Comments
81 - 100 of 132 Comments Last updated Jul 1, 2013

“Where did I put my tiara?”

Since: Dec 11

Columbus, OH

#96 Jun 27, 2013
Which category do you fall in...blind or stupid?
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#98 Jun 27, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
Wow. This thread is the blind leading the stupid. I can only imagine what a scientist thinks when he reads one of your roundtables about climate change or evolution.
your science is a failure.

you have evolved into a liberal parasite that is a plague to moral society, and a leech with your hand out.

and the climate has changed of the threat of ICE AGE just 35 years ago, to us burning at the stake because of cars.

what fantasy is next?

did you ever study that science that you are responsible for you?

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#99 Jun 27, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
your science is a failure.
you have evolved into a liberal parasite that is a plague to moral society, and a leech with your hand out.
and the climate has changed of the threat of ICE AGE just 35 years ago, to us burning at the stake because of cars.
what fantasy is next?
did you ever study that science that you are responsible for you?
Would you ever think of starting a Youtube channel?

I feel that many of your more engaging attributes are failing to be passed along through this medium. I think you're rather well suited to a more broadcast medium.

Do let me know if you ever go that route, so that I might subscribe.
Big Sausage

Anonymous Proxy

#102 Jun 27, 2013
RU_Kiddingme wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't that how Justin Bieber got his start?
never heard of him?
mike

Akron, OH

#103 Jun 27, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly. The states can do whatever they want (according to the rules in that state) AS LONG AS they do not remove an already-existing right (as was the case in California, and why the ruling only affects California). California's case was not a gay rights issue per se, it was a deprivation of rights issue that happened to affect gays.
<quoted text>
Not on the same grounds. Nobody alive has standing to say those rights were taken away from them.
Im not lawyer - but I think are both right and wrong. yes - the ruling only applies to states that have already approved gay marriage. Nevertheless, it makes it almost impossible for other states to NOT approve the right for gays to marry because their is no legal basis for it. In other words, if a state legislature or state referendum votes against gay marriage - on what grounds could they defend it in a higher court?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#104 Jun 27, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
I sense history wasn't your favorite subject in school, if it was I apologize :)

Actually you're right. It wasn't. But I got a lot more interested in it after.

[QUOTE]The history of Mexico includes a long history of dictatorships that treated the RCC with hostility, including one outright period of persecution. The two terms of PAN presidents (Fox, Calderon) were an aberration of Mexican history and neither won a majority.
It's also worth noting that due to leftist control of the schools, along with most Mexican immigrants coming from poorer leftist southern Mexico rather than richer Northern Mexico, that the social progressivsim amongst is on the increase.
I agree, but I think the conditions more than the people are the driving force behind it. Hispanics (people in general, but markedly so with Hispanics in my experience) tend to get less progressive the more comfortable they get. And they WILL get more comfortable as they assimilate.
I've seen numbers that show that Latins are not only fiscal left, but supporters of abortion and SSM, after all they have a high rate of illegitimacy. I'm not concerned about prospective politics until after the war is over. Then I suspect a period of LDS dominance, rather than leftist, but mice and men...
You could be right... Like I said, I haven't thought it all through.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#105 Jun 27, 2013
Bart wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! That's pretty bold... How do you think that's going to happen?
Like i said, I haven't thought it all through. Read my reply to Artist.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#106 Jun 27, 2013
mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Im not lawyer - but I think are both right and wrong. yes - the ruling only applies to states that have already approved gay marriage. Nevertheless, it makes it almost impossible for other states to NOT approve the right for gays to marry because their is no legal basis for it. In other words, if a state legislature or state referendum votes against gay marriage - on what grounds could they defend it in a higher court?
It's no different than the way the federal government treats common-law marriage in the states that allow it (10, I believe, plus DC). There is no argument for forcing states to allow common-law marriage in states that do not recognize it.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#107 Jun 27, 2013
mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Im not lawyer - but I think are both right and wrong. yes - the ruling only applies to states that have already approved gay marriage. Nevertheless, it makes it almost impossible for other states to NOT approve the right for gays to marry because their is no legal basis for it. In other words, if a state legislature or state referendum votes against gay marriage - on what grounds could they defend it in a higher court?
It probably will eventually be allowed everywhere, but not now, and not with the arguments used in yesterday's cases.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#108 Jun 27, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you ever think of starting a Youtube channel?
I feel that many of your more engaging attributes are failing to be passed along through this medium. I think you're rather well suited to a more broadcast medium.
Do let me know if you ever go that route, so that I might subscribe.
Ever watch Redstate Update"? Buuba may be boxed out of that market already.

woof
mike

Akron, OH

#109 Jun 27, 2013
Lets say that here in Ohio where gay marriage is illegal - someone decides to contest it in court. That will probably happen within weeks in most states.
On what grounds can any given state defend a law that forbids gays to marry. They can no longer use 'moral disapproval.'
The same anti-animus argument was used to strike down sodomy laws in Texas.
In short - "I don't like it" is no longer a valid or legal argument to use.
mike

Akron, OH

#110 Jun 27, 2013
In addition - the only other argument I can think of is that states have the right to do as they please. But they still have to defend what they do - what will the defense be?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#111 Jun 27, 2013
They followed the will of the people.

Same would have sufficed in California except for the fact that the right once existed, then was taken away. Why do you think the rush was on for states to modify their constitutions in such short time?... because they knew California screwed up, and wanted to get it in BEFORE someone successfully challenged the laws in those states.

