Liberal FASCISM in California

[Ravi]

Shog, you really should take your lumps. You've been wrong repeatedly on this thread.

Use those testicles you're so fond of and act like a man.

 

[Larkinn]

Shog, you really should take your lumps. You've been wrong repeatedly on this thread.

Use those testicles you're so fond of and act like a man.

No, no, he was just pretending to think those things. To "fool" me. Into what, I'm not quite sure. Maybe into thinking he was a retard? I don't really think making me believe something thats true is fooling me, but who knows what lil ol Shoggie thinks.

 

[Shogun]

You blamed them for not waiting until after the election. "they" are people who sued California. That would be in the COURTS.

Judges can interpret the constitution, dumbass. Its been law for 200 years.


Again, stupid, IM not the one pushing for judicial legislation. IM the one looking for LEGISLATION. Say it with me LEJIS LAY SHUN.

If a CONSERVATIVE dominated court brings the issue to a head during an election year, mimicking 2004, one might think that you'd stock waving your rainbow flag long enough to wonder about such pertinent timing. AND the repercussions thereof. Enjoy your three months, pussy. We'll be posting in this thread again come November.

Please, go ahead and continue acting like a little fucking poser since that five fingered handprint on your face is stinging like crazy right about now. It figures that you'd want to distance yourself from the last batch of stupid fucking statments you made about how all of a sudden the nation has changed it's mind about gay marriage... you know, DESPITE a third of the fucking nation adopting, nay VOTING, on bans.


We both know your never gonna bring this up Shogun. Even if my predictions end up being wrong, the pure unadulterated stupidity you've demonstrated means that you'll never bring it up again. You just want the last word because its all that matters in your little world.



I HOPE your stupidity is deep enough to believe that. Trust me, WHEN it turns out that reality doesn't match lil larky's rainbow colored world i'll be posting all sorts of fun smiley's to act as the salt in your very, VERY disappointed wound.


I mean, good grief, did I let up the LAST TIME you wanted to but heads, pussy? No, what matters in my little world is schooling your bitch ass before your cocksheeth trite politics loses another election. Like I've said again and again, you are to the left what John Hagee is to the right.

 

[Shogun]

Shog, you really should take your lumps. You've been wrong repeatedly on this thread.

Use those testicles you're so fond of and act like a man.

Oh Ravi, you say that about everyone who decides to tangle with me. Yet, not only do I curbstomp your lil champion but we both know you sure as hell have nothing besides cheer leading to add...

 

[Shogun]

No, no, he was just pretending to think those things. To "fool" me. Into what, I'm not quite sure. Maybe into thinking he was a retard? I don't really think making me believe something thats true is fooling me, but who knows what lil ol Shoggie thinks.

Indeed, to FOOL you into posted prop 22 so we could circumvent 5 pages of your devious fucking use of evidence. Haven't I already explained this to you?





make sure you respond to Ravi too, btw... she wants desperately to see someone take on a man of my stature now that she realizes there is a reason men pitch overhanded while gals toss underhanded.

 

[GHook93]

This is how it happens folks! What they just did in California is FASCISM IN ACTION.

It doesn't matter whether you are anti-gay or pro-gay...you should be worried. When you have a few Judges making decisions in blatant opposition to the Will of the People without Constitutional authority - you got legislation from the bench and FASCISTIC Judges overriding the Will of the People. This is Liberal FASCISM in action.

Four out of seven judges in the California Supreme Court broke their covenant with the People of California. Four judges probably owned by the gay mafia. Four Judges who thought they were well-meaning and decided they "knew better" than the majority of the People of California.

In 2000 the People of California voted for Legislation that defined marriage as being between only one man and one woman. It was passed with a flying majority of 65%.

But 4 measly Judges just flipped the FASCIST bird into the face of the People of California.

The question now remains....if a few Judges can so freely override the Will of the People....what will these Liberal FASCISTS do next???

While I agree that I don't like when legislatures makes laws, it is their job to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality, including Stare Decis. They based their decision off the equal protection clause. No total unfound.

