Open Thread: Thursday Morning
May 15th, 2008 at 09:03am Mark Noonan
McCain is getting a lot of positive press about his climate change speech - juxtaposing the speech with the “take the gloves off” note to Newsweek, I begin to see a strategy here of hitting out both right and left…nothing like making everyone catch up with you - it means you control the terms of the debate.
Edwards endorsement of Obama has a lot of people talking of him being the Veep, again. I say: bring it ON!!!! Talk about handing us the election on a silver platter…two lawyers who are hip deep in questionable actions running against a war hero…
How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck would chuck wood?
Not much, they’re pretty small.
Discuss these and other burning questions of the day.
Entry Filed under: Open Thread
71 Comments
1. Sunny | May 15th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I just read that Senator McCain will give a speech today pledging that he will have the majority of our troops out of Iraq within five years if he is elected president. WOW!! Way to go Senator. Thank goodness at least one Republican has some good sense.
2. Brett Michaels | May 15th, 2008 at 9:40 am
No prayer requests for the 12k+ earthquake victims…..how odd. Charlton Heston dies and 30 people on here offer their prayers and we get a thread dedicated to his death.
It’s nice to see where your priorities lie.
3. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Brett,
Where’s your compassion? I am offended that you callously just throw out 12K+ dead, have you no heart? You should know that specific number of victims, and family members of the victims if you were any kind of a compassionate human being.
Why do you have such a dark heart?
4. Brett Michaels | May 15th, 2008 at 9:44 am
John McCain launched a green-tinted courtship of West Coast swing voters on Monday, with a call to action on global warming and an indictment of the Bush administration’s ‘failed’ policies to combat it.
Wow…and you guys are voting for him?
Actually I am not surprised. THe Republicans cant even win special elections in solid Republican districts…so you might as well vote a Democrat disguised as a Republican.
5. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Brett,
If you’ll recall, many democrats crossed over in the NH and Iowa caucuses giving McCain the momentum needed for the nomination. That has been a few months ago though and I am sure your short term memory has been compromised.
So actually, it was the Dems that voted for McCain and ironically, and much to the chagrin of those same dems, he will probably be the next President. If you were aware of anything at all, you’d know that conservatives have many issues with McCain. But I am sure that concept is above your pay grade.
6. SEW | May 15th, 2008 at 9:54 am
“30 people on here offer their prayers”
Just another liberal lie. It comes very easily to them. Like they said about Willie Clinton, he lies so easily.
7. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Brett,
You do realize that all of those earthquake victims you so callously place a number to had names and loved ones, right? Yet you discard them by randomly placing a number to them.
I am disgusted by your flippant manner to those people. You owe their relatives an apology.
8. OhioOrrin | May 15th, 2008 at 10:02 am
when’s that warming kicking in?
record winter snows.
many ski resorts remain open in May!
and it’s still chilly here in ohio.
bring it on…..
9. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 15th, 2008 at 10:02 am
7. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Have you not listened to Karl Rove? he writes in the WSJ that just the sort of ‘arrigance for laughs’ that you are employing is why your party will be swamped in the November Congressional elections. Grow up young man and get an agenda that the majority of people in American get behind other than War, Religion and Tax Cuts for the Rich.
10. SEW | May 15th, 2008 at 10:07 am
CE,E,D.S.V.J. [what a load of crap],
You mean vote for a racist Muslim?
11. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Cav,
Don’t you have your own blog? Why don’t people frequent your site? You’d think that since you represent the majority that you wouldn’t have time to visit us eeeevil conservatives.
I guess not, huh?
Tax cuts for the rich? You obviously know nothing about that and have strictly regurgitated the propaganda, good little lemming.
Agenda of war? Really. Didn’t Hillary say she would annihilate Iran? And didn’t Obama want to invade Pakistan? Wow, you need to learn more about your candidates.
Religion? Can you say Trinity Church.
Way to go Cav……another mindless post. Well done.
12. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 10:13 am
What’s very amusing is that peple like Cav pass as intellectuals in their mindless little circles.
LMAO.
13. bagni | May 15th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Senator Thad Cochran had this to say: “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”
14. Bigfoot | May 15th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Wow…and you guys are voting for him?
Many of us on the right will vote for McCain simply because the alternative horrifies us. To be sure, some of us will vote for a 3rd party candidate or stay home, but for others, voting for the lesser of two evils will have to suffice.
