Prop 8 Showdown

[L.K.Eder]

What the **** is your problem ******?

who the **** is your problem ******?

or

what the **** is your problem, ******?

I must have really busted you, because you are giving me to much attention. If you haven't noticed there are many more violaters here go play with them .

too

violators

yes, you have toadallie busted me ******.

 

[ConHog]

Its a CA thing, if the vote doesn't go your way, sue. It happens here all the time. This time I happen to think they are right.

I don't think you think at all, EVER. How can you say they are right? Just because YOU agree with them? It is NEVER right for a judge to over rule a legal election.

Now it IS the job of the courts to determine if a law violates the CON, but in this case I don't think it does because the CON doesn't mention marriage at all. Judges are not supposed to add things to the CON, even though they do all the time.

LMAO! yes WE ALL know yours is the only RIGHT opinion.

Right YOU don't think it violates the CON. Your is NOT the ONLY opinion. No where in the CON does it stipulate that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Try again

You ARE a ******* IDIOT. I exactly said that nowhere in the CON is marriage defined, therefor a law limiting what can be called a marriage can NOT be unconstitutional. Nowhere in the CON are speed limits mentioned so if one were to sue claiming that a speed limit was unconstitutional, they would NOT have a case.

You need some remedial reading classes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This message is hidden because L.K.Eder is on your ignore list.

 

[ConHog]

Its a CA thing, if the vote doesn't go your way, sue. It happens here all the time. This time I happen to think they are right.

I don't think you think at all, EVER. How can you say they are right? Just because YOU agree with them? It is NEVER right for a judge to over rule a legal election.

republic, not a democracy

What? Well not that I even said democracy, but we in fact aren't a republic. We are a representative democracy.

 

[L.K.Eder]

This message is hidden because L.K.Eder is on your ignore list.

you just can't handle the truth, boy.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I don't think you think at all, EVER. How can you say they are right? Just because YOU agree with them? It is NEVER right for a judge to over rule a legal election.

republic, not a democracy

What? Well not that I even said democracy, but we in fact aren't a republic. We are a representative democracy.

that is the usual talking point regarding mob rule.

two wolves and a sheep decide who gets eaten.

prop 8

 

[ConHog]

republic, not a democracy

What? Well not that I even said democracy, but we in fact aren't a republic. We are a representative democracy.

that is the usual talking point regarding mob rule.

two wolves and a sheep decide who gets eaten.

prop 8

Sorry, but that is the foundation of our government. Whoever wins the election makes the rules. Barring constitutional violations of course.

 

[syrenn]

I don't think you think at all, EVER. How can you say they are right? Just because YOU agree with them? It is NEVER right for a judge to over rule a legal election.

Now it IS the job of the courts to determine if a law violates the CON, but in this case I don't think it does because the CON doesn't mention marriage at all. Judges are not supposed to add things to the CON, even though they do all the time.

LMAO! yes WE ALL know yours is the only RIGHT opinion.

Right YOU don't think it violates the CON. Your is NOT the ONLY opinion. No where in the CON does it stipulate that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Try again

You ARE a ******* IDIOT. I exactly said that nowhere in the CON is marriage defined, therefor a law limiting what can be called a marriage can NOT be unconstitutional. Nowhere in the CON are speed limits mentioned so if one were to sue claiming that a speed limit was unconstitutional, they would NOT have a case.

You need some remedial reading classes.

Try again.

Again your are arguing that IN YOUR OPINION it does not violet the CON. IN OTHER PEOPLES OPINION it does. Get over it.

When you can get people to try and argue a speed limit is unconstitutional please feel free to do that.

 

[L.K.Eder]

What? Well not that I even said democracy, but we in fact aren't a republic. We are a representative democracy.

that is the usual talking point regarding mob rule.

two wolves and a sheep decide who gets eaten.

prop 8

Sorry, but that is the foundation of our government. Whoever wins the election makes the rules. Barring constitutional violations of course.

exactly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This message is hidden because L.K.Eder is on your ignore list.

you just can't handle the truth, boy.

I just had to open your reply one last time. I do not have the time to waste on your petty attacks. The truth is, this is just a discussion board, this is not a High School grammar class. No one here is perfect when they respond to a comment, not even you. I have learned that when your oppent has this feeling that they have been beaten they attck things that do not matter. You are working overtime with your rules for radicals playbook.
Have a great time here. Good bye chump

 

[L.K.Eder]

you just can't handle the truth, boy.

I just had to open your reply one last time. I do not have the time to waste on your petty attacks. The truth is, this is just a discussion board, this is not a High School grammar class. No one here is perfect when they respond to a comment, not even you. I have learned that when your oppent has this feeling that they have been beaten they attck things that do not matter. You are working overtime with your rules for radicals playbook.
Have a great time here. Good bye chump

ignoring, you even fail at that, fat boy.

 

[ConHog]

LMAO! yes WE ALL know yours is the only RIGHT opinion.

Right YOU don't think it violates the CON. Your is NOT the ONLY opinion. No where in the CON does it stipulate that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Try again

You ARE a ******* IDIOT. I exactly said that nowhere in the CON is marriage defined, therefor a law limiting what can be called a marriage can NOT be unconstitutional. Nowhere in the CON are speed limits mentioned so if one were to sue claiming that a speed limit was unconstitutional, they would NOT have a case.

You need some remedial reading classes.

Try again.

Again your are arguing that IN YOUR OPINION it does not violet the CON. IN OTHER PEOPLES OPINION it does. Get over it.

When you can get people to try and argue a speed limit is unconstitutional please feel free to do that.

It's not an opinion moron. it's a fact, read the ******* CON, any pwer not explicitly mentioned IN the CON as being reserved for the federal gov't is reserved for either the states or the people to decide. Marriage is not mentioned IN the CON so therefor iit is a power given to the states or the people.

Now IF there were a CON Amendment concerning marriage, and certainly the government can try to get that done, and a state tried passing a law which conflicted with that Amendment, THEN you would have a case of that law being unCON, but there isn't one, so therefor any legal claim that THIS law violates the US CON is invalid.

You are, as usual, wrong because you have about an 8th grade understanding of the US CON.


I used to be of the opinion that you were just misguided, but the fact is you're an idiot who thinks she can play big girl on a message board discussing issues which she doesn't understand at all.

 

[ConHog]

that is the usual talking point regarding mob rule.

two wolves and a sheep decide who gets eaten.

prop 8

Sorry, but that is the foundation of our government. Whoever wins the election makes the rules. Barring constitutional violations of course.

exactly.

So we're in agreement, this law stands in California

 

[L.K.Eder]

Sorry, but that is the foundation of our government. Whoever wins the election makes the rules. Barring constitutional violations of course.

exactly.

So we're in agreement, this law stands in California

for now.

the constitutionality of this law is now debated.

 

[ConHog]

exactly.

So we're in agreement, this law stands in California

for now.

the constitutionality of this law is now debated.

It can't be debated. What part of the CON does this law violate? No more bullshit, tell me which provision of the US CON this law violates.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LMAO! yes WE ALL know yours is the only RIGHT opinion.

Right YOU don't think it violates the CON. Your is NOT the ONLY opinion. No where in the CON does it stipulate that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Try again

Federal law does though, and has for 14 years.

 

[L.K.Eder]

So we're in agreement, this law stands in California

for now.

the constitutionality of this law is now debated.

It can't be debated. What part of the CON does this law violate? No more bullshit, tell me which provision of the US CON this law violates.....

oh, it can be debated. and it is. that is why this thread was started. think about it.

 

[rightwinger]

This message is hidden because L.K.Eder is on your ignore list.

Why not just change your name to bigpussy?

 

[ConHog]

for now.

the constitutionality of this law is now debated.

It can't be debated. What part of the CON does this law violate? No more bullshit, tell me which provision of the US CON this law violates.....

oh, it can be debated. and it is. that is why this thread was started. think about it.

No, it's being debated because dumb shits don't understand the US CON and its relation to state law. People like Syrenne who believes a law can be declared unconstitutional simply because she doesn't like it..............

In order to be unconstitutional a law MUST violate the CON, so tell me, which provision of the US CON do you feel Prop 8 in California violates? It's a simple question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

exactly.

So we're in agreement, this law stands in California

for now.

the constitutionality of this law is now debated.

Hate to burst both of your bubbles, but Prop 8 is not a law, it is an Amendment to the Constitution of the State of California. If the judge overturns it he will not only be overturning a valid election, he will be rewriting a state constitution.

Talk about an abuse of federal power.