In just 72 hours : MSNBC: We Have to Break Through This Idea 'That Kids Belong to Their Parents'

[Skylar]

The liberal victories this week are the cake;

the unprecedented meltdown on the Right is the icing.

...and we know how much the Right hates making those dang liberal cakes.

I have no problem with Gays getting married, I preferred the domestic partners route where all Americans have a representative vote. This way, the decision will always be considered a political vote where the justices had to stretch the Constitution to fit their bias in the Supreme Court. The American people and States Rights were completely bypassed. ...and, yup, it happens all the time but it doesn't make it right.

But why would someone's rights be subject to a vote? Remember, marriage is a right.

The Justices essentially voted, are you saying their votes are invalid?

So you're saying that a vote is valid then, even recognizing that the justices did exactly that?

 

[hipeter924]

Children don't ' belong ' to anyone, they are individuals and human beings, certainly not the property of the state, communities, or their parents.

Others are only guardians, till children reach an age that they are capable of decision making and caring for themselves - this legally begins at 16, then gradually by 21 they are viewed responsible enough to drink alcohol.

Though I don't watch MSNBC, it doesn't seem like this is worse than what you get on Fox News, and is just from a different perspective.

ROFLMNAO!

Yes Reader... that is another demonstration of "THE PROBLEM". They call themselves "Moderates"; which in reality, thus in truth, is little more than the more timid example of old Uncle Joe Stalin, or Mao... the sainted purveyors of the deep respect for and tolerance of 'the differing ideas of others'.

The thing to remember is that Mao... came to power saying the SAME RANCID SHIT as these cranks.

So, when that great gettin' up mornin' comes... let your heart not be troubled by the viciousness which you must impart on these sub-creatures... find comfort in the certainty that their intent is your destruction, so its either them or you. You make the call, ok?

Ok...

You do realize that you didn't address any point he raised. You merely called him names for 3 paragraphs....while talking to yourself.

If this is really the best the right has, holy shit guys. You need some new blood.

When I reply to Keys' posts I just expect him to just be silly, and put out insults. Not one to suck up to people, so I don't bother to stay on his 'good side', if he has one.

 

[Skylar]

The liberal victories this week are the cake;

the unprecedented meltdown on the Right is the icing.

...and we know how much the Right hates making those dang liberal cakes.

So your preference is division of the country over unity of the country much like Obama and the rainbow White House.

You realize that you're in the minority on this issue, and that the majority of the country supports same sex marriage, yes?

And how would voting against same sex marriage 'unify' the country?

 

[hipeter924]

The liberal victories this week are the cake;

the unprecedented meltdown on the Right is the icing.

...and we know how much the Right hates making those dang liberal cakes.

So your preference is division of the country over unity of the country much like Obama and the rainbow White House.

You realize that you're in the minority on this issue, and that the majority of the country supports same sex marriage, yes?

And how would voting against same sex marriage 'unify' the country?

By dis-uniting it. A lot of Republicans even want states to secede.

 

[Lumpy 1]

View attachment 43468

And Snopes already took that one apart:

snopes.com Did Hillary Clinton and Adolf Hitler Express Similar Views on Socialism

But way to fulfill Godwin's law. The right is in full panty shitting hysterics mode.

Snopes.com is a liberal biased site run by 2 people from their home

View attachment 43468

And Snopes already took that one apart:

snopes.com Did Hillary Clinton and Adolf Hitler Express Similar Views on Socialism

But way to fulfill Godwin's law. The right is in full panty shitting hysterics mode.

Snopes is totally unreliable but nice try. Read over this link to get you started on the drivel your willing to accept with no questions asked. It's a good start but also not totally reliable either but it does provide insight.

Snopes Liberal Bias and Trusting the Internet The Skeptical Libertarian Blog

Then show us a source that affirms the where and when of the quote....with evidence.

Your the one so concerned and providing a faulty link, do your own research.

So you have nothing to back your 'quote'. And denounce Snopes because it doesn't have evidence.