15. uh oh | May 15th, 2008 at 10:21 am
LMAO! Yea, this blog is overflowing with conservative intelligence.
16. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 15th, 2008 at 10:37 am
11. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Indeed I do! Since its inception in August of 2005 CE we have had 193,240 pageloads or roughly 5800 pageloads per month. Our site has expanded in readership and in staff exponentially since the 2006 elections in the US and our loyal readership continues to grow. We have been offered funds from a wide variety of organizations but have refused each time [this include a twice offered hefty sum from George Soros, but who knows maybe the third time will be the charm?] to maintain our journalistic and artistic integrity. Thank you for your interest in our modest success.
When you are the boss, neocon, and you have capable subordinates [and excellent computers] you find you have a considerable amount of free time blocked off for what amounts to the sheer fun of debating with those who are vehement about their ideology as I am with my own. I am searching for an English phrase, ah yes, you need to take what I have to say sometimes with a grain of salt. This neocon is because what happens in America has no effect on me or those that I love. While if you get the man you would like to share a pint of ale with and things go pear shaped, well you have to grind your teeth and live with them don’t you? What I find amusing is how easy it is for you to belittle people who merely disagree with you on a point of politics but yet at a site that I preside over we can engage in intelligent debate with Muslims, Jews, Christians, Pagans, Pastafarians, Atheists, and all others without ever an insult being thrown by anyone that I would consider a Liberal. How is it that people with morals and ethics that are supposed to be of the Religious highest standard find it so necessary to be juvenile? But no matter, as in all things ser, in the end you get what you pay for.
17. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Cav,
I don’t insult you because we disagree on politics. I insult you because you’re STUPID.
I have zero patience for ignorance.
18. Canadian Observer | May 15th, 2008 at 11:04 am
It is a strange, to say the least, that while Obama is seen by other countries as a welcome change and not nearly as scary or imbecilic as GWB; he is, nevertheless, perceived to be evil incarnate by the right-wing contingent in his own country.
It is baffling to us why they would embrace the likes of Bush, who has made America a laughing stock and who has done more harm to his people than any other President and yet denounce Obama.
Why would this be?
19. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 11:08 am
CO,
It’s probably because since other countries don’t solicit our opinion on who they elect as their leaders, we don’t solicit theirs.
Do ya think?
Or are you seriously that thick?
20. SEW | May 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am
He is seriously that thick. He must be referring to the liberal world press, Hamas, Fidel and Chavez? They view Hussein very favorably!
21. William Teach | May 15th, 2008 at 11:29 am
CO, it could be that Republicans worry more about protecting the United States, the duty they are charged with, while Democrats worry about other countries not liking us. Which is why Dems are called panty waistes. Also, traitors.
22. Some Assembly Required | May 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I guess McCain was Misspeaking here too about Hagee and supporting his position on Israel… Opps
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080515/pl_politico/10375
23. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Yes SAR, so controversial….especially since McCain has been going to Hagee’s church for twenty years……oh wait, wrong candidate.
Sorry.
24. Canadian Observer | May 15th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
#22. William Teach | May 15th, 2008 at 11:29 am
If you really were concerned about protecting U.S. interests, William Teach, then why still support the Bush doctrine?
The U.S. has been in a steady decline since his swearing-in ceremony. The monies thrown at the Iraqi debacle could have been more wisely spend fixing your decaying infrastructure for instance.
No matter how you try to spin it, the bottom line is that the Bush administration has not taken care of the very people it was sworn to protect.
25. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Yet we have no incidences since 2001, and the people that want to do us harm are actively engaged with our military in the ME.
But why let facts stand in the way of liberal hysteria right CO?
26. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Pain,
I would actually think that we have yet to defeat those that want to defeat us.
I don’t see terrorism as a partisan issue.
Liberals came together in the wake of 9/11, yes but then have since put politics in front of their of their patriotism.
27. Some Assembly Required | May 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
24. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
McCain agrees with Hagee that Israel will be the site for Armageddon. I don’t care if he knows him for 10 minutes or 50 years, agreeing with something like that is loony.
Granted I don’t think McCain believes it, I think he’s just willing to say or do anything to become president. Not unlike Clinton.
Glad to see your starting to get your talking points about Obama come august (if it goes to the convention).
28. OhioOrrin | May 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
and now 4 something completely different…
“The latest call-up comes as the Corps is growing, and faster than expected. In April, the Corps signed up 2,233 recruits, meeting 142 percent of its monthly recruiting goal.
