Advanced Calculus: The John Kasich Math & Saving the GOP Brand.

[Silhouette]

Kasich a conservative...

Medicaid: He believes AS TRUMP HAS PROFESSED MULTIPLE TIMES that we shouldn't leave people to die on the streets. He's got my center-right vote.

Path to Citizenship: For those already here and impossible to deport without political and economic chaos. He believes that one must also stop the inflow and punish people who hire illegals. He's got my center right vote on that.

Common Core: I've heard him say repeatedly he wants to return control of education to the states and local communities. You've heard that too. He's got my center right vote on that.

Assault Weapons Ban: If you're against assaults with huge clips attached to automatic weapons that are being turned more often than not on children at school, then you're for some type of control on assault weapons. He's not against the 2nd Amendment. Are you for individuals having grenades and anti-aircraft weapons too? I mean, there has to be a certain limit to arming the individual for purposes of hunting animals and protection. He's got my center right vote on that.

"Gay marriage": He has said he is against it but will do what the Courts have said. Two things: 1. He's catholic in his bone marrow and 2. The Courts have not finished "saying" things about gay marriage. 'Nuff said.

 

[Syriusly]

"Gay marriage": He has said he is against it but will do what the Courts have said. Two things: 1. He's catholic in his bone marrow and 2. The Courts have not finished "saying" things about gay marriage. 'Nuff said.

Real Catholics don't leave the Catholic Church to become Anglicans....

 

[Katzndogz]

Kasich said he attended a gay wedding and it was beautiful. I do not trust him to respect religious rights.

 

[Rustic]

Kasich a conservative...

Medicaid: He believes AS TRUMP HAS PROFESSED MULTIPLE TIMES that we shouldn't leave people to die on the streets. He's got my center-right vote.

Path to Citizenship: For those already here and impossible to deport without political and economic chaos. He believes that one must also stop the inflow and punish people who hire illegals. He's got my center right vote on that.

Common Core: I've heard him say repeatedly he wants to return control of education to the states and local communities. You've heard that too. He's got my center right vote on that.

Assault Weapons Ban: If you're against assaults with huge clips attached to automatic weapons that are being turned more often than not on children at school, then you're for some type of control on assault weapons. He's not against the 2nd Amendment. Are you for individuals having grenades and anti-aircraft weapons too? I mean, there has to be a certain limit to arming the individual for purposes of hunting animals and protection. He's got my center right vote on that.

"Gay marriage": He has said he is against it but will do what the Courts have said. Two things: 1. He's catholic in his bone marrow and 2. The Courts have not finished "saying" things about gay marriage. 'Nuff said.

Medicare/Medicaid - should be abolished then privatized...

Path to citizenship - Secure the southern border. Keep the status quo, people that come over the border illegally live in the shadows - deport Them when caught doing whatever...

Common core - keep the federal government out of all education...

So called "assault weapons" lol - people that call an AR 15 a "assault weapon" don't know what what a military grade weapon is...
They are called magazines not clips. dumbass
Millions of Ars sold are not used to kill people. They are not more often than not used for killing people you dumbass...
You have no clue what the Second Amendment is about you fucknut... Lol

Gay marriage - should be none of the federal government business who cares if he is Catholic that means jack shit…

 

[Silhouette]

"Gay marriage": He has said he is against it but will do what the Courts have said. Two things: 1. He's catholic in his bone marrow and 2. The Courts have not finished "saying" things about gay marriage. 'Nuff said.

Real Catholics don't leave the Catholic Church to become Anglicans....

You can take the Catholic out of the church but you can never take the Catholic out of the man.

 

[Flopper]

Kasich said he attended a gay wedding and it was beautiful. I do not trust him to respect religious rights.

SCOTUS has settled the issue of gay marriage. Congress and state legislatures can use religious rights as a tool to oppose gay marriage, but the die is cast. 60% of Americans are in favor of gay marriage, up from 55% last year and up from 27% just a decade ago. The religious rights tactic reminds of the tactics used in the South to fight integration.

 

[Silhouette]

Kasich said he attended a gay wedding and it was beautiful. I do not trust him to respect religious rights.

SCOTUS has settled the issue of gay marriage. Congress and state legislatures can use religious rights as a tool to oppose gay marriage, but the die is cast. 60% of Americans are in favor of gay marriage, up from 55% last year and up from 27% just a decade ago. The religious rights tactic reminds of the tactics used in the South to fight integration.

