....

Or this?

The ones screaming "Free Speech on our terms only!"

And no one's doing this.

Really? Then please go explain that to the gay couple who've been together for 20 years, but can't get married or adopt children.

No, he was extremely pro war, proved by his last-second backing out of the Bay of Pigs that led to the rise of communist Cuba and eventually caused the Cuban missile crisis, which he handled diplomatically.



Of course, and he even dropped a few bombs four years after the first attack on the World Trade Centers, proving that he actually did have military backbone and that he would defend our country from shit like that - granted, he hit an aspirin factory and lots of sand, but we can't hold that against him.
I'll stop using sarcasm when there's Americans around in future, shall I?

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p


Why not run yourself!?

To be Partisan, I must be using this rhetoric to promote a particula Party. I am not.

No, to be partisan you must hold biased feelings for or against a particular party's agenda.

Who happen to be in power.

Who were put there by people not so much like them as you want to think.

Everyone who calls someone out for questioning any Bush appointee ... or are you not paying attention to the Roberts thing ....

Ummm, except that that has nothing to do with turning a temporary office into a kingly position, the statement of yours that I quoted... or are you not paying attention to the English language...

The ones screaming "Free Speech on our terms only!"

There are freaks like that on both sides, which you might realize if you weren't a partisan ranter.

Really? Then please go explain that to the gay couple who've been together for 20 years, but can't get married or adopt children.

Gay men and women have no fewer rights than straight men and women, so nobody's trying to say that certain citizens aren't real citizens.


Nice try. I'm leaving you to argue with yourself, now, because people who base their opinions almost wholly on partisan bullshit annoy that hell out of me.

I'll stop using sarcasm when there's Americans around in future, shall I?

Ummm... what? I understood the sarcasm completely... which is why I responded sarcastically... :headbang:

I thought that "vote for me, I'm not Bush" made more sense than having a draft dodger belittle Kerry's military career, put it that way.

ahhh, yes, "i got a scratch, give me a purple heart!" john kerry. what an warrior!

i will say this for kerry, though... at least he lost with class, unlike Gore.

Gay men and women have no fewer rights than straight men and women, so nobody's trying to say that certain citizens aren't real citizens.

:confused:

Maybe you missed something here. Straight couples are free to marry and stay married if they move to another state. Gay couples do not enjoy that right. That takes away Constitutional freedoms from one group of citizens, thus, making them less than full citizens.


Nice try. I'm leaving you to argue with yourself, now, because people who base their opinions almost wholly on partisan bullshit annoy that hell out of me.

Good. People who put blinders on or stick their fingers in their ears and scream "la la la" annoy the hell out of me.

Ummm... what? I understood the sarcasm completely... which is why I responded sarcastically... :headbang:

My bad.

Frangland, the American military gives anybody who gets scratched a purple heart. That's the point of them.

ahhh, yes, "i got a scratch, give me a purple heart!" john kerry. what an warrior!

i will say this for kerry, though... at least he lost with class, unlike Gore.

Agreed. He didn't bitch and scream for a recount like Gore did, he called Bush himself and seceded.

:confused:

Maybe you missed something here. Straight couples are free to marry and stay married if they move to another state. Gay couples do not enjoy that right. That takes away Constitutional freedoms from one group of citizens, thus, making them less than full citizens.

The fact that they cannot marry does not make then second class citizens. Gays aren't punsihed for being gay.They can still have have partners and enjoy life, they can be with whoever the hell they want. I don't think marriage is a "constitutional right", I failed to see that part of the constitution.

And besides that fact, gays can still marry each other.

But only if it's a gay man marrying a gay woman. :D

Why not run yourself!?
Son, I've got more skeletons in my closet than most cemetaries! ;)

Maybe you missed something here. Straight couples are free to marry and stay married if they move to another state. Gay couples do not enjoy that right. That takes away Constitutional freedoms from one group of citizens, thus, making them less than full citizens.
Marriage is a "Constitutional right???" Since when?

They're dissolving the separation of church and state.
Irrespective of the others, this one is the most blatantly false. Seperation of church and state is not mandated by the constitution at all. As long as government officials don't use their position as a government official to affect people of other religions they are perfectly in the clear.

Marriage is a "Constitutional right???" Since when?
Since Thursday, didn't you get the memo?

:confused:

Maybe you missed something here. Straight couples are free to marry and stay married if they move to another state. Gay couples do not enjoy that right. That takes away Constitutional freedoms from one group of citizens, thus, making them less than full citizens.

