So You Think Social Issues Are losers For Republicans - Think Again.

[HereWeGoAgain]

When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. It's happened many times before, and we do have you by the balls, it's in the end a liberal nation. No worries.

Grab me by the balls and a punch in the face will follow.

Already have you by the balls, obviously.

What you do on your time is your business.
But that wont include touching my balls.

 

[OKTexas]

Favoring a concept, and favoring the dictatorial process that was used to force it are two different things.

Why should it matter if the SC decided it? If left up to a popular vote nationwide, it still would have happened.

Because the court assumed power it doesn't have in both the marriage and ACA cases.

lol, really? And did the court do that deciding gun rights cases?

Yes, the cowards refuse to issue a broad decision based solely on the Constitution. They're like the left, they keep parsing words and limiting the scope of every decision.

Nothing in the constitution says marriage is only between heterosexual couples. Case closed.

Nothing in the Constitution gives the feds authority over marriage either, then you see the 10th Amendment.

 

[Billy000]

Why should it matter if the SC decided it? If left up to a popular vote nationwide, it still would have happened.

Because the court assumed power it doesn't have in both the marriage and ACA cases.

lol, really? And did the court do that deciding gun rights cases?

Yes, the cowards refuse to issue a broad decision based solely on the Constitution. They're like the left, they keep parsing words and limiting the scope of every decision.

Nothing in the constitution says marriage is only between heterosexual couples. Case closed.

Nothing in the Constitution gives the feds authority over marriage either, then you see the 10th Amendment.

The SC has always had the power to examine and modify laws that may or not be properly interpreted. This case was no different.

 

[OKTexas]

lol this wouldn't change the fact that a solid majority of Americans favor gay marriage.

Favoring a concept, and favoring the dictatorial process that was used to force it are two different things.

Why should it matter if the SC decided it? If left up to a popular vote nationwide, it still would have happened.

Because the court assumed power it doesn't have in both the marriage and ACA cases.

BTW SSM failed in virtually every state it was put to a vote.

Until the more recent votes where it passed but lucky for the homos, we are not a democracy and their rights aren't up for a vote of the people.

And the court has the authority to invent any rights they want, right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. It's happened many times before, and we do have you by the balls, it's in the end a liberal nation. No worries.

Grab me by the balls and a punch in the face will follow.

Already have you by the balls, obviously.

What you do on your time is your business.
But that wont include touching my balls.

Little friend, we already have your balls, in a vice. We make the laws that you either obey or face the consequences for not.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Favoring a concept, and favoring the dictatorial process that was used to force it are two different things.

Why should it matter if the SC decided it? If left up to a popular vote nationwide, it still would have happened.

Because the court assumed power it doesn't have in both the marriage and ACA cases.

BTW SSM failed in virtually every state it was put to a vote.

Until the more recent votes where it passed but lucky for the homos, we are not a democracy and their rights aren't up for a vote of the people.

And the court has the authority to invent any rights they want, right?

Nope, but it's pretty damn good, eventually, at figuring out when bills that suppress the rights of others are unconstitutional. That should make you happy but giving others rights doesn't make your kind happy, ever it seems.

 

[OKTexas]

Liberals have won a series of victories on social issues. Most Americans aren’t thrilled about it.

Liberals have won a string of victories on gay marriage and health care reform this year, but a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds a large majority of Americans are unhappy with where the nation is headed on social issues.

Sixty three percent of people say they are uncomfortable with the country's overall direction on social issues these days; four in 10 feel "strongly" uncomfortable about the nation's changes.

Read more here:

Liberals have won a series of victories on social issues. Most Americans aren t thrilled about it. - The Washington Post

lol this wouldn't change the fact that a solid majority of Americans favor gay marriage.

Favoring a concept, and favoring the dictatorial process that was used to force it are two different things.

Why should it matter if the SC decided it? If left up to a popular vote nationwide, it still would have happened.

Because the court assumed power it doesn't have in both the marriage and ACA cases.