If not for double standards you'd have none at all.

Fact is you were too lazy and inept in the first place, this is your problem yet your begging me to do your work for you. Typical Democrat laziness. You know you can't prove it wrong and your wasting my time.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The liberal victories this week are the cake;

the unprecedented meltdown on the Right is the icing.

...and we know how much the Right hates making those dang liberal cakes.

So your preference is division of the country over unity of the country much like Obama and the rainbow White House.

You realize that you're in the minority on this issue, and that the majority of the country supports same sex marriage, yes?

And how would voting against same sex marriage 'unify' the country?

By dis-uniting it. A lot of Republicans even want states to secede.

No... Not any more. Republicans want to rise up and stomp the living hell out of the Ideological Left and surgically removing that disease from the body: USA. There will be no secession...

 

[Skylar]

... I'm pretty sure you're making that shit up. And if you're referring to the Windsor decision, that wasn't in 2009 and that wasn't thier findings. They found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.[sic]

Huh... So Kennedy didn't state this as the basis for the decision?

"DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage"

Ah, so it is Windsor. Yeah, that's wasn't 2009. And you missed this very important part of the ruling:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

And it was the subject to constitutional guarantees part where the State marriage bans broke. And Loving v. Virginia that the court cited in Obergefell when dismantling those state bans.

Feel free to ignore constitutional guarantees to your heart's content. Just don't expect your willful ignorance to have much relevance to court rulings.

Laughing....because it didn't, did it?

Two years later... 'the States be damned... Marriage is a Fundamental FEDERAL RIGHT!'

Yeah, 2015 isn't 2 years after 2009. You may want to work on those math skills. And the court never ruled in Windsor that same sex marriage bans were constitutional. Only that the States had the authority to AFFIRM same sex marriage.

In Windsor they overturned federal same sex marriage bans.

In Obergefell they overturned state same sex marriage bans.

But you can't see any connection between those two rulings, can you? Shrugs....it doesn't matter if you understand. The courts did.

 

[Lumpy 1]

The liberal victories this week are the cake;

the unprecedented meltdown on the Right is the icing.

...and we know how much the Right hates making those dang liberal cakes.

I have no problem with Gays getting married, I preferred the domestic partners route where all Americans have a representative vote. This way, the decision will always be considered a political vote where the justices had to stretch the Constitution to fit their bias in the Supreme Court. The American people and States Rights were completely bypassed. ...and, yup, it happens all the time but it doesn't make it right.

But why would someone's rights be subject to a vote? Remember, marriage is a right.

The Justices essentially voted, are you saying their votes are invalid?

So you're saying that a vote is valid then, even recognizing that the justices did exactly that?

Fail .. you didn't answer my question and assumed bullshit. What's wrong, can't back up your nonsensical comments?.

 

[Skylar]

And Snopes already took that one apart:

snopes.com Did Hillary Clinton and Adolf Hitler Express Similar Views on Socialism

But way to fulfill Godwin's law. The right is in full panty shitting hysterics mode.

Snopes.com is a liberal biased site run by 2 people from their home

And Snopes already took that one apart:

snopes.com Did Hillary Clinton and Adolf Hitler Express Similar Views on Socialism

But way to fulfill Godwin's law. The right is in full panty shitting hysterics mode.

Snopes is totally unreliable but nice try. Read over this link to get you started on the drivel your willing to accept with no questions asked. It's a good start but also not totally reliable either but it does provide insight.

Snopes Liberal Bias and Trusting the Internet The Skeptical Libertarian Blog

Then show us a source that affirms the where and when of the quote....with evidence.

Your the one so concerned and providing a faulty link, do your own research.

So you have nothing to back your 'quote'. And denounce Snopes because it doesn't have evidence.

If not for double standards you'd have none at all.

Fact is you were too lazy and inept in the first place, this is your problem yet your begging me to do your work for you. Typical Democrat laziness. You know you can't prove it wrong and your wasting my time.

