Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 957
view profile
History
Prop 8 Page 24 of 52    (12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52)

The New York Imam not wanting to denounce Hamas, and it got to asking this guy if he himself disproved of Hamas, and after being asked more than 5 times, he would not answer.


For good reason. Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood's organization in Gaza. It created Hamas. That same MB, through a series of front groups it set up here to subvert America and destroy it from within, is behind this Ground Zero mosque project.

The MB was behind the Beta version of 9/11, in which Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh," directed a terrorist cell. On Feb. 26, 1993, some of the conspirators in this cell set off a 1,200-lb. bomb in a van parked beneath the World Trade Center. Rahman was also plotting with a Sudanese jihadist, Siddig Ali, to blow up the UN building and the Holland and Lincoln tunnels.

The man who designed and built this bomb, Ramzi Yousef, was a close friend of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who's usually considered the mastermind of 9/11. (KSM, who was a pilot, credits Yousef with coming up with the idea of diving airliners onto large buildings in the U.S. when they were in working together on another plot in Manila in 1994.)

The Muslim Brotherhood directed the assassination of Anwar Sadat when he was president of Egypt, and it tried to assassinate current president Hosni Mubarak. The MB also produced Ayman Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor who co-founded Al Qaeda about 1992 with Osama Bin Laden.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 959
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/11/2010 12:34:33 PM
^^^^^^Our government evidently thinks sucking up to Muslim fanatics is such a good idea that it's spending our tax dollars (illegally, but who cares?) to help the process along:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/10/tax-dollars-to-build-mosques/
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 962
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/12/2010 10:11:20 AM
The Muslim Brotherhood, which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization, is an Islamist group founded in Egypt by Hasan al-Banna in 1928. Al-Banna wrote that "it is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Hamas, which like the MB is dedicated to jihad (and to exterminating Jews) is its branch in Palestine.

Imam Reisal Rauf, the public face of the "Cordoba Initiative" to build the "Muslim Center" near Ground Zero, is thoroughly involved with the MB through several of the front groups it's established in the U.S. It's not surprising he won't denounce Hamas. Two of these fronts, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), recently published Rauf's book.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is usually considered moderate. It's another MB front group, as is the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). The Justice Dept. named them both as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case, in which several defendants were convicted of funding Hamas with millions of dollars. Nihad Awad, another prominent supporter of the Ground Zero mosque, is one of CAIR's founders and also a top official in the IAP.

In 1991, the MB's American leadership prepared an internal memo for an upcoming conference. This memo describes the mission of the MB in North America as:

"a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."


These are just a few of the facts about what's really behind the Ground Zero mosque project. There's a lot more we know already. And that makes me wonder about the motives of people who support this outrage--starting with the mayor. Can they really be that willfully ignorant? If NAMBLA wanted to open a "center for the advancement of man-boy love" a few blocks from an elementary school, would everyone just have to shut up and like it, in the name of protecting the rights of NAMBLA members to freedom of expression and association?

Proposing this "Muslim center" isn't just spitting in the face of New Yorkers--it's spitting in the face of all Americans. There are good reasons to think leftists who hate the U.S. and Western culture as much as Islamists do are helping them to sabotage this country. The fact so many people are so eager to kiss the backsides of the lousy mutts behind this insult just adds to them.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 963
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/12/2010 10:59:44 PM

Can you name a time where Democrats granted amnesty? They've had power for a while now. No bill has been brought forth. Still no serious discussion about a bill on the horizon.


You put your finger right on the problem. This president doesn't need bills. He doesn't bother with little details like the law. He just sues Arizona, gets a judge to take his side, and presto--amnesty--in fact, if not by law. And whether most Americans want it, or not. Saves all that fuss and muss of the legal process.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 964
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/13/2010 10:45:47 AM
^^^^^This president wouldn't be much of an Alinskyite if he didn't know he had to do enough about the border to make it look like an honest effort. And even is he *is* doing more about it than Bush did--which was next to nothing--that's no great accomplishment. What counts is that he refuses to do his duty to enforce federal immigration laws. He sued Arizona to prevent *it* from doing that, either.

Congress has already passed all those laws, and other presidents have signed them. Like all duly enacted federal laws, they represent the will of the majority of Americans as best we can determine it. And Congress has made clear, several times, that it wants states to help enforce those laws. What Judge Bolton held, in effect, was that none of this matters.

Bolton really didn't strike down several sections of the Arizona law for conflicting with federal immigration laws themselves. The problem was that they conflict with Mr. Obama's policy of not enforcing those laws. Her decision supports lawlessness, rather than the law. Its message is that our immigration laws are worth no more than a president says they're worth.