If the recruiting trend continues, the Corps could hit an active-duty end-strength of 202,000 by the end of 2009, two years ahead of schedule.”
semper fi !
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=54808
29. Canadian Observer | May 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
20. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 11:08 am
CO,
It’s probably because since other countries don’t solicit our opinion on who they elect as their leaders
——————————–
Other countries may not solicit your opinion on who they elect as their leaders, neocon, but the U.S. has, on many occasions, interfered with foreign governments in the selection of their leaders.
Central and South America, among others, as prime examples.
30. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
OO: nice selective quoting, why did you leave out all the other paragraps? Like for instance the headline and the lead?
31. js | May 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
there they go again, judges creating laws…violating the voice of the people..and the rights of the many to endorse the rights of the perverted….what equality is there between deviant sexual conduct and natural human behavior…
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080515174435.xgo31cvp&show_article=1
32. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
@CO
Did you catch his moniker, “neocon”? If there is one school of thought that is extremely preoccupied with how furriners think about America, it is neoconservatism. They are perfectly willing to actively support dictatorial and anti-democratic regimes who the neocons perceive as pro-american (Saudi Arabia) while at the same time wreak havoc in democracies they perceive as anti-american
33. OhioOrrin | May 15th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
hey william of orange - evidently I must then paste the entire article or be accused of “selective quoting”?…as u could be! silly r u
for the record, I’m Army IRR & therefore subject to call-up myself not counting the annual medical & records update.
the IRR doesn’t take as long to deploy vs new recruits, and we’ve got experience which cannot be trained.
lastly, recruiting is ahead of goals which is a good thing…so feel free to congratulate the Corps & the recruits for their service.
semper fi !
34. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Congratulations to California. It is the right thing to do. Welcome to the 21st Century.
Civil Rights should never be trusted in the hands of ‘the majority’, that’s why there are courts: to protect the individual from that majority.
35. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
“recruiting is ahead of goals which is a good thing”
What do you think the reason could be? It’s the economy, …
36. OhioOrrin | May 15th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
william of orange - 2d attempt to get you to recognise the Corp for achieving recruiting.
that was the purpose of my entire post.
are you not a vet then?
37. thrower | May 15th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Let me do it for him Ohio. Props to the Marine Corps for hitting that important goal. I have competed with and against current and former marines over the years and they are some of the most stand up people alive.
38. Brett Michaels | May 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
6. SEW | May 15th, 2008 at 9:54 am
“30 people on here offer their prayers”
Just another liberal lie. It comes very easily to them. Like they said about Willie Clinton, he lies so easily.
http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/04/06/rip-charlton-heston/
39. Eric T | May 15th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
The great accomplishments of liberalism.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689
You libs got to be proud of this!
This is the end result of voting democrat.
Spreading gayness across America, is apparently the democrat agenda. Pretty soon the libs will want to legalize marriage for folks into beastility, necrophilia, pedophila.
This here is a great reason not to vote Democrat. Along with the gun bans, high taxes, and other losses of freedom and liberty.
40. Brett Michaels | May 15th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Brett,
You do realize that all of those earthquake victims you so callously place a number to had names and loved ones, right? Yet you discard them by randomly placing a number to them.
I am disgusted by your flippant manner to those people. You owe their relatives an apology.
Unforunately they do not have a complete list because they are still recovering from the dead.
I sent my prayers and what was left of my paycheck for this month $723.82.
https://american.redcross.org/site/Donation2?idb=1191826423&df_id=3198&3198.donation=form1
Confirmantion#RC295892120
Please do the same Neocon and leave the insults at home.
41. Brett Michaels | May 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Eric,
Why do you care if gay s can get married? Are you friends with gays? Do you hate them?
My father remembered when it was illegal in Virgina to marry a white woman…If you were alive back then I suspect you would be riled up because them uppity negros wuz dating white wimmin!
42. Brett Michaels | May 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Special elections….
Can Republicans win one? In solid Republican districts? It doesnt seem like they can.
Well there is hope…McCain is a closet Democrat. Perhaps he will win. Either way..the Democrats get a Democrat in office.
43. Brett Michaels | May 15th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
thrower | May 15th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Let me do it for him Ohio. Props to the Marine Corps for hitting that important goal. I have competed with and against current and former marines over the years and they are some of the most stand up people alive.