Maybe you missed something here. People are free to marry other people of the opposite sex and stay married if they move to another state. People are not allowed to marry other people of the same sex. No rights are granted to do that to any group of citizens, thus making all citizens the same. Pursuing gay marriage asks for extra rights for all, not for rights granted to one group and denied to another.

Now I'm really done. You piss me off. I'm probably going to start flaming you massively if I talk to you anymore.

Irrespective of the others, this one is the most blatantly false. Seperation of church and state is not mandated by the constitution at all. As long as government officials don't use their position as a government official to affect people of other religions they are perfectly in the clear.

Many years of unreversed Supreme Court precedent says you are wrong. But I guess you are more knowledgeable about Constitutional law than the Supreme Court. :rolleyes:

Can someone please remind me what the actual point of this thread is?

Oh apart from a certain person setting up a thread just to go over the same arguements again and again?

Marriage is a "Constitutional right???" Since when?

Not expressly enumerated, but implied by the 9th (concerning rights not enumerated) and 14th (makes the Bill of Rights apply to states) amendments.

Also, Article IV (I believe) grants "full faith and credit".

Hence, if a gay man marries a gay man in Massachusettes then they move to, say, Oklahoma, they should be still married. However, they are not. That is a breech of Article IV, the 9th amendment, and the 14th amendment.

Therefore, gay couples do not enjoy the same Constitutional rights as straight couples.

Maybe you missed something here. People are free to marry other people of the same race and stay married if they move to another state. People are not allowed to marry other people of a different race. No rights are granted to do that to any group of citizens, thus making all citizens the same. Pursuing interracial marriage asks for extra rights for all, not for rights granted to one group and denied to another.


Post corrected to show you how this works.

*coff*

Flame all you want. Denying a gay man the right to marry the person he loves while at the same time giving him a backhanded and moronic reminder that he can always marry a woman shows me that you have no sense of decency or morals.

Marriage is a fundamental freedom protected by the fourteenth amendment - though I am not sure why, other than the ipse dixit in Loving v. Virginia.( It is however at present a right restricted to marriages between couples of different sexes.)

That said, states are free to ignore marriages granted by other states if they contravene the basic public policy of the foreign state:the privileges and immunities clause notwithstanding.

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p
Explain to me how this isn't trolling? You'd have me in moderation if I started a thread like this one about Republicans and you know it. Hypocrite--table for one, I assume? :rolleyes:

Not expressly enumerated, but implied by the 9th (concerning rights not enumerated) and 14th (makes the Bill of Rights apply to states) amendments.

Also, Article IV (I believe) grants "full faith and credit".

Hence, if a gay man marries a gay man in Massachusettes then they move to, say, Oklahoma, they should be still married. However, they are not. That is a breech of Article IV, the 9th amendment, and the 14th amendment.

Therefore, gay couples do not enjoy the same Constitutional rights as straight couples.
That seems a bit ... convoluted to me, but if true, it will be contested and the Supreme Court will decide.

Explain to me how this isn't trolling? You'd have me in moderation if I started a thread like this one about Republicans and you know it. Hypocrite--table for one, I assume? :rolleyes:
Um ... there IS one about Republicans ... it was created shortly after this one. If you have a problem with this thread or with me, take it up with the mods. I refuse to be baited.

Can someone please remind me what the actual point of this thread is?

Oh apart from a certain person setting up a thread just to go over the same arguements again and again?
Oh, bite me.

Maybe you missed something here. People are free to marry other people of the opposite sex and stay married if they move to another state. People are not allowed to marry other people of the same sex. No rights are granted to do that to any group of citizens, thus making all citizens the same. Pursuing gay marriage asks for extra rights for all, not for rights granted to one group and denied to another.

Now I'm really done. You piss me off. I'm probably going to start flaming you massively if I talk to you anymore.
I have work to do, and REALLY didn't want to respond to any threads on General because I know it'd sidetrack me. But this line of argumentation really pisses me off. Here's why this argument is ridiculous:

1. It denies the existence of sexual preference. Sure, a straight guy could marry a straight guy, but why would they want to? The law is designed specifically to prevent a particular group from carrying out an action that others find "icky" - namely, the practice of homosexuality. In the most technical sense, it stoppped all people from marrying those of the same sex. That does not efface the discriminatory intent and practice of the law, and discriminatory intent and practice is a legitimate basis for judicial overturn in modern jurisprudence. And please, no one say "marriages of convenience." Not only is that contrived post-facto justification, but marriages of convenience between members of different sexes are currently legal - is that basis for banning heterosexual marriage?