Nope. Obergefell was hearing a revision of the terms of a thousands year old contract of which children had/have implicit share. And Obergefell was Heard without children having representation at the revision table.

Obergefell is not only not in cement, it is an illegitimate "law" and states have a duty and a responsibility to ignore it. Or at the very least demand clarification of it since it left SO MANY MANY holes wide open for its abuse. I've read the Amendments several times, for instance, and have not once seen a reference to where behaviors outside religion have any intrinsic rights whatsoever. Moreover, every state's penal system involves regulating human behavior by majority rule. So once a minority repugnant behavior gets to tell the majority to **** off, then the 14th demands that any other repugnant behavior, like polygamy, also gets to say the same thing.

There are more holes in Obergefell than the finest swiss cheese. 2017-on will be the ceaseless demands for clarification of those holes and retesting the legitimacy of institutionalizing a new contract that deprives children, for life mind you, of either a mother or father: the very thing marriage was created over a thousand years ago TO REMEDY....

 

[mdk]

Nope. Obergefell was hearing a revision of the terms of a thousands year old contract of which children had/have implicit share. And Obergefell was Heard without children having representation at the revision table.

Obergefell is not only not in cement, it is an illegitimate "law" and states have a duty and a responsibility to ignore it. Or at the very least demand clarification of it since it left SO MANY MANY holes wide open for its abuse. I've read the Amendments several times, for instance, and have not once seen a reference to where behaviors outside religion have any intrinsic rights whatsoever. Moreover, every state's penal system involves regulating human behavior by majority rule. So once a minority repugnant behavior gets to tell the majority to **** off, then the 14th demands that any other repugnant behavior, like polygamy, also gets to say the same thing.

There are more holes in Obergefell than the finest swiss cheese. 2017-on will be the ceaseless demands for clarification of those holes and retesting the legitimacy of institutionalizing a new contract that deprives children, for life mind you, of either a mother or father: the very thing marriage was created over a thousand years ago TO REMEDY....

Children are not an implicit party to a marriage contract in any state. Not one. That is the foundation of your entire argument. Surely you can see why you have such a shitty record concerning legal predictions.

Repeating the same lame dumb shit ad infinitum doesn't change the fact that gays are marrying and raising their children in all 50 states. Keep crying, though. I enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself.

 

[Avatar4321]

"Gay marriage": He has said he is against it but will do what the Courts have said. Two things: 1. He's catholic in his bone marrow and 2. The Courts have not finished "saying" things about gay marriage. 'Nuff said.

Real Catholics don't leave the Catholic Church to become Anglicans....

You can take the Catholic out of the church but you can never take the Catholic out of the man.

Yes you can

 

[basquebromance]

 

[Avatar4321]

I'd still like to know how Kasich intends to win when he id making no discernable effort to court the delegates for the second ballot. Last count I saw showed his numbers drop in half for the second ballot

 

[Flopper]

I'd still like to know how Kasich intends to win when he id making no discernable effort to court the delegates for the second ballot. Last count I saw showed his numbers drop in half for the second ballot

Kasich is in the race to improve the chances of a contested convention which would mean multiple ballots with delegates able to vote for whoever they please. You can bet the establishment is going to owe him big for doing this and the establishment includes most delegates. However, unless the convention is deadlocked pass the 2nd ballot, Kasich won't stand much chance but there is always the possibility.

Most delegates are not going to make deals on 2nd ballots this early. The horse trading will be much more competitive after the 1st ballot.

 

[Flopper]

Kasich said he attended a gay wedding and it was beautiful. I do not trust him to respect religious rights.

SCOTUS has settled the issue of gay marriage. Congress and state legislatures can use religious rights as a tool to oppose gay marriage, but the die is cast. 60% of Americans are in favor of gay marriage, up from 55% last year and up from 27% just a decade ago. The religious rights tactic reminds of the tactics used in the South to fight integration.

Nope. Obergefell was hearing a revision of the terms of a thousands year old contract of which children had/have implicit share. And Obergefell was Heard without children having representation at the revision table.