We have always met our goals.
Odd so many on here hold the Corp in such high reard..yet they insult me because my political beliefs differ somewhat from them.
44. bongoman | May 15th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
^ idiot.
45. Jeremiah | May 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
back then I suspect
Back then…I suspect it was much different from today…back then, they didn’t tolerate evil people who wanted to cause an influence for division.
Today, on the other hand, through the actions of our Supreme Courts the evil depravity tha is Sodomy is embraced in our society, as sodomites are treated as “celebrities.”
Those Judges will answer to the Supreme Judge.
46. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
OO
Congrats on your succes to recruit 660 extra men and women for the Marines in April.
Happy? Do you belief I have any beef with that?
I pointed out that the article you quoted so selectively had an entirely different drift: the Marines having to call up more Individual Ready Reserves; for the 4th time since August 2006?
I served, for two weeks. I got drafted in ‘78 (I’m Dutch, we still had the draft back then) and was called to serve in ‘80 but soon discovered soldiers were a bunch of pussies who were scared shitless of an openly gay man. Homosexuality was no grounds for dismissal since ‘73 but in the 70s and early 80s, the army still had problems with openly gay men serving in the army, so they sought all sorts of excuses to not conscript them. After it became clear to my commanders that I was gay, they offered me an honorary discharge because they couldn’t guarantee my safety back then. I accepted.
After it became known that a lot of straight men who were enlisted also claimed to be gay, the army changed its practices in the mid-eighties and nowadays gays and lesbians are actively sought by the military.
47. Pain | May 15th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
51. Jeremiah | May 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Do you mean Chief Justice John Roberts or International Criminal Court President Phillppe Kirsch?
48. Danish Artist | May 15th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Concerning California,
What piece of legislation or law was upheld in California?
or was this just another instance of judges legislating from the bench (which is completely unconstitutional on many levels, but when has that stopped liberals anyway)?
49. Danish Artist | May 15th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Wow, Pain, you are celebrating the libs packing the War funding bill with enough pork to ensure a veto?
You are celebrating the political games liberals are playing at the expense and safety of our soldiers in both theaters?
You a once twisted individual, but then again you are one of those pitchfork morons.
50. Brett Michaels | May 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Jeremiah | May 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
back then I suspect
Back then…I suspect it was much different from today…back then, they didn’t tolerate evil people who wanted to cause an influence for division.
Ah Jeremiah….You long for those days dont you? Back then negro’s like me couldn’t voice their opinion….you would like for those days to return wouldnt you? Heck lets go back to the days of our founding fathers. Back then I would have been your slave….like you said..back then they didnt tolerate uppity negro’s speaking their mind.
You yearn for those days….the 10 commandments were on the wall in court houses and negro’s were in chains.
Life was good back then in your eyes.
51. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Back then, it were Justices from the United States Supreme Court who declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924″, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
‘Activist Judges who legislated from the bench’ too?
They also went against ‘the will of the people’.
Because that is what the Judicial Branch and your Constitution is all about: the Constitution protects you as an Individual from ‘The Will of the People’, also known as Mob Rule. And you should be thankfull for that.
52. SEW | May 15th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Brett #43
Thanks Bret for validating my post of your liberal lie, “30 people on here offer their prayers”
The Heston topic had 12 posts, most by Libtards. So how do you come up with 30 people from 12 posts, most libtards. Liar.
53. SEW | May 15th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
fyi Brett
Lie
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object) 5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object) 7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used
54. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
@DA
No. Supreme Courts have one very explicit role and that is to check whether a certain law abides with the State and/or the U.S. Constitution. Judges don’t legislate, but they have the extremely important role to check whether certain legislation fits within the constitutional framework. And both left and right have gone to courts over legislation that they perceived to be unconstitutional. Sometimes they won, sometimes they lost.
55. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 15th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
54. Danish Artist | May 15th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Ah, Danish Artist, I hope the Isles are treating you well my friend.
What was law upheld in the recent same sex marriage court decision? Well none other than the supreme law of the state the California State Constitution! The four judges who ruled in favor of striking down the ban on same sex marriage ruled that the ban created a state where gay and lesbian couples were treated as second class citizens thus depriving them of their legal right to establish a family and raise children just as any opposite sex couple. Furthermore the California Supreme Court held that granting same sex couples the right to marry in no way infringes or dilutes the institution for opposite sex couples. All of these rights can be found both in the California Constitution and in the United States Constitution.