The fact is you've jack shit to back your quote. And continue to give us snivelling excuses why you can't back up anything you've said.

Its your quote. Either you can back it. Or you can't. And you obviously can't.

Laughing...it didn't even occur to you to fact check, did it? Not even once.

 

[HappyJoy]

So, it appears this thread might have been started to create a list by the OP of people he is accusing of pedophilia (or wanting to engage in)? Hmm, I'm sure that's totally OK.

 

[Skylar]

The liberal victories this week are the cake;

the unprecedented meltdown on the Right is the icing.

...and we know how much the Right hates making those dang liberal cakes.

I have no problem with Gays getting married, I preferred the domestic partners route where all Americans have a representative vote. This way, the decision will always be considered a political vote where the justices had to stretch the Constitution to fit their bias in the Supreme Court. The American people and States Rights were completely bypassed. ...and, yup, it happens all the time but it doesn't make it right.

But why would someone's rights be subject to a vote? Remember, marriage is a right.

The Justices essentially voted, are you saying their votes are invalid?

So you're saying that a vote is valid then, even recognizing that the justices did exactly that?

Fail .. you didn't answer my question and assumed bullshit. What's wrong, can't back up your nonsensical comments?.

You answered my question with a question. My question was 'why would someone's rights to be subject to a vote'?

If you have no answer, just say so.

 

[Skylar]

So, it appears this thread might have been started to create a list by the OP of people he is accusing of pedophilia (or wanting to engage in)? Hmm, I'm sure that's totally OK.

Its Keyes. Its like listening to a 4 year old try out curse words. No one takes that shit seriously.

 

[Skylar]

The liberal victories this week are the cake;

the unprecedented meltdown on the Right is the icing.

...and we know how much the Right hates making those dang liberal cakes.

So your preference is division of the country over unity of the country much like Obama and the rainbow White House.

You realize that you're in the minority on this issue, and that the majority of the country supports same sex marriage, yes?

And how would voting against same sex marriage 'unify' the country?

By dis-uniting it. A lot of Republicans even want states to secede.

No... Not any more. Republicans want to rise up and stomp the living hell out of the Ideological Left and surgically removing that disease from the body: USA. There will be no secession...

And the vague and thuggish threats of violence! Always a classic.

But if you actually believed the bullshit you're posting, why wouldn't you be doing it rather than just talking about it? See, that's the problem with your ilk: it always someone else that has to do the actual fighting.

Never you.

And that's why there will be no secession....or 'surgical removal'. As you chickenshits aren't willing to bleed. You're only willing to hurt people if you don't have to sacrifice anything. And that's not how wars are fought.

Which is why instead of a 'revolution', we get vague and thuggish threats from anonymous posters online....who do jack shit.

 

[Lumpy 1]

The liberal victories this week are the cake;

the unprecedented meltdown on the Right is the icing.

...and we know how much the Right hates making those dang liberal cakes.

So your preference is division of the country over unity of the country much like Obama and the rainbow White House.

You realize that you're in the minority on this issue, and that the majority of the country supports same sex marriage, yes?

And how would voting against same sex marriage 'unify' the country?

By dis-uniting it. A lot of Republicans even want states to secede.

The Rainbow White House and the the liberal members on this board make it perfectly clear that Obama only represents the ultra-left liberals and everyone else doesn't deserve consideration for their honestly held points of view.

Granted, there are some nutty right and left wingers out there, such is reality.

 

[Skylar]

The liberal victories this week are the cake;

the unprecedented meltdown on the Right is the icing.

...and we know how much the Right hates making those dang liberal cakes.

So your preference is division of the country over unity of the country much like Obama and the rainbow White House.

You realize that you're in the minority on this issue, and that the majority of the country supports same sex marriage, yes?

And how would voting against same sex marriage 'unify' the country?

By dis-uniting it. A lot of Republicans even want states to secede.

