| today in california
Posted: 5/15/2008 12:05:43 PM | | they overturned a ban on gay marriage. this is a good thing. maybe we can get them to overturn roe vs. wade now. this is a matter of states rights. I am pro choice, however I don't think that there should be a federal law that forces states to perform abortions. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/15/2008 12:35:16 PM | | This is in the News and Current Events Thread already. | |
|
| |
| |
| today in california
Posted: 5/15/2008 4:17:25 PM | | I'm glad. Now I can finally marry a lesbian. The waiting has paid off. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/15/2008 4:23:37 PM | | I've always believed that individual states should decide on the matter of same sex marriages.. my state voted "no". Marriage is just a legal document anyway..it's becoming more of a partnership.. Calif.. is a perfect state to have the ban lifted if that's what the majority wants and I'm sure the majority does.. Calif is a much more liberal minded state. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/15/2008 4:44:43 PM |
I don't think that there should be a federal law that forces states to perform abortions.
Lucky for you, there isn't any federal law that "forces" states to perform abortion. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/15/2008 4:48:18 PM |
Lucky for you, there isn't any federal law that "forces" states to perform abortion.
it is legal in all states correct? | |
|
| |
| today in california
Posted: 5/15/2008 4:52:50 PM | | dude knows what I am saying. he is just a liberal trying to be witty. liberal.........witty. looks like I need to go back to the oxymoron thread they have in the off topic section. | |
|
| |
| today in california
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:12:52 PM |
it is legal in all states correct?
Yes it's legal. But that doesn't mean anyone forces anyone to have an abortion. The fact that it's legal just means it's allowed - not forced. That's what I meant. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:24:39 PM |
I've always believed that individual states should decide on the matter of same sex marriages.. my state voted "no". Marriage is just a legal document anyway..it's becoming more of a partnership.. Calif.. is a perfect state to have the ban lifted if that's what the majority wants and I'm sure the majority does.. Calif is a much more liberal minded state.
Personally, I don't think it's a government's right to decide who the hell we marry unless it's someone underage and causes harm to another. I don't feel anyone has the right to say what two consenting adults do with each other in a nurturing, loving relationship. And that fully goes for marriage.
I've seen many same sex partnerships/marriages raise a great family, children, and everyone flourished. It's religious snobs and fanatics who feel they should have a say in who marries who, and that's just wrong. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 8:00:42 AM |
Yes it's legal. But that doesn't mean anyone forces anyone to have an abortion. The fact that it's legal just means it's allowed - not forced. That's what I meant.
yeah, but I didn't say that the law forces people to have abortions. I said it forces states to allow them to be performed. don't use the conservative talk radio tactics on me! you're a better man than that bluesman. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 3:15:40 PM |
it forces states to allow them to be performed.
What are you referring to when you say "it"? Are you talking about Roe v. Wade? It doesn't force the states to do anything. Roe just says it's unconstitutional to deny a woman's choice to have an abortion. It does NOT force anything. The only thing a Supreme Court ruling does is set precedent for the constitutionality of an act. Period. Nothing more.
For example, lets say you live in a county that makes it against the law to have an abortion. Well, yes, I suppose you could be fined, jailed or whatever. But if that case were to go to the Supreme court, they would, most likely, overturn the conviction. That's all. Period. No one is forced to do anything. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 3:21:00 PM | | what it does is take the power out of the hands of the state. we've got f-ing idiots in washington making decisions for 300,000,000 people and three idiots running for president right now. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 3:26:11 PM | | Well, as far as Obama is concerned, I find it somewhat difficult to characterize a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School an idiot but, hey, you're entitled to your own opinion. As to the other two, I'd have to agree. He was also chosen as law reivew editor. That's reserved only for the best of the best. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 3:42:50 PM | | even an idiot can have lots of education. all politicians are idiots who are out for their own agenda. obama is no different. they are all terrorists. frankly, obama's education doesn't impress me any more than any of the other candidates. mccain went to the naval academy. if you look into the 3rd party candidates, bob barr has a JD degree. ron paul is a MD from duke. so if you are going by education alone, obama is a distant third behind paul and barr. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 4:08:47 PM | I don't buy into generalizations (all politicians are XXXXXX). Wasn't Barr the one with three marriages and divorced wife number 2 while she was dying of cancer? May've been someone else. I agree on Paul though. He's ok in my book but his electiblity is, unfortunately, nil.
they are all terrorists.