Failing to enforce those laws has just the same effect, in practice, as granting amnesty to the fifteen million or more illegal aliens now in the U.S. It's just a way to dress up a scheme to create millions of new Democratic voters--while badly damaging this country--so that it looks like a noble attempt to uphold the Constitution.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 965
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/13/2010 11:58:35 AM
As to Prop. 8, it now comes out that Judge Walker, in his decree, never even mentioned a Supreme Court decision whose authority the law required him to follow.


"In Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed, 'for want of [a] substantial federal question,' an appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court presenting the same questions at issue here: whether a State’s refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The same-sex couple in Baker [relied mainly on] on Loving v. Virginia . . . The Baker Court’s dismissal was a decision on the merits that is binding on lower courts on the issues presented and necessarily decided . . . and its value [as legal precedent] 'extends beyond the facts of the particular case to all similar cases.' Plaintiffs’ claims are the same as those rejected in Baker, and the district court’s decision thus conflicts with a binding Supreme Court authority."


Judge Walker apparently thought the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas allowed him to ignore Baker. But here's the problem with that: Only the Court itself can decide not to follow one of its earlier decisions. Lower federal courts are legally bound by those decisions unless and until the Court changes them.

It's true that Justice Scalia, in his dissent in Lawrence, argued that *if* the logic of the majority in that case were extended to marriage, it would lead to inventing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But the Court never did that in Lawrence. In fact it specifically said the case did “not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”

Nothing gave Judge Walker a valid reason to ignore the Baker decision in a case involving the very same issue. The reasoning behind Lawrence, the Court's most relevant later decision, led Justice Scalia to believe it was on track to create a right to same-sex marriage. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is free to suggest (disapprovingly) that the Court may someday do that. But federal district court judge Vaughn Walker is NOT free to assume it already has.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 966
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/13/2010 12:57:40 PM
1 in 12 babies born in America today are born of Illegal Immigrants.


And about *half* of all babies born in Los Angeles. The misinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Am. is a *huge*magnet for illegal immigrants that should have been fixed a long time ago.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 967
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/13/2010 2:18:18 PM
The whole reason the Constitution creates three branches of the federal government is to protect our freedom by making it hard for any one branch to abuse its powers. If it tries to, either or both of the other branches can step in. James Madison, who had more to do with creating the Constitution than anyone else, said that combining legislative and executive powers in the same person was "the very definition of tyranny." He was dead right. Executive orders give an unscrupulous, power-hungry president a great way to rule like a dictator. And the Supreme Court isn't a reliable defense against that. It's up to Congress to speak for us.

I like the idea of Congress having a committee--maybe a joint one--oversee executive orders. It would take a 2/3 majority of both Houses to overturn an executive order, because any law which did that would obviously have to survive the president's veto. If the law were based on a joint committee's recommendation against the order, the weight of that recommendation could help it get the necessary 2/3 majority vote.

But the only way for something like this to happen is by caring enough about our freedoms to stop electing people who don't respect them. This country will never stay free if most of us start thinking everything will automatically be fine, and put our government on cruise control. Our Constitution's nothing but a piece of paper, if we let our government employees--and that's all they are--play with it any way they like. When they do that, we should make it our business to know about it. And once we know, fire them.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 972
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/16/2010 11:26:21 PM

Mr Obama told the Marines: “Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved.


Boy, coming from him, I'll bet that really meant a lot to the Marines. Probably the only thing that would have pleased them as much would be a visit by that sexy Janet Napolitano.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 974
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/17/2010 8:58:26 AM
Last night, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit stayed Judge Walker's order striking down Prop. 8 from taking effect. The court wants to look at it first--and if it pays even the least attention to the law, it won't like what it sees.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 976
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/17/2010 10:43:48 AM
^^^^^^^GC, I think you misunderstand me on that. The courts may overrule Walker, or not, and the same with the ruling on SB 1070, with the health care law, etc. We just can't count on that to save the day, because the judges may be sold out, too. It's like Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the 1956 Kevin McCarthy version is one of my all-time favorite movies)--everyone looks the same, but it's hard to know who's been taken over by your enemy.

That's why the surest way to prevent these would-be tyrants from destroying the Constitution and this country is to pull the plug on them. Use our votes to get them out of office, so they can't get their grubby paws on the controls and steer us all into a wreck. And if this president loses control of Congress, he'll have to consider that he could be impeached, if he goes too far.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 977
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/17/2010 11:57:57 AM
^^^^^ Any American who can't bother to vote in this election can't care much about this country. If we don't whack this thing hard enough in November to slow it down, at least, we may never get another shot. It seems to me we owe the memories of the million men who died in wars to protect the United States more respect, than just to sit and watch it be ruined.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 982
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/18/2010 10:23:18 AM

Impeachment?.... NO... Voting the guy out?... YES


JD, I agree with you that impeaching Mr. Obama wouldn't be a good move. Too much risk of making people sympathize with him. But I think that if Republicans control of the House--and especially if they also control the Senate--it wouldn't hurt to mention the possibility of impeachment now and then, to make him think twice about acting like a dictator. Executive orders will be hard to stop any other way, because it takes a 2/3 majority of both Houses.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 983
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/18/2010 10:32:46 AM

They use their intellectual horsepower to spin elaborate rationalizations about leftist failures much like Stalinists of 50 years ago.