56. Eric T | May 15th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Brett-
For folks with traditional values, this is a mockery of something sacred. Many religions view
this as an unholy abomination.
For thousands of years in every culture marriage, has been between a man and a woman. To create families and hold them together. It cheapens what marriage is suppose to be, to see it distorted like this, is awful. And this is what we can look forward to by electing democrats. Pretty soon they will be teaching kids in schools gay awareness, making gay holidays, gay history month. There will be quotas, where companies have to hire a certain amount of gays.
They will piss all over our traditional values and silence anyone who speaks out against them with hate crimes bills. The democrats may even eventually mandate homosexuality.
How the left can be in Churches campaigning on values, one day, than the next day supporting this kind of legislation. Proves they can’t take a stand on an issue. They put their finger out and see which way the wind is blowing, how the polls look that day. They are on both sides of every issue.
Didn’t they overturn something the voters previous decided,
What, 5 judges overturned the will of the majority.
A good reason to not elect democrats, Liberal judges!!!
Cavalor- how do they procreate and raise a family? Does the turd become impregnated?
57. Jeremiah | May 15th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
WvO,
The Constitution was just fine until the Court decided in needed to be “changed.” So what did they do? They added the right to “freedom of expression”, and “right to privacy.”
So, then, the question can be asked…since our Bill of Rights doesn’t include pornography, Sodomy, Profanity, Murder, Obscenities, scenes of violence etc, etc. on down the chain of evil……What then, gives some ignorant “Judge” the idea that those things I’ve just listed are “suitable” to be protected under the Constitution?
They don’t explicitly state those very words as suitable under the Constitution, but they use the words “freedom of expression”? “Right to privacy”?
Criminal actions, friend, CRIMINALl… Our Founding Fathers would not have put up with such ignorant claims!!! These ignorant Judges of today would have been taken and hanged in the public square, along with all the murderers and sodomites they could find!!!
What does ‘Self-Evident’ mean? It’s that right which we can recognize without any outside influence….it’s ‘Self-Evident’ that I have a right to Life…it’s ‘Self-Evident’ that I have a right to Liberty…it’s ‘Self-Evident’ that I have a right to pursue happiness.
The Law has its foundation on morality. Where did the Founders get their morality? Not from themselves, not from their mom, dads, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, neices, nephews, or even their best friends.
When they came here, they didn’t know how they would make society work on their own, they knew their own definition for “morality” couldn’t be right, because there was Someone here before them…they recognized their weakness, and they knew that there was no way on earth that they could succeed without a reliance on this Higher Power…so where could they turn to? To that Being that rules all the Earth and Universe on display….to Almighty God, and His Word that He provided for the foundation of prosperity of a Nation.
That’s where we got the original Constitution, and they didn’t mean for it to be interpreted or changed to mean something that seperated it from its original moral foundation based on God’s Holy and Precious Word.
So….let us proceed by hanging some of these anti-moral, anti-Christian, Liberal Democrat pinhead Judges!!!!!!!!!!
58. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
That ‘something sacred’ is a mockery of civil rights for other folks. Even the Bible made a mockery of that ‘sacred’ institution.
And marriage was historically a bond between two families, not between a man and a woman, and in many societies that is still the case. Historically, marriages were pre-arranged. Your particular western notion of marriage is probably only 50 years old. People married each other for economic reasons, and in certain circles for political ones. Almost never out of ‘love’.
59. Eric T | May 15th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Jeremiah-
Hangin is kinda extreme, they got a right to be here, and do what they want in their own bedroom. They just have no business in power, they have already proved where they plan on leading the country. They have proved the will of the majority means nothing. They proved what liberalism will do to all the states if it is not stopped.
We need some good politicians that will get of their butts and start running some commericals about this stuff, Hillary and Obama’s shameful record on gun rights, taxes, ect…
Our guys better start putting out some good material, This ain’t some chicken shit political party. This is the GOP!!!
60. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
And the Constitution is still fine because it has not been “changed” with this ruling. On the contrary, it has been upheld.
You have every right to try to change the Constitution so that it does not include a freedom of expression or a right to privacy. Be my guest. You will need a lot of supporters so I wish you good luck with that.
It seems to me you have a lot of problems with your Common Law Legal System. You want to trade it in for my Civil Law Legal System?