You can't seriously believe that. But if you do, I guess you never vote. Why vote for any idiot/terrorist. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 4:28:17 PM | | Does it bother anyone else that this decision that the California State Supreme court overturned was voter decided? I myself am very conflicted on this whole thing. While I really don't have an issue with same sex marriage personally, I'm annoyed that this issue was put on the ballot, overwhelmingly voted against, and now the Supreme Court has overturned it for being unconstitutional. If it was unconstitutional, why the heck was it on the ballot in the first place? This is the part that I have a problem with. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 4:34:06 PM |
if you look into the 3rd party candidates, bob barr has a JD degree. ron paul is a MD from duke. so if you are going by education alone, obama is a distant third behind paul and barr.
How is a JD from Harvard a distant third behind a JD from Georgetown and a degree that is unrelated to government work? | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 4:35:56 PM |
If it was unconstitutional, why the heck was it on the ballot in the first place? This is the part that I have a problem with.
Politicians propose (and pass) unconstitutional things all the time for political purposes. It makes it seem like you're doing something. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 4:39:04 PM |
I don't buy into generalizations (all politicians are XXXXXX). Wasn't Barr the one with three marriages and divorced wife number 2 while she was dying of cancer? May've been someone else. I agree on Paul though. He's ok in my book but his electiblity is, unfortunately, nil.
I don't know too much about barr's personal life. I think someone else on here said the same thing though. although I am not sure what his education has to do with his personal life. that doesn't make him uneducated, it just makes him a d i c k.
You can't seriously believe that. But if you do, I guess you never vote. Why vote for any idiot/terrorist.
to me a terrorist is someone who uses fear to get what they want. if that doesn't describe the american politician, I don't know what does. another definition is using tactics of terror to advance a political agenda. this is what politicians do. after all, it's 3AM bluesman and the phone is ringing in the white house, who do you want answering it? got to make the masses fear the other guy, that's how these f u c k e r s get elected. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 5:52:23 PM |
all politicians are idiots who are out for their own agenda. obama is no different. they are all terrorists
So I take it you'd prefer anarchy?
Over the years I've had the opportunity to spend a fair amount of time with a number of politicians. Only a few would I classify as idiots - no greater percentage than the general population. None would I classify as terrorists, even by your warped definition. Our elected leaders are in the unenviable position of knowing that no matter what they do, a lot of people will be upset with them, yet the vast majority I've made the acquaintance of genuinely believe they are serving the public good.
I have to admit I've referred to our current president as an idiot more than once. And I've often asserted that his choices have done nothing but fan the flames of terrorism. But I still wouldn't call him a terrorist. I may be counting the days until he's finally out of office, but I still feel sympathy for him now and then for the difficult job he has.
Dave | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 6:16:55 PM |
How is a JD from Harvard a distant third behind a JD from Georgetown and a degree that is unrelated to government work?
that's my bad. they are both still behind paul IMO.
So I take it you'd prefer anarchy?
not at all dave, but I prefer extremely limited government. I wish the government would just admit that they can't do it all, instead of asking for more money. they can't manage what we give them now. you should know this too, I would like to wring robert byrd's neck. he's responsible for more pork than smithfield foods.
None would I classify as terrorists, even by your warped definition.
it isn't my warped definition, it's the federal bureau of investigations definition of the tactic of terrorism. | |
|
Home
login 
