This will pry tick off some one.

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Darth Cheney on Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:46 am

Confused18 wrote:
Freedom Forever wrote: I could care less about how you feel.  

Isn't this the problem in a nut shell?  You can't make everyone happy, and I get that, but to simply dismiss some one because you don't agree with them is fairly irresponsible as human IMO.  I love to engage all walks of life, even when I disagree.  That's how you should evolve your opinions.

 You mean like dismissing heterosexuals defining marriage as between one man and one woman? Why, you must be irresponsible!
avatar
Darth Cheney

Posts : 3313
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : SE SD

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Confused18 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:59 am

Darth Cheney wrote:
Confused18 wrote:
Freedom Forever wrote: I could care less about how you feel.  

Isn't this the problem in a nut shell?  You can't make everyone happy, and I get that, but to simply dismiss some one because you don't agree with them is fairly irresponsible as human IMO.  I love to engage all walks of life, even when I disagree.  That's how you should evolve your opinions.

 You mean like dismissing heterosexuals defining marriage as between one man and one woman? Why, you must be irresponsible!

You mean hetero's cant get married now?  They can continue to do as they please?   Remember at one point we also defined women and people of color as less than a normal system, with no voting rights, as well as many other short comings.  We as white men have been trampled on terribly!!!!
avatar
Confused18

Posts : 79
Join date : 2013-06-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Darth Cheney on Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:09 am

Confused18 wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:
Confused18 wrote:
Freedom Forever wrote: I could care less about how you feel.  

Isn't this the problem in a nut shell?  You can't make everyone happy, and I get that, but to simply dismiss some one because you don't agree with them is fairly irresponsible as human IMO.  I love to engage all walks of life, even when I disagree.  That's how you should evolve your opinions.

 You mean like dismissing heterosexuals defining marriage as between one man and one woman? Why, you must be irresponsible!

You mean hetero's cant get married now?  They can continue to do as they please?   Remember at one point we also defined women and people of color as less than a normal system, with no voting rights, as well as many other short comings.  We as white men have been trampled on terribly!!!!

 Have you watched Travon's girlfriend testifying?
avatar
Darth Cheney

Posts : 3313
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : SE SD

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Confused18 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:25 pm

Darth Cheney wrote:
Confused18 wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:
Confused18 wrote:
Freedom Forever wrote: I could care less about how you feel.  

Isn't this the problem in a nut shell?  You can't make everyone happy, and I get that, but to simply dismiss some one because you don't agree with them is fairly irresponsible as human IMO.  I love to engage all walks of life, even when I disagree.  That's how you should evolve your opinions.

 You mean like dismissing heterosexuals defining marriage as between one man and one woman? Why, you must be irresponsible!

You mean hetero's cant get married now?  They can continue to do as they please?   Remember at one point we also defined women and people of color as less than a normal system, with no voting rights, as well as many other short comings.  We as white men have been trampled on terribly!!!!

 Have you watched Travon's girlfriend testifying?


NO, actually.  What has she had to say?  I'm sure she's babbling on about something stupid.   I'm sure we'd agree on most of the Travon case.  The biggest thing there is both parties were in the wrong at one point or another, but Travon escalated it to the point of life and death.  It was his own fault.  The kid was a wannabe thug, that got what was inevitably coming.  Race has nothing to do with what happened here.  

Have you seen this yet?

http://www.infowars.com/ex-chicago-cop-zimmerman-acquittal-to-cause-race-riots/

I hope the country is better than this.  Zimmerman is far from innocent in the matter, but I don't think in any way he committed murder.

Also you didn't address my comments in the least. Hetero's are not being violated at all.
avatar
Confused18

Posts : 79
Join date : 2013-06-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Darth Cheney on Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:23 pm

Sitting on the fence all the time must be tiring...

I see absolutely zero fault with Zimmerman shooting and killing this thug...zero.  There are legally armed people all around so before you want to go ultimate fighting on somebody keep in mind you might end up dead.

Trevon's girlfriend testimony was a text book case of the liberal failure of protecting union teachers and keeping blacks on the plantation. This girl, and most blacks, have absolutely zero chance of making anything of their lives which has all been orchestrated by the democrats to maintain an idiot voting base.
avatar
Darth Cheney

Posts : 3313
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : SE SD

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Confused18 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:00 pm

Darth Cheney wrote:Sitting on the fence all the time must be tiring...

I see absolutely zero fault with Zimmerman shooting and killing this thug...zero.  There are legally armed people all around so before you want to go ultimate fighting on somebody keep in mind you might end up dead.

Trevon's girlfriend testimony was a text book case of the liberal failure of protecting union teachers and keeping blacks on the plantation. This girl, and most blacks, have absolutely zero chance of making anything of their lives which has all been orchestrated by the democrats to maintain an idiot voting base.


