Barack Obama, our next President

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ... Full Story

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939356 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
So it is okay with you for women to receive health care at sub-standard clinics?
Why is regulation only "big government" when the left does it, why not when the right does it? Either grows the government. Its this sort of thing that undermines the right's claim to want less government. They just want less of the government they don't like and more of the government they do like which makes them every bit as much big government as the left is.

Lemme ask you this: does current regulation prevent the existence of sub-standard clinics or are all clinics up to whatever this so-called "standard" is?
Grey Ghost

Partlow, VA

#939357 Jul 7, 2013
EasyEed wrote:
<quoted text>
"leosampleanus"
You may have no trucks but you sure like truck stops, lots of potential customers for you.
Peace
KMA
Old perverted Eed always something sexual. This is a political thread idiot. Show some of that great morality that you righties are always bragging about.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939358 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot response of Soros echo chamber believer who thinks all who oppose Obama must belong to the Tea Party.
As I thought .....
Most of the anti-Obama posters on here profess to be tea partiers or sympathetic with the cause. Don't believe me, ask Nobama.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#939359 Jul 7, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>How come you didn't demand he prove his opinion with facts son?
Oh that's right! You're on the same team!
That was stupid, Yeah.

If you want to argue that no states allow common law marriages, it is up to you to make your case.
Nostrilis Waxman

United States

#939360 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
You are loosing ground here.
Laws governing marriages have been present for centuries. How do you make this "Big Government"?
I'm parched Carol!! Whip me up a thick shake, heavy on the ice cream, add some buttermilk to it too, do it now and I'll let you have some!!

Better shift your weight to the other side of that chair, ya hear!! That other leg is looking pretty precarious right now!! Bwaaaahhhhaaaaaaa!

Pork rind?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939361 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
You are loosing ground here.
Laws governing marriages have been present for centuries. How do you make this "Big Government"?
Your argument makes no sense. How is the size and scope of government defined by longevity?

What legitimate interest does the government have in the social/religious institution of marriage?
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#939362 Jul 7, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: they don't have a tv in your institution. Fkoff you lying polack beast from hell.
"polack" is just as bad as "n****r
Whatever

Gering, NE

#939363 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is regulation only "big government" when the left does it, why not when the right does it? Either grows the government. Its this sort of thing that undermines the right's claim to want less government. They just want less of the government they don't like and more of the government they do like which makes them every bit as much big government as the left is.
Lemme ask you this: does current regulation prevent the existence of sub-standard clinics or are all clinics up to whatever this so-called "standard" is?
The standard is the same as for any other medical procedure or facility. You didn't -even after numerous posts on the topic- know this?

There is no new regulations just following up on the current ones.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#939364 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. I didn't realize any state still acknowledged these.
Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.... and the District of Columbia.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#939365 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument makes no sense. How is the size and scope of government defined by longevity?
This comment makes no sense. SCOTUS bases their decisions are established laws and previous decisions. Marriage laws are well established and recognized.
<quoted text>
What legitimate interest does the government have in the social/religious institution of marriage?
Really? You are in favor abandoning ALL marriage laws that are regarded as a contract that protects the parties involved?
Nostrilis Waxman

United States

#939366 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
That was stupid, Yeah.
If you want to argue that no states allow common law marriages, it is up to you to make your case.
I'll make my case. How many times have I told you Carol,"when you eat Hostess Snoballs, remove the plastic wrapper"!!!!!
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#939367 Jul 7, 2013
GOPIdiots wrote:
<quoted text>
The point he's making is that you refuse to acknowledge that your Party is now run by religious zealots. Every state election that swept in Tea Turds has focused not on taxes, but on abortion and planned parenthood.
Roe v. Wade did not grant an unlimited right to abortion.

(Now hit the road, you child-molesting teacher wannabe pervert.)

Since: May 11

Chambersburg, PA

#939368 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is government involved in marriage period?
The legal aspects of civil union.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#939369 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the anti-Obama posters on here profess to be tea partiers or sympathetic with the cause. Don't believe me, ask Nobama.
Some are members of the Tea Party; however, more have made no claim of involvement in it.

What do you base your logic on? Given your definition then the majority of Americans would be tea party people as they want the deficit to be reduced.

Even SCOTUS has ruled that you cannot force a political association on an organization/someone who does not acknowledge it.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939370 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
The standard is the same as for any other medical procedure or facility. You didn't -even after numerous posts on the topic- know this?
There is no new regulations just following up on the current ones.
Where is the regulation that if I go into a walk-in clinic to have a boil lanced that the doctor in charge have admitting privileges?
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#939371 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is government involved in marriage period?
Good question.

But eliminating government sanction of "marriage" would affect various survivor benefits, tax advantages, etc.

Not that Galt is opposed, but can't have it both ways.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939372 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
This comment makes no sense. SCOTUS bases their decisions are established laws and previous decisions. Marriage laws are well established and recognized.
<quoted text>
Really? You are in favor abandoning ALL marriage laws that are regarded as a contract that protects the parties involved?
So you're saying the government's interest is in the contractual nature of marriage? I accept that as legitimate. Now your problem is having the government restrict who can enter into a contract with whom. Two men, one man and three women, first cousins ... all can legally enter into contracts.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#939373 Jul 7, 2013
Nostrilis Waxman wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll make my case. How many times have I told you Carol,"when you eat Hostess Snoballs, remove the plastic wrapper"!!!!!
If you want to argue that no states allow common law marriages, it is up to you to make your case.

Typical LOONEY left mentality on display.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939374 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Some are members of the Tea Party; however, more have made no claim of involvement in it.
What do you base your logic on? Given your definition then the majority of Americans would be tea party people as they want the deficit to be reduced.
Even SCOTUS has ruled that you cannot force a political association on an organization/someone who does not acknowledge it.
You went back and reviewed over 4 years of posts?

The rest of your post doesn't make any sense.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#939375 Jul 7, 2013
Nostrilis Waxman wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm parched Carol!! Whip me up a thick shake, heavy on the ice cream, add some buttermilk to it too, do it now and I'll let you have some!!
Better shift your weight to the other side of that chair, ya hear!! That other leg is looking pretty precarious right now!! Bwaaaahhhhaaaaaaa!
Pork rind?
Whatever lily

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 min JOEL 69,515
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr D-U-H 50,041
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 47,007
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 hr Mandela 68,560
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr loose cannon 178,586
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr RACE 98,345
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 4 hr RACE 639

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]