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
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
Whatever

Gering, NE

#939376 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You apparently think all contracts have the same laws governing ALL of them?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939377 Jul 7, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I would argue that income taxes and taxpayer funded social benefits are big government too. Special income tax benefits for narrowly defined groups doubly so.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#939378 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?
One could argue whether government should regulate medical facilities in any way, but failing to regulate abortion clinics in the same manner as other outpatient surgical clinics is illogical.

So, all or none.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#939379 Jul 7, 2013
Why does Sen McCain & POTUS seem to support the Muslim Brotherhood?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939380 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently think all contracts have the same laws governing ALL of them?
Show me any contractual law that limits contracts based on gender.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#939381 Jul 7, 2013
ObamaKKKare will produce a two-tiered medical system, one for those who have real coverage and the other for those in the welfare exchanges.

The three best hospitals in California are Stanford, UCLA, and Cedars-Sinai.

Covered California won't cover you in any of them.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#939382 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
You went back and reviewed over 4 years of posts?
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense.
You are misguided by your own prejudice viewpoint.

Using your above logic, using today's posts only, I could assume most Progressives use personal attacks rather than logic.

Therefore all Progressives lack logic or are truly the Looney Left.

The rest of comment did make sense; however, you want to call all who want to reduce government deficits and spending as Tea Party This would make the Majority of Americans Tea Party members.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#939383 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me any contractual law that limits contracts based on gender.
So?

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
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min jacques Ottawa 179,341
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 11 min Mandela 70,075
durban women lets explore your fantasies bbm pins 1 hr slum ou 3
ISIS Plans to Blow Up an Entire American City a... 1 hr obomba 102
'We Charge Genocide' Presents Report on Chicago... 2 hr hands on AR 2
GOP Votes go 2 dem. votes. 2 hr hands on AR 2
A young black kid asks his mother, "Mama what's... 7 hr Funny But True 10
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

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 ]