61. js | May 15th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
its pure ignorance to represent that deviant sexual behavior is protected under civil rights as equal to natural human behavior in any catagory….its the equivalent of nose picking and butt scratching…yes…people do have a right and an obligation to society to reject the perversion of natural behavior….sex is not what make us civilized human beings….our behavior is….and sodomy as a civil right is outrageous….these judges should be on skid row instead of creating trash laws like this….
62. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Ah, yeah, those were the days …
63. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Where does it say that in the Bill of Rights?
64. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Oh, and js, nobody is taking that right (to “reject the perversion of natural behavior”) from you.
I thought conservatives were for limited government, yet here you are, screaming for vice squads busting into bedrooms of each and every person in the US to check if they don’t commit any “perversion of natural behavior”.
There is nothing homosexual about sodomy. A lot of heterosexual couples engage in it too.
65. Jeremiah | May 15th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
It seems to me you have a lot of problems with your Common Law Legal System.
WvO,
Nope. Just with those who’ve screwed it over!
66. Jackson Mewson | May 15th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I like open threads. Try this one out. This has just been released.
“How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power
George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
I guess this kind of stuff runs in the family.
67. Jeremiah | May 15th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
I also take issue with Pain’s citation of “Judical Review.”
Given that the powers vested in the Supreme Court stem from the highly venerated and worshipped John Marshall’s mere ‘idea’ of “constituional law” or accepted as…”law”, anyway…it is no wonder America is going to pot in a hurry!!
Instead of relying on the ‘Good Will’ of the American people it has given federal judges absolute authority over vast spances of our political and majority opinionated life, and that the men who adopted the Constitution on our behalf NEVER, EVER intended them to have.
So much for … ‘We the People’, eh?
68. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 15th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
65. Jeremiah | May 15th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Self evident as in you cannot exclude a group of people because you have a religious bias against them that is not codified in the law. That sort of self evident. You know Jeremiah there are zealots in the Middle East that see the Divine in only their ability to control the actions of others and eschew all things worldly to such a degree that they destroy their Souls as suicide bombers.
So….let us proceed by hanging some of these anti-moral, anti-Christian, Liberal Democrat pinhead Judges!!!!!!!!!!
What you’ve done by that statement is commit a crime under the USA PATRIOT Act by threatening sitting judges as a class thereby making a de jure “terroristic threat.” And it is possibly the worst thing I have ever heard a member of your species say on this site.
You have right to free speech but not a riot to incite others to violence or threaten members of the bench. As a Free Citizen of Hell and one who respects the rule of law I denounce you your shabby shirt sleeve religion and your hollow threats. You ser have been driven mad by your zealotry.
69. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 15th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
69. js | May 15th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
its pure ignorance to represent that deviant sexual behavior is protected under civil rights as equal to natural human behavior in any catagory
What you said above is a personal opinion not a stated argument at law. The law no longer defines same sex relationships as deviant in the State of California because you cannot under the state constitution create a rule for one class that does not violate the law of the state of california and protect that classes rights to the fruits of that rule while creating a separate class based on traditions or religion and denying them the same full faith and credit of the protections of rights of the first class.
It is not the acts of sexual union that are being debated it is the right off a citizen to be joined in the bond of marriage as recognized by the state in question. The very arguments you make and the very reasons you make them is why the court had to rule in favor of overturning the ban. What you wish to do is treat these people as second class citizens that are not worthy to the nomenclature and respect of the title of marriage when actually in the light of the law they clearly are.
70. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Jeremiah, js, and several other all have their knickers in a twist about “activist judges trumping the Will of the People”.
Do they remember that the people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their “marriage” laws?
Isn’t that that famous “Will of the People”?
And that both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed “it is up to the state Supreme Court” to decide the issue?
Did you condemn Arnie for trumping the will of the people?
So, again. What was the Will of the Californian People?
71. Brett Michaels | May 16th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
SEW | May 15th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Brett #43
Thanks Bret for validating my post of your liberal lie, “30 people on here offer their prayers”
The Heston topic had 12 posts, most by Libtards. So how do you come up with 30 people from 12 posts, most libtards. Liar.
Sew,
I knew you would fall for my trap. That was just one thread. There wee 3 other threads where posters offered their prayers for Mr. Heston.
You should learn how to use google to search a specific website.
Aside from all that…still not any prayers for the hundreds of dead chinese children…none.
Instead we hear calls from Jeremiah to hang activist judges.