I really think that with some people those beliefs are a substitute for ordinary religion. So they keep defending them, no matter how strong the evidence against them is. Sort of like the Rastas, who worship the Emperor of Ethiopia as a living god, refusing to believe he died years ago.
 JackRaiden
Joined: 1/24/2010
Msg: 985
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/19/2010 12:01:38 AM
Personally, I don't understand how people who are against gay marriage can say "it hurts the sanctity of marriage!" They never explain this though. What people need to understand is just because gay people are allowed to marry, that doesn't mean straight people are suddenly NOT allowed to marry or have children.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 986
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/19/2010 2:30:48 AM
^^^^^I don't care if the majority of people in a state are for or against homosexual marriage. The important thing is that they be allowed to have their votes count. If the people of state X want to pass a law to make dogs wear pants, that's their business. As long as it doesn't violate anything in the Constitution or any federal law, it doesn't matter how stupid anyone thinks it is. I defend the right of narrow-minded people to be narrow-minded.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 987
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/19/2010 6:24:41 PM
^^^^^^^Don't forget the Ninth Amendment, which is the strangest and hardest to understand of all of them.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 988
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/19/2010 10:29:21 PM
This is from Justice Scalia's dissent in a case about a state law which authorized courts to let third parties visit children even against their parents' wishes:

In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the "unalienable Rights" with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims "all Men ... are endowed by their Creator." And in my view that right is also among the "othe[r] [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage."

The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.

Consequently, while I would think it entirely compatible with the commitment to representative democracy set forth in the founding documents to argue, in legislative chambers or in electoral campaigns, that the state has no power to interfere with parents' authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right.



The majority in this case held the state law unconstitutional for violating "substantive due process." That's the doctrine the Court invented to overrule state laws it felt violated some fundamental right to liberty (or sometimes property) protected by the 14th Am. Roe was a SDP decision. So was Dred Scott, in 1857.

The Court used this doctrine so often from 1904 to 1937--almost always to overrule economic regulations-- that this came to be called its Substantive Due Process Era. After denouncing it for a couple decades as something it used to do in the bad old days, the Court started using SDP again in the '60's. But this time it didn't involved economic restrictions, but restrictions on things like contraception and abortion.

Scalia was saying here, in effect, "SDP's an excuse for us to decide what *we* think is fair, and too bad what the people of the state who passed the law think. That's abusing our power as judges, and I reject it. I believe parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children. But it's a right people had *before* the Constitution, and we have no authority to claim it's a fundamental liberty the 14th Amendment protects."

Judge Walker used a similar fundamental rights approach in striking down Prop. 8. Just as in Roe and a lot of other SDP decisions, it's a great excuse for judges to overreach their authority and use the 14th Am. to second-guess the people and the states.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 990
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/20/2010 8:05:00 AM
It may be true that some people oppose homosexual marriage because they have homosexual tendencies. Just as it may be true that Judge Vaughn Walker is strongly biased in favor of it because he's a practicing homosexual himself.

But that's an awfully convenient way to brush aside the fact many millions of Americans who do not have those tendencies object to homosexual marriage on moral grounds. And many object to it because they see it as what it is--one more attempt by a self-anointed ruling class to force its radical notions on everyone else by subverting the Constitution.

This is another battle in the culture war this elite has been waging to undermine and destroy this country's traditions and values--and ultimately, the country itself. They love to cast themselves as champions of the oppressed, but they're the ones who want to coerce all those Americans they see as less enlightened and cosmopolitan.
 Rabbitman49
Joined: 10/20/2005
Msg: 991
Prop 8
Posted: 6/27/2013 12:05:52 PM
Re: #1271 et. al. -
Just as it may be true that Judge Vaughn Walker is strongly biased in favor of it because he's a practicing homosexual himself.

That right there is proof that the Supreme Court didn't care about the law. Had they done so, they should have remanded all the way back to the District Court to have a judge who didn't have a conflict of interest hear the case.