The Supreme Court and the rest of the judges who ruled these anti-gay-marriage laws unconstitutional are Dictators? Interesting.

Tell us, are they also dictators when they overturn gun control laws? Yes, or no?

Already asked and answered, do try to keep up.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

lol this wouldn't change the fact that a solid majority of Americans favor gay marriage.

Favoring a concept, and favoring the dictatorial process that was used to force it are two different things.

Why should it matter if the SC decided it? If left up to a popular vote nationwide, it still would have happened.

Because the court assumed power it doesn't have in both the marriage and ACA cases.

The Supreme Court and the rest of the judges who ruled these anti-gay-marriage laws unconstitutional are Dictators? Interesting.

Tell us, are they also dictators when they overturn gun control laws? Yes, or no?

Already asked and answered, do try to keep up.

Post number? And a simple yes or no will do.

Tell us, are they also dictators when they overturn gun control laws? Yes, or no?

 

[OKTexas]

Because the court assumed power it doesn't have in both the marriage and ACA cases.

lol, really? And did the court do that deciding gun rights cases?

Yes, the cowards refuse to issue a broad decision based solely on the Constitution. They're like the left, they keep parsing words and limiting the scope of every decision.

Nothing in the constitution says marriage is only between heterosexual couples. Case closed.

Nothing in the Constitution gives the feds authority over marriage either, then you see the 10th Amendment.

The SC has always had the power to examine and modify laws that may or not be properly interpreted. This case was no different.

No they don't, if a law is unenforceable as written they have an obligation to set it aside and tell the legislative body that passed it to fix it, or not. The court has no legislative authority to change anything.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. It's happened many times before, and we do have you by the balls, it's in the end a liberal nation. No worries.

Grab me by the balls and a punch in the face will follow.

Already have you by the balls, obviously.

What you do on your time is your business.
But that wont include touching my balls.

Little friend, we already have your balls, in a vice. We make the laws that you either obey or face the consequences for not.

Shut up ya weak ass liberal. You scare no one.

 

[OKTexas]

Favoring a concept, and favoring the dictatorial process that was used to force it are two different things.

Why should it matter if the SC decided it? If left up to a popular vote nationwide, it still would have happened.

Because the court assumed power it doesn't have in both the marriage and ACA cases.

The Supreme Court and the rest of the judges who ruled these anti-gay-marriage laws unconstitutional are Dictators? Interesting.

Tell us, are they also dictators when they overturn gun control laws? Yes, or no?

Already asked and answered, do try to keep up.

Post number? And a simple yes or no will do.

Tell us, are they also dictators when they overturn gun control laws? Yes, or no?

Is your scroll function broke, look it up.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I think social issues are a trap that the right fall for every time. A select few are worthy of the attention they get but the vast majority are inconsequential fluff propagated by the left & the right falls in the leaf covered hole every single time

 

[Coyote]

Leave your balls in the FZ where they will be appropriately handled and lets get back to the topic please

 

[Billy000]

lol, really? And did the court do that deciding gun rights cases?

Yes, the cowards refuse to issue a broad decision based solely on the Constitution. They're like the left, they keep parsing words and limiting the scope of every decision.

Nothing in the constitution says marriage is only between heterosexual couples. Case closed.

Nothing in the Constitution gives the feds authority over marriage either, then you see the 10th Amendment.

The SC has always had the power to examine and modify laws that may or not be properly interpreted. This case was no different.

No they don't, if a law is unenforceable as written they have an obligation to set it aside and tell the legislative body that passed it to fix it, or not. The court has no legislative authority to change anything.

There wasn't any language in the law that was changed. The rights were just expanded to everyone. Nothing in the law forbade that.

 

[candycorn]

I think social issues are a trap that the right fall for every time. A select few are worthy of the attention they get but the vast majority are inconsequential fluff propagated by the left & the right falls in the leaf covered hole every single time

Pretty much means you're on the wrong side of the argument...otherwise there wouldn't be a hole there.

Carry on.