In this case I think they went over the line and created laws, instead of doing their job of voiding of power of unconstitutional laws.

For the record I am pro-gay marriage.

 

[GHook93]

Did you feel the same way when the judge-made law of Brown v. Board of Ed came down?

Briown overturned the separate, but equal doctrine, which was a court/case law created doctrine! It was in effect pursuant to the Civil Right Laws, 13th and 14th amendment.

The court did their job in that case.

 

[Ravi]

Oh Ravi, you say that about everyone who decides to tangle with me. Yet, not only do I curbstomp your lil champion but we both know you sure as hell have nothing besides cheer leading to add...

I say it when it's true. Your replies to me have been wrong as well, but I'm just laughing at your stupidity here, mostly.

 

[Ravi]

make sure you respond to Ravi too, btw... she wants desperately to see someone take on a man of my stature now that she realizes there is a reason men pitch overhanded while gals toss underhanded.

tff, a man of your stature.

btw, why is it that men pitch overhanded? I thought it was a learned thing.

 

[Shogun]

tff, a man of your stature.

btw, why is it that men pitch overhanded? I thought it was a learned thing.

probably for the same reason you use a softball to our baseball and your basketball is smaller than ours. why there is no female substitue for hockey and football and why no one gives a fuck about the WNBA.


im just teasin, ravi.. i hope you have a great evening.

 

[Shogun]

I say it when it's true. Your replies to me have been wrong as well, but I'm just laughing at your stupidity here, mostly.

HAHA!

yeaaaaa... there sure isn't a pattern of you running in to chear for whoever is my footwarmer of the day.





indeed, you are just up to speed on politics enough to know wheich joke is funny, Ravi. I've posted my evidence, where is yours?

 

[Ravi]

probably for the same reason you use a softball to our baseball and your basketball is smaller than ours. why there is no female substitue for hockey and football and why no one gives a fuck about the WNBA.


im just teasin, ravi.. i hope you have a great evening.

You, too. I'm fixing Mexican.

 

[Shogun]

While I agree that I don't like when legislatures makes laws, it is their job to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality, including Stare Decis. They based their decision off the equal protection clause. No total unfound.

In this case I think they went over the line and created laws, instead of doing their job of voiding of power of unconstitutional laws.

For the record I am pro-gay marriage.

Hey, IM pro-gay marriage too. but this kind of action tends to stir the kind of pot that will bring us right back to the aftermath of Mass. and the 04 election. considering the reaction of all those states that adopted gay marrige bans AFTER the brouhaha in Mass, this issue in Ca just FEELS like politiking that dems are falling hook, line and sinker for.

 

[Shogun]

You, too. I'm fixing Mexican.

awsome. I LOVE mexican food. Have you ever had Mexican Sangria


* 1 bottle Red Wine, preferably Spanish such as a Rioja
* 1 cup Grand Marnier, Cointreau, or generic Triple Sec
* 1/2 cup Brandy
* 1 cup Orange Juice
* 1 Orange, cut into wedges
* 1 Limes, cut into wedges
* 1 cup Pineapple Chunks, drained
* 2 4-inch sticks Cinnamon (optional)
* 24 ounces (2 cans) Lemon-Lime Soda
* Ice

PREPARATION:
Put all the ingredients, except for the lemon-lime soda and ice, into a large pitcher and stir to combine. Cover with plastic wrap and refrigerate for several hours.

Just before serving stir in the lemon-lime soda and top off with ice. Pour into wine glasses or other nice glasses, straining off the fruit. Garnish each glass with a wedge of orange or lime if you like.
User Reviews Write Review

 

[Ravi]

awsome. I LOVE mexican food. Have you ever had Mexican Sangria


* 1 bottle Red Wine, preferably Spanish such as a Rioja
* 1 cup Grand Marnier, Cointreau, or generic Triple Sec
* 1/2 cup Brandy
* 1 cup Orange Juice
* 1 Orange, cut into wedges
* 1 Limes, cut into wedges
* 1 cup Pineapple Chunks, drained
* 2 4-inch sticks Cinnamon (optional)
* 24 ounces (2 cans) Lemon-Lime Soda
* Ice

PREPARATION:
Put all the ingredients, except for the lemon-lime soda and ice, into a large pitcher and stir to combine. Cover with plastic wrap and refrigerate for several hours.