If not for the California ruling that banning gay marriage violated the CALIFORNIA constitution, Prop 8 would have held up under challenge. It was the reason prop 8 was created that was the problem, not the proposition itself.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#112 Jun 27, 2013
Democrats sure must be stupid. How can they keep for these hypocrites?

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act “a great, historic day for equality in America.”

He went on:“The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd.”

Pretty strong words from a guy who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/democra...

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#113 Jun 27, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
Democrats sure must be stupid. How can they keep for these hypocrites?
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act “a great, historic day for equality in America.”
He went on:“The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd.”
Pretty strong words from a guy who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/democra...
It's that consistency thingy again.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#115 Jun 27, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
Democrats sure must be stupid. How can they keep for these hypocrites?
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act “a great, historic day for equality in America.”
He went on:“The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd.”
Pretty strong words from a guy who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/democra...
Not to mention being a Mormon...

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#116 Jun 27, 2013
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnis...

Immoral Decision Stifles Legitimate Disagreement

by Joe Fitzgerald

So now the wrong has been declared right, not by a consensus of Americans, but rather by government fiat, the way they do it in nations where people live under the thumbs of tyrants, having no voice in their own affairs.

We once pitied them. Now we’re beginning to resemble them.

What happened yesterday was an abomination, not only in the way the Supreme Court trashed the institution of marriage, but also in the way its liberal branch slapped a muzzle onto the populace, in effect ruling the will of the people is of no consequence in an issue that strikes at the heart of who we are and what we believe.

Proponents of gay marriage long ago succeeded in demonizing anyone who opposes their agenda, branding them hateful, which is ridiculous.

It’s not the least bit hateful to reaffirm that, down through the ages, marriage has been defined by faiths around the world to be the union of a man and a woman, an intimate, unique relationship ordained by Almighty God. Where’s the hate in that?

Now liberal judges presume to edit tenets of our faith, in effect telling us to keep our beliefs to ourselves, or get with the program.

Their rationale is that times are changing in America.

But truths that endure to all generations, values that are eternal, have not changed, no matter how stridently anarchists mock them and defy them bureaucratically.

Because most Americans understand this, they’re denied a chance to express their views in the voting booth.

“The Court has cheated both sides,” dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia correctly concluded,“robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better.”

It can’t be expressed any clearer than that.

Indeed, what a sad day for America and democracy.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#119 Jun 27, 2013
-tip- wrote:
http://bostonherald.com/news_o pinion/columnists/joe_fitzgera ld/2013/06/fitzgerald_immoral_ decision_stifles_legitimate
Immoral Decision Stifles Legitimate Disagreement
by Joe Fitzgerald
So now the wrong has been declared right, not by a consensus of Americans, but rather by government fiat, the way they do it in nations where people live under the thumbs of tyrants, having no voice in their own affairs.
We once pitied them. Now we’re beginning to resemble them.
What happened yesterday was an abomination, not only in the way the Supreme Court trashed the institution of marriage, but also in the way its liberal branch slapped a muzzle onto the populace, in effect ruling the will of the people is of no consequence in an issue that strikes at the heart of who we are and what we believe.
Proponents of gay marriage long ago succeeded in demonizing anyone who opposes their agenda, branding them hateful, which is ridiculous.
It’s not the least bit hateful to reaffirm that, down through the ages, marriage has been defined by faiths around the world to be the union of a man and a woman, an intimate, unique relationship ordained by Almighty God. Where’s the hate in that?
Now liberal judges presume to edit tenets of our faith, in effect telling us to keep our beliefs to ourselves, or get with the program.
Their rationale is that times are changing in America.
But truths that endure to all generations, values that are eternal, have not changed, no matter how stridently anarchists mock them and defy them bureaucratically.
Because most Americans understand this, they’re denied a chance to express their views in the voting booth.
“The Court has cheated both sides,” dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia correctly concluded,“robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better.”
It can’t be expressed any clearer than that.
Indeed, what a sad day for America and democracy.
There are times when mob rule isn't appropriate. How would like it if all your neighbors "voted" to kick you out of town, for example (and for no good reason, in your mind)? To hell with your property rights, they want you out! What do you do, shoot them? All of them? And what if they are better armed than you? Do you just fight to the death (most likely yours), knowing that you died standing up for your rights? Or is there someplace you can appeal to to protect you from the unreasonable mob? Something not democratic in function?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#120 Jun 28, 2013
Mob rule is when 2% of the population dictates to the remaining 98%.
Bil Johnson

Dayton, OH

#121 Jun 28, 2013
The only people that are truly equal are dead people.

The is absolutely no authority in the US constitution to equalize people.

14th amendment equal protection clause authorizes only the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments. It does not authorize the fedgov to make everyone dead people, the only real kind of truely equal people.

The 9th and tenth amendment are still in place and still in force. Both the 9th and tenth amendment empower the people, local governments, to define the limits of civil rights.

American activist judges are not using logic or constitutional literalism to make their decisions. This fact should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why do racists hate Obama so much ? 3 min AMUCK 6
Where are all the original legacy posters? 8 min Catman Dave 107
Are ISIS and Obama in Cahoots? 45 min d pantz 11
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 45 min Neutral Party 3,214
Obama Announcing Girls' Adoptions 48 min Duke for Mayor 4
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 55 min Pops 30,489
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 1 hr So many choices 2,290
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••