In fact, we've had other decisions from this Court which are clearly erroneous. The DNA ruling violates the "plain sight" exception to the Fourth Amendment*, and the use of silence against a suspect/defendant vs. his Fifth Amendment right of self incrimination, where even the Miranda (v. Arizona) Warning calls it a "right to remain silent." Silence is no longer silence: The currently seated Supreme Court is out of its mind.


* - I also disagree with this on the grounds that it allows "fishing expeditions without probable cause" when DNA is compared against a general database for identifying additional crimes for which the person was not even a suspect. It's one thing to compare DNA (pursuant to a warrant) against a specific sample for which the person is a suspect, but J. Scalia's dissent is the correct legal conclusion.
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 992
Prop 8
Posted: 6/27/2013 3:38:49 PM
"The Supreme Court, with Justices who were mostly appointed by Republicans, disagree with you guys. Prop 8 has been defeated once and for all."

Skooch - You are talking from the wrong orifice, if you catch my drift. The Supreme Court did not say anything about Prop 8 being defeated.
If anything, they kicked the can down the road, in a weak sisterly fashion, to be argued and voted and sued and kicked around some more, for any state that chooses to be involved.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 993
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 6/27/2013 8:02:16 PM
California first authorized the initiative about a hundred years ago, in 1911. Today, it's one of twenty-six states that have it. It was one of the progressives' reforms, like "sunshine acts," meant to give the people a direct say in lawmaking, by giving them a way to bypass their elected legislators and their dealmaking in smoke-filled rooms.

What the majority did in Hollingsworth goes far beyond same-sex marriage. In order to avoid having to decide the merits of Prop. 8, Chief Justice Roberts decided the issue on procedural grounds by ruling that the proponents of the proposition lacked standing to appeal Judge Walker's ruling against it in federal court. Roberts' decision tears a giant hole in the initiative process, and the damage extends all over the country.

In an earlier case, the California Supreme Court had warned about this. It noted that “if the very officials the initiative process seeks to circumvent are the only parties who can defend an enacted initiative when it is challenged . . . this de facto veto will erode one of the cornerstones of the State’s governmental structure.”

The California court added that “in light of the frequency with which initiatives’ opponents resort to litigation” (more than one-third of the initiatives approved in Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington between 1900 and 2008 were challenged in court) “the impact of that veto could be substantial.”

Two can play at this game. Conservative Republican governors--and there are quite a few of them--will now be able to use the very same tactics to nullify initiatives that liberals have voted into law. They can refuse to defend or enforce an initiative like that, let its opponents find a sympathetic federal judge who will invalidate it, and when the initiative's liberal proponents try to appeal the ruling against it in federal court, they may not have the standing needed to do it. If and when that starts happening, we will see if the people who are so pleased with Hollingsworth are still smiling.

I saw a solution suggested that makes some sense. It was for this or another state's voters to design a mechanism that would allow the proponents of initiatives to defend them in court when elected officials refused to. The voters would then propose this mechanism as an initiative itself. The person who suggested this thought that if an initiative like this passed, elected officials would be very leery about trying to block it. I agree.
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 994
Prop 8
Posted: 6/27/2013 11:13:22 PM
Skooch - You're right, there's nothing I can do about a Supreme Court decision, or non-decision.
I did shift some funds into Johnson & Johnson, the makers of K-Y products. Seems like a solid "forward-thinking" kind of investment, don't you agree?
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 995
Prop 8
Posted: 6/28/2013 4:31:42 PM
Another view :
"JP Morgan's man in the White House: Barack Obama's legacy of ashes
19.06.2013"
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists
"At one time, it seems decades ago now, the general thinking in the USA was that President Barack Obama would jolt the American political system into actually doing something beneficial for its citizens rather than spying on them, building F-35 aircraft, upgrading nuclear weapons, spending trillions of dollars (US) on national security, cutting unemployment benefits/food stamps, fomenting war with Iran, Syria, China and Russia; and dragging out the war in Afghanistan.

It is a damn shame!! Why? Why?

Sadly, Barack Obama's legacy will be one of ashes. The destruction of America's social fabric; the implementation of a surveillance corporate-state; assassination and negation of Habeas; and a perpetual state of emergency/war economy will come to dominate the historical narrative on the Obama presidency. President Obama will also go down in US history as the American President who paved the way for the financial industry to dismantle Social Security. With the Executive Powers he has accrued and newly created, future American President's will, by fiat, be able to sell off national park lands and other US assets, even the nation's artwork: citizens of Detroit, Michigan and Greece, Eurozone, are undergoing the pillaging now (see below Greece Memo, Detroit Creditors)."
excerpted-
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 996
Prop 8
Posted: 6/29/2013 9:10:00 PM
Skooch - My apologies are in order. I posted my message on the wrong thread.
Show ALL Forums  > California  >