The Rainbow White House and the the liberal members on this board make it perfectly clear that Obama only represents the ultra-left liberals and everyone else doesn't deserve consideration for their honestly held points of view.

Granted, there are some nutty right and left wingers out there, such is reality.

And by 'ultra-leftists', you mean at least 60% of the nation that supports same sex marriage?

Even 60% of republicans under 30 support same same sex marriage. Are they 'ultra-leftists' too?

 

[Lumpy 1]

The liberal victories this week are the cake;

the unprecedented meltdown on the Right is the icing.

...and we know how much the Right hates making those dang liberal cakes.

So your preference is division of the country over unity of the country much like Obama and the rainbow White House.

You realize that you're in the minority on this issue, and that the majority of the country supports same sex marriage, yes?

And how would voting against same sex marriage 'unify' the country?

By dis-uniting it. A lot of Republicans even want states to secede.

The Rainbow White House and the the liberal members on this board make it perfectly clear that Obama only represents the ultra-left liberals and everyone else doesn't deserve consideration for their honestly held points of view.

Granted, there are some nutty right and left wingers out there, such is reality.

And by 'ultra-leftists', you mean at least 60% of the nation that supports same sex marriage?

Even 60% of republicans under 30 support same same sex marriage. Are they 'ultra-leftists' too?

Sorry, you can't debate in good faith so I've decided you're not worth my time...

 

[Rexx Taylor]

what about the homes we paid for and live in? is that next on the hit list?

 

[Skylar]

Huh... So Kennedy didn't state this as the basis for the decision?

"DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage"

Ah, but you ignore constitutional guarantees again.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

The Windsor decision established a pretty firm hierarchy:

1) Constitutional Guarantees
2) State marriage law
3) Federal Marriage law.

And the Obergefell decision was on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Which Windsor said state marriage laws were subject to.

You chose to ignore constitutional guarantees and omitted any mention of them from your citations of the Windsor decision. The court didn't.

Both decisions were total fabrications with ABSOLUTELY NO KINSHIP with the US Constitution OR the principles set forth in the Charter of American Principle... they are respectively, demonstrations of the unholy trinity of Left-think: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.

Says you, citing you. And you have no idea what you're talking about. You ignored constitutional guarantees in the Windsor decision, didn't know the name of the decision, and couldn't even get the year right.

But you know more than the Supreme Court?

Um, no.

Conjuring Law from a vacuous, wholly subjective ideology... in reality does not law make.

You citing yourself as the supreme arbiter of what the constitution is supposed to mean isn't 'objective', you know that right? Its just your subjective opinion.

A personal opinion that has no relevance to our laws.[/QUOTE]

 

[Lumpy 1]

what about the homes we paid for and live in? is that next on the hit list?

Well, there's a bucket of money in Americans 401K's, I'm thinking that's a likely target for the freeloading politicians on both sides.

 

[Skylar]

So your preference is division of the country over unity of the country much like Obama and the rainbow White House.

You realize that you're in the minority on this issue, and that the majority of the country supports same sex marriage, yes?

And how would voting against same sex marriage 'unify' the country?

By dis-uniting it. A lot of Republicans even want states to secede.

The Rainbow White House and the the liberal members on this board make it perfectly clear that Obama only represents the ultra-left liberals and everyone else doesn't deserve consideration for their honestly held points of view.

Granted, there are some nutty right and left wingers out there, such is reality.

And by 'ultra-leftists', you mean at least 60% of the nation that supports same sex marriage?

Even 60% of republicans under 30 support same same sex marriage. Are they 'ultra-leftists' too?

Sorry, you can't debate in good faith so I've decided you're not worth my time...

And by 'debate in good faith', you mean I have to research your quotes.....when you have nothing to back them?

And the majority of the nation supports same sex marriage. How then is the President backing something the people support 'only representing the ultra-leftists'

Even you can't make your argument work. Which might explain why you're now looking for excuses to run. You don't need an excuse. Just run. I promise to only laugh and point a little.