Just before serving stir in the lemon-lime soda and top off with ice. Pour into wine glasses or other nice glasses, straining off the fruit. Garnish each glass with a wedge of orange or lime if you like.
User Reviews Write Review

No, only Spanish. I'll give it a try.

 

[Larkinn]

Again, stupid, IM not the one pushing for judicial legislation. IM the one looking for LEGISLATION. Say it with me LEJIS LAY SHUN.

Because Marbury v. Madison isn't settled law, right Shogun?

If a CONSERVATIVE dominated court brings the issue to a head during an election year, mimicking 2004, one might think that you'd stock waving your rainbow flag long enough to wonder about such pertinent timing. AND the repercussions thereof. Enjoy your three months, pussy. We'll be posting in this thread again come November.

Your right, the court made a decision based on how it thought electoral politics would go. And the aliens are coming to get us as well. Better hide with your tin foil hat, fluffy.

Please, go ahead and continue acting like a little fucking poser since that five fingered handprint on your face is stinging like crazy right about now. It figures that you'd want to distance yourself from the last batch of stupid fucking statments you made about how all of a sudden the nation has changed it's mind about gay marriage... you know, DESPITE a third of the fucking nation adopting, nay VOTING, on bans.

Sorry, I was talking about California, not the nation. Do try and keep them straight. And California went from 61% to 48%. Quite a drop I'd say.

I HOPE your stupidity is deep enough to believe that. Trust me, WHEN it turns out that reality doesn't match lil larky's rainbow colored world i'll be posting all sorts of fun smiley's to act as the salt in your very, VERY disappointed wound.

Do you seriously think your political opinion carries any weight at all, after the numerous retarded statements you've made? Oh wait, I forgot you were just faking, or testing or some such bullshit

I mean, good grief, did I let up the LAST TIME you wanted to but heads, pussy? No, what matters in my little world is schooling your bitch ass before your cocksheeth trite politics loses another election. Like I've said again and again, you are to the left what John Hagee is to the right.

Yeah, you sure did keep going in that voter ID thread where you compared Israel to the Nazis.

Indeed, to FOOL you into posted prop 22 so we could circumvent 5 pages of your devious fucking use of evidence. Haven't I already explained this to you?

/pat fluffy. Sure you did. Or you could have brought up prop 22 yourself. Naah, it was all part of a devious plan

 

[Larkinn]

Briown overturned the separate, but equal doctrine, which was a court/case law created doctrine! It was in effect pursuant to the Civil Right Laws, 13th and 14th amendment.

The court did their job in that case.

Actually Separate but equal was determined by the respective STATE legislature. The case you are referring too upheld the States Legislature's right to segregate based on race.

 

[jillian]

Actually Separate but equal was determined by the respective STATE legislature. The case you are referring too upheld the States Legislature's right to segregate based on race.

Brown v Board of Ed upheld segregation based on race? Er... I think you meant Plessy, which was overruled by Brown, no?

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." 10

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. 11 Any language [347 U.S. 483, 495] in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.
We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 12

Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question - the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term. 13 The Attorney General [347 U.S. 483, 496] of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954. 14

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483

 

[Larkinn]

Brown v Board of Ed upheld segregation based on race? Er... I think you meant Plessy, which was overruled by Brown, no?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483

Yeah...he was referring to Plessy as judge-made law, which Brown overturned. Plessy wasn't judge-made law...it was just reaffirming the rights of the states to segregate.

 

[GHook93]

Actually Separate but equal was determined by the respective STATE legislature. The case you are referring too upheld the States Legislature's right to segregate based on race.

Plessy v. Ferguson was known to create the Separate, but equal law. Rather they were enforcing a policy!