ZERO fault...  C'mon man!   Zimmerman was told not to follow the kid.  I might have done the same and followed anyway, but the long and short of things here, is that Travon decided to make it a life and death decision, not Zimmerman.   I think it wouldn't be out of line to charge Zimmerman with gross negligence or something like that, for not following the directions given to him by the emergency responder, but Murder is WAY out of line!


Why is walking the fence so bad?????  Why is listening to both sides of an argument, and making and educated decision a bad thing????????????????????   Rational thinking is hard for some people *cough*Darth Dillweed*cough*  but it's not THAT hard.   C'mon man.  Think about it...   scratch scratch scratch
avatar
Confused18

Posts : 79
Join date : 2013-06-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  RedWhiteBlue on Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:55 pm

Darth - What rights were taken away from heterosexual married couples in that SC decision?

RedWhiteBlue

Posts : 663
Join date : 2013-03-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Confused18 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:30 pm

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Darth - What rights were taken away from heterosexual married couples in that SC decision?

I would love to know that same thing. Please enlighten me... confused confused confused confused 
avatar
Confused18

Posts : 79
Join date : 2013-06-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Darth Cheney on Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:48 pm

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Darth - What rights were taken away from heterosexual married couples in that SC decision?

 The most precious and sacred institution between a man and woman was bastardized by a bunch of sexual deviants an social misfits.  Also, "Rights" are not given by government...they are given by God or natural for you atheists.  To a liberal I am sure that doesn't make any sense but that is only because your brain doesn't function correctly. The homos are being used by the left but there is going to be severe pushback.
avatar
Darth Cheney

Posts : 3313
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : SE SD

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Freedom Forever on Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:36 pm

Darth Cheney wrote:
RedWhiteBlue wrote:Darth - What rights were taken away from heterosexual married couples in that SC decision?

 The most precious and sacred institution between a man and woman was bastardized by a bunch of sexual deviants an social misfits.  Also, "Rights" are not given by government...they are given by God or natural for you atheists.  To a liberal I am sure that doesn't make any sense but that is only because your brain doesn't function correctly. The homos are being used by the left but there is going to be severe pushback.

cheers Nails it. There's a name for people like us. people who like marriage just the way it is. Can you guess before I get insulted by a lib  

cheers
avatar
Freedom Forever

Posts : 1123
Join date : 2013-01-14
Location : Yur Mom's House

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Skeptical on Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:12 pm

Freedom Forever wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:
RedWhiteBlue wrote:Darth - What rights were taken away from heterosexual married couples in that SC decision?

 The most precious and sacred institution between a man and woman was bastardized by a bunch of sexual deviants an social misfits.  Also, "Rights" are not given by government...they are given by God or natural for you atheists.  To a liberal I am sure that doesn't make any sense but that is only because your brain doesn't function correctly. The homos are being used by the left but there is going to be severe pushback.

cheers Nails it. There's a name for people like us. people who like marriage just the way it is. Can you guess before I get insulted by a lib  

cheers
Sane !!!
avatar
Skeptical

Posts : 2653
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : Right here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:20 am

Mona Charen knocks it out the park were her column:

Scalia went after the jurisdictional question with his customary laser. So “hungry” were the five members of the majority to pontificate about the merits of same-sex marriage, he wrote, that they skipped blithely over “a technicality of little interest to anyone except the people of We the People” — namely, that there was no case or controversy for the high court to resolve in Windsor. The “United States” of the case’s title agreed with the result at the appeals-court and district-court levels, which were both in Windsor’s favor. The plaintiff had long since been made whole. So what, Scalia asked, “are we doing here?”

The majority was showboating its enlightenment, that’s what. As Justice Alito observed, there is no constitutional resolution to the same-sex-marriage debate. Unlike other liberties found by the Court to inhere in the Due Process clause, it cannot conceivably be described as a “fundamental right deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” It belongs, accordingly, with the people and their elected representatives. But the majority will have none of that.

And

As many in the pro-marriage coalition have been arguing for two decades, the case for traditional marriage is not about hostility to homosexuality. It’s about halting the decay of the institution that undergirds everything else in our society. To enshrine same-sex marriage is to endorse the idea of marriage as adult fulfillment.