2. It legitimizes segregation. Here's why: Technically, segregation also prohibited white kids from going to black schools. If the above interpretation of the law was accepted, segregation would be considered a legal practice because neither whites nor blacks could go to areas designated for the other race. As we all know, this is ridiculous - the obvious intent was discrimination against blacks. It's the same thing here - just likes whites wouldn't want to use the black only facilities because they prefer the state of the whites only facilities, heterosexuals wouldn't want to marry someone of their sex because they'd prefer someone of the opposite sex.

There's more, but it really shouldn't be necessary.

I will vote Democratic ...

... when the Democrats run someone with half an ounce of sense! :p
T-R-O-L-L

That seems a bit ... convoluted to me, but if true, it will be contested and the Supreme Court will decide.

I'm sure it will come up at some point in the next few years as more and more states pass anti or pro gay marriage laws. Civil rights take a while, but eventually they get heard and passed.

T-R-O-L-L
D-W-E-E-B

I'm sure it will come up at some point in the next few years as more and more states pass anti or pro gay marriage laws. Civil rights take a while, but eventually they get heard and passed.
Historically, yes. :)

Oh, bite me.

Would love to but I didn't think you were into that. :p :fluffle:

Would love to but I didn't think you were into that. :p :fluffle:

Do I sense some bipartisan curiosity?

Do I sense some bipartisan curiosity?

No just a little teasing. :)

Democrats, Republicans...yeesh...now there is libertairans...whats the difference? and..
What is the libertairan party all about?

Democrats, Republicans...yeesh...now there is libertairans...whats the difference? and..
What is the libertairan party all about?


A 14 year old libertarian who has it 'all figured out': They can smoke pot and have hookers and pay no tax!1! OMG lulz!!


For the rest it's about eating the poor.

It would be nice to a European system here in USA, in that, I could really vote for the party that represents my views (Constitutionalist Party) and they could get stronger and form coalitions with other parties while having a few issues promised to them. Now I try not to vomit as I throw my vote away with the Republican Party. So unfortunate.

Not expressly enumerated, but implied by the 9th (concerning rights not enumerated) and 14th (makes the Bill of Rights apply to states) amendments.

Also, Article IV (I believe) grants "full faith and credit".

Hence, if a gay man marries a gay man in Massachusettes then they move to, say, Oklahoma, they should be still married. However, they are not. That is a breech of Article IV, the 9th amendment, and the 14th amendment.

Therefore, gay couples do not enjoy the same Constitutional rights as straight couples.
Basing any so-called right that has never been recognized upon the 9th amendment does not hold water. If it were a right, it would have at least been a matter of debate within the lifetime of the signers of the Constitution.

Baseing these so-called rights off of the 14th amendment does not hold water in such situation that the 9th amendment does not hold water and no other amendment applies.

The "Full Faith and Credit" clause does not apply when another state has a law explicitly against the law of the other state. Kansas, for example, passed a constitutional amendment to prohibit homosexual marriage, civil unions, and any other releationship resembling marriage. Thus Kansas does not have to recognize the law of any state which has these so-called gay rights.

Furthermore, even on a basic level, there cannot be a charge of descrimination based on sexual orientation, for no person (say in Kansas) can marry a person of the same gender. This is not a "right" only denied to homosexuals, but also to all people.

Basing any so-called right that has never been recognized upon the 9th amendment does not hold water. If it were a right, it would have at least been a matter of debate within the lifetime of the signers of the Constitution.
They didn't debate whether women or black should vote. Does that mean they shouldn't be able to?

Baseing these so-called rights off of the 14th amendment does not hold water in such situation that the 9th amendment does not hold water and no other amendment applies.
That's not an argument. Banning gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment because it creates a system of unequal protection under the law - see my earlier post.

The "Full Faith and Credit" clause does not apply when another state has a law explicitly against the law of the other state. Kansas, for example, passed a constitutional amendment to prohibit homosexual marriage, civil unions, and any other releationship resembling marriage. Thus Kansas does not have to recognize the law of any state which has these so-called gay rights.
That's factually incorrect. It is, in fact, the exact opposite reading of full faith and credit. The whole point was that even if one state had a law against something, they still had to respect the other state's law for it. It was one of the Constitutional basis for the Fugitive Slave Act - even though Massachusetts banned slavery, it still had to respect Texas' pro-slavery laws and help them get their slaves back.

Furthermore, even on a basic level, there cannot be a charge of descrimination based on sexual orientation, for no person (say in Kansas) can marry a person of the same gender. This is not a "right" only denied to homosexuals, but also to all people.
GAK! Read my other post. This argument is absolutely ridiculous.

They didn't debate whether women or black should vote. Does that mean they shouldn't be able to?

But then we did have that debate and it gave us the 15th and 19th amendments to the US Constitution

That's not an argument. Banning gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment because it creates a system of unequal protection under the law - see my earlier post.

Since marriage isn't a constitutional right, no it doesn't. Marrying is a privilage as is driving. Shall we give an 8 yo a car? After all he or she has a constitutional right to drive!

That's factually incorrect. It is, in fact, the exact opposite reading of full faith and credit. The whole point was that even if one state had a law against something, they still had to respect the other state's law for it. It was one of the Constitutional basis for the Fugitive Slave Act - even though Massachusetts banned slavery, it still had to respect Texas' pro-slavery laws and help them get their slaves back.

Yea and they also helped in regards to the Underground Railroad as did many other states.

GAK! Read my other post. This argument is absolutely ridiculous.

Your right.

But then we did have that debate and it gave us the 15th and 19th amendments to the US Constitution.
Well, sure, but that doesn't prove originalism correct. My point simply was that we can't say "that's what the founders thought" a) with any historical certainty or b) as a logical argument concerning constitutional doctrine. Here's another example - the Founders didn't think about internet or telephone privacy, yet we all agree the FBI should't be able to tap our phones or search our computers without probable cause. It's a question of applying old ideas to modern issues.

Since marriage isn't a constitutional right, no it doesn't. Marrying is a privilage as is driving. Shall we give an 8 yo a car? After all he or she has a constitutional right to drive!
A) Minors are a defined, legal special class of citizens who due to certain biological evidence are not allowed to engage in an activity which by definition puts them and others at risk. Marriage is not a definitionally dangerous activity. Gays don't have biological issues in the same way minors do.

B) Catch up on your case law. Loving v. Virgina defined marriage as a "fundamental right" protected by the 14th Amendment.

Yea and they also helped in regards to the Underground Railroad as did many other states.
The state government did not. Individuals, who were breaking the law, did. The state at least nominally followed Full Faith and Credit.

Your right.
Thank you!

Well, sure, but that doesn't prove originalism correct. My point simply was that we can't say "that's what the founders thought" a) with any historical certainty or b) as a logical argument concerning constitutional doctrine. Here's another example - the Founders didn't think about internet or telephone privacy, yet we all agree the FBI should't be able to tap our phones or search our computers without probable cause. It's a question of applying old ideas to modern issues.

Some founders actually wanted to end slavery. However, the south prevented it from occuring because it was their way of life so yes, slavery was debated before but it went no where.

As for the women's movement, this has been debated since the 1800s culminating in the Women's right to vote in the 1900s. You can use it but sense the debates happened and thus led to Constitutional Amendments, it really does render your opening line mute.

A) Minors are a defined, legal special class of citizens who due to certain biological evidence are not allowed to engage in an activity which by definition puts them and others at risk. Marriage is not a definitionally dangerous activity. Gays don't have biological issues in the same way minors do.

I can agree to this statement but you still really haven't addressed my points. Under the Constitution of the United States, an 8yo could theoretically sue to have the right to drive.

B) Catch up on your case law. Loving v. Virgina defined marriage as a "fundamental right" protected by the 14th Amendment.

Notice the word you used. Fundamental. It isn't Constitutional. Don't you love word games? Now, I don't agree with Kansas' law that bans Civil Unions. I believe that they should have Civil Unions but I don't believe in gay marriage.

The state government did not. Individuals, who were breaking the law, did. The state at least nominally followed Full Faith and Credit.

Nominally being the operative word. I'm sure that some law enforcement did violate this law and let the people go who were harboring slaves.

Thank you!

Your Welcome.

Cuthulu for President. Why vote for a Lesser Evil!!!

D-W-E-E-B
Yea, real mature Eut. 62 wasn't it? Not a fucking chance. 12 more likely.

Can someone please remind me what the actual point of this thread is?

Oh apart from a certain person setting up a thread just to go over the same arguements again and again?

It's more Bushevik propaganda by Forrest. Plain and simple. If he'd stop calling himself a "centrist" and comes clean about being a hardcore Bushie then there'd be progress.

Would it seem meanspirited to point out that you don't actually have a two party system in the 'States at the moment? It seems last time out a few of the Republican party faithful wrote fat cheques to Ralph Nader's campaign fund so that the idiot would be more succesful in splitting the dissenting vote...