Obergefell is not only not in cement, it is an illegitimate "law" and states have a duty and a responsibility to ignore it. Or at the very least demand clarification of it since it left SO MANY MANY holes wide open for its abuse. I've read the Amendments several times, for instance, and have not once seen a reference to where behaviors outside religion have any intrinsic rights whatsoever. Moreover, every state's penal system involves regulating human behavior by majority rule. So once a minority repugnant behavior gets to tell the majority to **** off, then the 14th demands that any other repugnant behavior, like polygamy, also gets to say the same thing.

There are more holes in Obergefell than the finest swiss cheese. 2017-on will be the ceaseless demands for clarification of those holes and retesting the legitimacy of institutionalizing a new contract that deprives children, for life mind you, of either a mother or father: the very thing marriage was created over a thousand years ago TO REMEDY....

Of course there are holes in the supreme court case. There are always unanswered questions because the court is limited by the case before it. Obergefell v. Hodges will be the basis of many lower court rulings just as was Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v Board of Education, and Rowe v Wade.

 

[Rustic]

Kasich said he attended a gay wedding and it was beautiful. I do not trust him to respect religious rights.

SCOTUS has settled the issue of gay marriage. Congress and state legislatures can use religious rights as a tool to oppose gay marriage, but the die is cast. 60% of Americans are in favor of gay marriage, up from 55% last year and up from 27% just a decade ago. The religious rights tactic reminds of the tactics used in the South to fight integration.

Nope. Obergefell was hearing a revision of the terms of a thousands year old contract of which children had/have implicit share. And Obergefell was Heard without children having representation at the revision table.

Obergefell is not only not in cement, it is an illegitimate "law" and states have a duty and a responsibility to ignore it. Or at the very least demand clarification of it since it left SO MANY MANY holes wide open for its abuse. I've read the Amendments several times, for instance, and have not once seen a reference to where behaviors outside religion have any intrinsic rights whatsoever. Moreover, every state's penal system involves regulating human behavior by majority rule. So once a minority repugnant behavior gets to tell the majority to **** off, then the 14th demands that any other repugnant behavior, like polygamy, also gets to say the same thing.

There are more holes in Obergefell than the finest swiss cheese. 2017-on will be the ceaseless demands for clarification of those holes and retesting the legitimacy of institutionalizing a new contract that deprives children, for life mind you, of either a mother or father: the very thing marriage was created over a thousand years ago TO REMEDY....

Of course there are holes in the supreme court case. There are always unanswered questions because the court is limited by the case before it. Obergefell v. Hodges will be the basis of many lower court rulings just as was Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v Board of Education, and Rowe v Wade.

RINO alert

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell v. Hodges will be the basis of many lower court rulings just as was Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v Board of Education, and Rowe v Wade.

Unless Obergefell is overturned by citations of New York vs Ferber and the fact that Obergefell was essentially a revision hearing for the marriage contract to be imposed federally upon all 50 states whether or not they made that revision. You see, one of the parties to the contract revision did not have representation at the table. Children. Children were the reason marriage was invented over a thousand years ago. During all the time from then to now they had an implicit share in that contract: the provision of both a mother and father. That was revised to their demise without their consent. Which renders Obergefell null and void re: New York vs Ferber and the Infant Doctrine, contracts and infant necessities.

So, citing Obergefell would be like citing a law promoting slavery. It is already outdated. When it comes to stripping a child of a necessity via contract, the contract (Obergefell) isn't merely voidable upon challenge. It is ALREADY VOID before its ink is dry.

 

[Skylar]

Obergefell v. Hodges will be the basis of many lower court rulings just as was Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v Board of Education, and Rowe v Wade.

Unless Obergefell is overturned by citations of New York vs Ferber and the fact that Obergefell was essentially a revision hearing for the marriage contract to be imposed federally upon all 50 states whether or not they made that revision.

Ferber never even mentions marriage. Nor finds that same sex marriage harms children. Killing your entire argument.

Obergefell found that denying marriage to same sex parents hurt their children. And that recognizing marriage of same sex parents helped their children. Killing your argument two more times. As by your own reasoning, Ferber would mandate that the Obergefell court recognize same sex marriage. Twice.

And of course, Obergefell found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Killing your argument time number 4.

None of your pseudo-legal gibberish has any relevance to anyone's marriage. Get used to the idea.

You see, one of the parties to the contract revision did not have representation at the table. Children.

You see, chidlren aren't recognized as parties to the marriage of their parents. You made that up. You can't cite any law or any court ruling recognizing children as parties to the marriage of their parents.
Killing your argument time number 5.

Nor does the law recognize Obergefell as a 'contract revision'. You made that up. Killing your argument time number 6.

Nor is there any requirement that ' all children' be 'represented' in any Supreme Court hearing. You made that up. Killing your argument time number 7.

Children were the reason marriage was invented over a thousand years ago.

No, that would be property.

During all the time from then to now they had an implicit share in that contract: the provision of both a mother and father. That was revised to their demise without their consent. Which renders Obergefell null and void re: New York vs Ferber and the Infant Doctrine, contracts and infant necessities.

The Infancy Doctrine is about express contracts for minors. Like say, a contract between a TV studio and a child actor. And it simply allows a minor to exit a contract that is disadvantageous to them.

It has nothing to do with marriage as;

1) Children aren't parties to their parent's marriage

2) A child obviously isn't an express party to the marriage of their parents, as they aren't named in the marriage license in any state.

3) The infancy doctrine only allows a minor to exit a contract. As children aren't bound by any contract when their parents get married, there is nothing for them to exit.

Remember, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

So, citing Obergefell would be like citing a law promoting slavery. It is already outdated. When it comes to stripping a child of a necessity via contract, the contract (Obergefell) isn't merely voidable upon challenge. It is ALREADY VOID before its ink is dry.

Nope. Same sex marriage isn't the same as 'slavery'. None of your pseudo-legal gibberish has the slightest relevance to any law.

 

[Syriusly]

Just want to point out that all of Silhouette's predictions that New Yorker's were going to reject Trump once they were in the secrecy of the ballot box(because she knows New Yorkers and they all consider Trump to be a joke) turned out like all of her predictions.

100% fail.

 

[Syriusly]

Obergefell v. Hodges will be the basis of many lower court rulings just as was Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v Board of Education, and Rowe v Wade.

Unless Obergefell .

Couples in love are marrying in all 50 states now- because of Obergefell.

Your mindless rants are irrelevant to the facts.

 

[Flopper]

Obergefell v. Hodges will be the basis of many lower court rulings just as was Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v Board of Education, and Rowe v Wade.

Unless Obergefell is overturned by citations of New York vs Ferber and the fact that Obergefell was essentially a revision hearing for the marriage contract to be imposed federally upon all 50 states whether or not they made that revision. You see, one of the parties to the contract revision did not have representation at the table. Children. Children were the reason marriage was invented over a thousand years ago. During all the time from then to now they had an implicit share in that contract: the provision of both a mother and father. That was revised to their demise without their consent. Which renders Obergefell null and void re: New York vs Ferber and the Infant Doctrine, contracts and infant necessities.

So, citing Obergefell would be like citing a law promoting slavery. It is already outdated. When it comes to stripping a child of a necessity via contract, the contract (Obergefell) isn't merely voidable upon challenge. It is ALREADY VOID before its ink is dry.

That's all well and good but Obergefell v. Hodges was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court established gays right to marry in all states. No court can reverse that ruling except the Supreme Court. With gays marrying in all states and over 60% of Americans agreeing with the court, a reversal is very unlikely.

 

[Skylar]

Obergefell v. Hodges will be the basis of many lower court rulings just as was Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v Board of Education, and Rowe v Wade.

Unless Obergefell is overturned by citations of New York vs Ferber and the fact that Obergefell was essentially a revision hearing for the marriage contract to be imposed federally upon all 50 states whether or not they made that revision. You see, one of the parties to the contract revision did not have representation at the table. Children. Children were the reason marriage was invented over a thousand years ago. During all the time from then to now they had an implicit share in that contract: the provision of both a mother and father. That was revised to their demise without their consent. Which renders Obergefell null and void re: New York vs Ferber and the Infant Doctrine, contracts and infant necessities.

So, citing Obergefell would be like citing a law promoting slavery. It is already outdated. When it comes to stripping a child of a necessity via contract, the contract (Obergefell) isn't merely voidable upon challenge. It is ALREADY VOID before its ink is dry.

That's all well and good but Obergefell v. Hodges was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court established gays right to marry in all states. No court can reverse that ruling except the Supreme Court. With gays marrying in all states and over 60% of Americans agreeing with the court, a reversal is very unlikely.

Its all pseudo-legal horseshit. Not one of the 'requirements' that Sil insisted weren't followed actually exist. None of the cases she cited say a thing she does.