Marriage is much more than that. But the argument will have to continue outside the legislatures and the courts — because five members of the Supreme Court have taken our power, our franchise, and our sovereignty from us.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352269/roe-any-other-name-mona-charen
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  BladeRunner on Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:41 am

Basically, 5 [liberal] lawyers fundamentally changed America.
avatar
BladeRunner

Posts : 1917
Join date : 2012-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Confused18 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:42 am

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Mona Charen knocks it out the park were her column:

Scalia went after the jurisdictional question with his customary laser. So “hungry” were the five members of the majority to pontificate about the merits of same-sex marriage, he wrote, that they skipped blithely over “a technicality of little interest to anyone except the people of We the People” — namely, that there was no case or controversy for the high court to resolve in Windsor. The “United States” of the case’s title agreed with the result at the appeals-court and district-court levels, which were both in Windsor’s favor. The plaintiff had long since been made whole. So what, Scalia asked, “are we doing here?”

The majority was showboating its enlightenment, that’s what. As Justice Alito observed, there is no constitutional resolution to the same-sex-marriage debate. Unlike other liberties found by the Court to inhere in the Due Process clause, it cannot conceivably be described as a “fundamental right deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” It belongs, accordingly, with the people and their elected representatives. But the majority will have none of that.

And

As many in the pro-marriage coalition have been arguing for two decades, the case for traditional marriage is not about hostility to homosexuality. It’s about halting the decay of the institution that undergirds everything else in our society. To enshrine same-sex marriage is to endorse the idea of marriage as adult fulfillment.

Marriage is much more than that. But the argument will have to continue outside the legislatures and the courts — because five members of the Supreme Court have taken our power, our franchise, and our sovereignty from us.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352269/roe-any-other-name-mona-charen

I think there is a lot to be said about the way the decision was handed down. I think the supreme court (even though I agree with the decision) was used as a political tool here. I think more, and more often the SC is used as a political tool, which is not it's intended purpose. Even further than that check out this decision, which is ACTUALLY scary.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24875

And a couple more, just so we can see the patern of Monsanto. Also Thomas is right in their back pocket. Might be a topic for another thread. And yes, Monsanto has bough BOTH sides of the isle.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/the-conflict-of-interest-between-justice-thomas-and-monsanto-should-concern-us-all/

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/05/supreme-court-rules-monsanto

http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/03/29/monsanto-gets-its-very-own-law/


This is the biggest REAL issue in america right now if you ask me. Might be a good subject to start a whole new thread on, PLUS we probably all agree these are a bunch of evil dick weeds, that need to be curbed, BAD!
avatar
Confused18

Posts : 79
Join date : 2013-06-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Confused18 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:45 am

BladeRunner wrote:Basically, 5 [liberal] lawyers fundamentally changed America.

I wouldn't say they are all Libs, but yes in a nut shell. I don't like that the SC has this much power. I agree with the decision, but they shouldn't get to have the final be all, end all, say on a matter like this. I actually think the state should've been force to vote again. The state should decide the law IMO.

Uh-Oh, here come the flip flop comments. (I'd like to remind every one, I did say I agree with the ruling, but think the state should have its right to vote on the matter again...)
avatar
Confused18

Posts : 79
Join date : 2013-06-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  BladeRunner on Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:47 am

Confused18 wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:Basically, 5 [liberal] lawyers fundamentally changed America.

I wouldn't say they are all Libs, but yes in a nut shell.  I don't like that the SC has this much power.  I agree with the decision, but they shouldn't get to have the final be all, end all, say on a matter like this.  I actually think the state should've been force to vote again.  The state should decide the law IMO.  

Uh-Oh, here come the flip flop comments.   (I'd like to remind every one, I did say I agree with the ruling, but think the state should have its right to vote on the matter again...)

This is a states' rights issue.

They already voted. Why be forced to vote again?

avatar
BladeRunner

Posts : 1917
Join date : 2012-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:03 am

This ruling was pure BS. Both of the cases involved circumstances by which the Executive Branches declined to defend the laws through their attorney general's offices. Legal standing was refused to California's Prop 8 supporter's while standing was given to the House Representatives Republicans. WTF is that about?

Scalia was right to ask in his blistering dissent "What are we doing here?" There was no reason what so ever for the SCOTUS to even consider Windsor. She had been made whole by lower court rulings refunding her inheritance taxes so there was no case to decide. Instead the liberal judges plus Squishy Kennedy needed to grandstand and extend the Court's powers beyond which the Constitution had granted it. Bullshit X 10.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Confused18 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:15 pm

BladeRunner wrote:
Confused18 wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:Basically, 5 [liberal] lawyers fundamentally changed America.

I wouldn't say they are all Libs, but yes in a nut shell.  I don't like that the SC has this much power.  I agree with the decision, but they shouldn't get to have the final be all, end all, say on a matter like this.  I actually think the state should've been force to vote again.  The state should decide the law IMO.  

Uh-Oh, here come the flip flop comments.   (I'd like to remind every one, I did say I agree with the ruling, but think the state should have its right to vote on the matter again...)

This is a states' rights issue.

They already voted. Why be forced to vote again?



I've been forced to vote on abortion laws here in SD how many times?????? States do it all the time. If it made it to the SC, then they should've had a re-vote IMO.
avatar
Confused18

Posts : 79
Join date : 2013-06-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Confused18 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:19 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:This ruling was pure BS. Both of the cases involved circumstances by which the Executive Branches declined to defend the laws through their attorney general's offices. Legal standing was refused to California's Prop 8 supporter's while standing was given to the House Representatives Republicans. WTF is that about?

Scalia was right to ask in his blistering dissent "What are we doing here?" There was no reason what so ever for the SCOTUS to even consider Windsor. She had been made whole by lower court rulings refunding her inheritance taxes so there was no case to decide. Instead the liberal judges plus Squishy Kennedy needed to grandstand and extend the Court's powers beyond which the Constitution had granted it. Bullshit X 10.


I hate to say this, but I agree...

Still the right thing to do, even if it's the wrong way to do it...

Doesn't this bring up a larger point though. The SC has reached far beyond its boundaries before this, and will continue to do so if unchecked. I think all three branches of govt could use a revamp actually.
avatar
Confused18

Posts : 79
Join date : 2013-06-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  BladeRunner on Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:13 pm

Confused18 wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:
Confused18 wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:Basically, 5 [liberal] lawyers fundamentally changed America.

I wouldn't say they are all Libs, but yes in a nut shell.  I don't like that the SC has this much power.  I agree with the decision, but they shouldn't get to have the final be all, end all, say on a matter like this.  I actually think the state should've been force to vote again.  The state should decide the law IMO.  

Uh-Oh, here come the flip flop comments.   (I'd like to remind every one, I did say I agree with the ruling, but think the state should have its right to vote on the matter again...)

This is a states' rights issue.

They already voted. Why be forced to vote again?



I've been forced to vote on abortion laws here in SD how many times??????  States do it all the time.  If it made it to the SC, then they should've had a re-vote IMO.

What you are saying makes no sense.

Why should the SC mandate another vote when the vote took place already?

I can see the state themselves taking it up for another vote through proper channels (legislation/petition/etc). But why should the SCOTUS be allowed to mandate another election? Just because it "made" it to the supreme court?
avatar
BladeRunner

Posts : 1917
Join date : 2012-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Darth Cheney on Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:34 pm

The Supreme Court has long lost its value at upholding the US Constitution.  The judicial system has long ago been hyjacke by the progressives to push every cause they can think of down our throats.  They have zero credibility ruling on whether gays can be married or what marriage is....as Billy Jeff once said, "it depends what the definition of is is".
avatar
Darth Cheney

Posts : 3313
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : SE SD

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Twinkies on Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:46 pm

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage?

avatar
Twinkies

Posts : 389
Join date : 2013-03-19
Age : 72

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Darth Cheney on Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:49 pm

Twinkies wrote:Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage?


 It doesn't...thanks for proving my point.
avatar
Darth Cheney

Posts : 3313
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : SE SD

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Confused18 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:50 pm

BladeRunner wrote:
Confused18 wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:
Confused18 wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:Basically, 5 [liberal] lawyers fundamentally changed America.

I wouldn't say they are all Libs, but yes in a nut shell.  I don't like that the SC has this much power.  I agree with the decision, but they shouldn't get to have the final be all, end all, say on a matter like this.  I actually think the state should've been force to vote again.  The state should decide the law IMO.  

Uh-Oh, here come the flip flop comments.   (I'd like to remind every one, I did say I agree with the ruling, but think the state should have its right to vote on the matter again...)

This is a states' rights issue.

They already voted. Why be forced to vote again?



I've been forced to vote on abortion laws here in SD how many times??????  States do it all the time.  If it made it to the SC, then they should've had a re-vote IMO.

What you are saying makes no sense.

Why should the SC mandate another vote when the vote took place already?

I can see the state themselves taking it up for another vote through proper channels (legislation/petition/etc). But why should the SCOTUS be allowed to mandate another election? Just because it "made" it to the supreme court?

That's not what I meant to say. I meant that it should have been sent to a vote, not that the SC should make the state hold an election. Sorry for the confusion.
avatar
Confused18

Posts : 79
Join date : 2013-06-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Confused18 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:51 pm

Darth Cheney wrote:
Twinkies wrote:Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage?


 It doesn't...thanks for proving my point.


That actually proves my point. WHY THE fudge IS THE GOVT INVOLVED IN ANY CIVIL UNION BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE????????
avatar
Confused18

Posts : 79
Join date : 2013-06-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This will pry tick off some one.

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum