quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I'm not talking about simple majority rule... I'm talking about a representative republic. And those who were elected as representatives of the people are not doing so because they believe they know better. Winning an election is not a blank check of power to do whatever you want and believe is best for the people. Our founders are rolling over in their graves right now. Look what happened in California yesterday. People are cheering the legalization of gay marriage, but what really happened? We had a single Federal judge overturn a legal State decision made by 7 million California voters to make same-sex marriage unconstitutional in their state. The people of CA properly amended their own state Constitution through the legal process. But 1 Federal judge (who is gay) reversed it because he didn't agree with it. If your vote in California doesn't count, and outcomes are at the discretion of a Federal activist judge, then what have we become?

You sound like you want some sort of totalitarian government.

Also 7 million people isn't a majority in California of raw populace, hell its not even the population of LA.

And actually Kevin if we elected officials to do anything less than do what they think is best for people why even have a government? You are saying they should have an obligation to sometimes not do what is best for the people? That doesn't even make sense.

Listen, Republicans, you included are selfish, horrible people that only look out for themselves despite the goal of PROGRESS. We need progress! PROGRESS!

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss We had a single Federal judge overturn a legal State decision made by 7 million California voters to make same-sex marriage unconstitutional in their state. The people of CA properly amended their own state Constitution through the legal process. But 1 Federal judge (who is gay) reversed it because he didn't agree with it. If your vote in California doesn't count, and outcomes are at the discretion of a Federal activist judge, then what have we become?

Heh, "federal activist judge". Okay. Yeah, I guess it's alright for the majority of people to vote in favor of discrimination, huh? I'm not trying to turn this into a debate about gay marriage (please, lets steer clear of that) but really, you're saying that it's okay to amend a constitution in favor of discrimination?

I don't care if he's gay or not, anybody with half a brain who read his reason for throwing Prop-8 in the shitter would go, "Yeah, that makes sense."

so we can boil this all down to 17sss doesn't want gays to get married.

Or that he thinks that if seven million Californians say that discrimination is okay, then it's okay to discriminate. Ya know, that good 'ole, "Everybody else is doing it!" mentality.

Kevin also thinks the civil rights act was a bad thing too.

I guess the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads "no State shall... deny to any person... the equal protection of the laws", means nothing to him, as well. I really had no idea that a portion of the population in one state had the right to change our country's constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss well, no I'm not kidding because the agenda items he, Pelosi, and Reid have passed and/or want to pass are not supported by a majority. and they don't give a fuck. representative republic? Ha!

That's a talking point - a common refrain repeatedly aired by Republican pundits. That doesn't constitute the evidence for rape of the majority of the population, along with the middle finger. Tell me specifically how you are being raped. I'm very concerned for your welfare. I think rape is a horrible crime and if you are being repeatedly savaged by your brutal spouse, I want to know.

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

- Country has chance to vote for president
- Country chooses candidate whose policies and ideas they agree with
- Country votes in the majority for specific person
- Said person is inaugurated as president
- Kevin claims majority didn't approve said policies

quote:

Originally posted by idoru - Country has chance to vote for president - Country chooses candidate whose policies and ideas they agree with - Country votes in the majority for specific person - Said person is inaugurated as president - Kevin claims majority didn't approve said policies

Kevin is claiming the proletariat is being raped by the bourgeoisie only instead of seeing the proletariat as the working poor and the bourgeoisie as the bankers, land owners, and manufacturers it's the other way around - Ayn Rand's classic reversal of parasite and host, and a tactic in argument currently being employed by Republican pundits.

The fact is that the movement's arguments mirror aspects of a lot of the historical dialog taking place in the 1930's. Back then, however, the proletariat really was the proletariat and the bourgeoisie really was the bourgeoisie. Host and parasite. Rapist and victim.

ANY argument which satisfies the premise of this core narrative, having been pushed now for approximately a little over a decade, is considered valid. It might not be true but feigning victimization, no matter how humiliating, has more public relations zazz than being a rapist. Just listening to the pundits in the past few months, I've heard horrible, horrible tales of Obama skull fucking his multitudinous victims ("shoving it[any legislation] down our throats.").

We should applaud Kevin! It takes great courage and resolve to come forward as a rape victim.

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby You sound like you want some sort of totalitarian government. Also 7 million people isn't a majority in California of raw populace, hell its not even the population of LA. And actually Kevin if we elected officials to do anything less than do what they think is best for people why even have a government? You are saying they should have an obligation to sometimes not do what is best for the people? That doesn't even make sense.

As I try and defend a representative republic, and not the issues, you say I want some sort of totalitarian government? I didn't say 7 million people was the majority of Californians- that is the number of people in CA who voted to uphold Prop 8, which was a majority of 53% in the overall vote. But you're missing the point- we are electing officials to represent us, but then after they're in power they are doing their own thing in contrast to what their constituents actually expected when they voted. They don't get elected to "do what's best for the people" by their personal perspective, they get elected to represent the desires of those who elect them.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow so we can boil this all down to 17sss doesn't want gays to get married.

No, quite the contrary... I couldn't give any less of a shit about that issue. What I do care about is some fucking Federal judge telling the people of California who legally and legitimately voted for a ballot initiative in their own state Constitution that their votes don't count, because he sees otherwise. This is a decision for the states unless and until congress passes a constitutional amendment and that amendment is ratified by the states. The Federal courts have absolutely no role in reversing the vote of the people of CA who properly amended their own Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru Heh, "federal activist judge". Okay. Yeah, I guess it's alright for the majority of people to vote in favor of discrimination, huh? I'm not trying to turn this into a debate about gay marriage (please, lets steer clear of that) but really, you're saying that it's okay to amend a constitution in favor of discrimination? I don't care if he's gay or not, anybody with half a brain who read his reason for throwing Prop-8 in the shitter would go, "Yeah, that makes sense."

Yeah... because it's so outlandish to suggest that Federal activist judges exist. The whole 9th Circuit Court of Appeals being activist and agenda driven is just a rumor. That's why the judge pressed for having video of the trial in the courtroom... so he could be seen as a great crusader of gay rights... because he's not an activist. That attempt was unprecedented and was struck down by the Supreme Court buddy. So you read his entire 139 page decision and thus came to the conclusion that it makes sense? Do tell. And don't give me that shit about discrimination... what about the fundamental right of a citizen's vote being respected? We are no longer a representative republic if that disappears, and that's the issue.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru I guess the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads "no State shall... deny to any person... the equal protection of the laws", means nothing to him, as well. I really had no idea that a portion of the population in one state had the right to change our country's constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment was never meant to address sex, gender, or orientation. There's no historical evidence anywhere to endorse this judge's decision. Throughout history, marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman, and there IS equal protection for that. So it's not "marriage" if the two people of the same sex get married. 5 + 5 is 10, not 11 if you want it to be 11; saying it's 10 doesn't make it discriminatory. Civil unions between the same sex have been legal in CA (and other states) for a long time. Why bastardize the definition of the word "marriage"? What's next... someone wants to marry their cat and it's discrimination if they can't? Where does it end?

quote:

Originally posted by idoru - Country has chance to vote for president - Country chooses candidate whose policies and ideas they agree with - Country votes in the majority for specific person - Said person is inaugurated as president - Kevin claims majority didn't approve said policies

If said country approved of said policies, and NOT just the soaring campaign rhetoric that differed, Obama wouldn't be at 41% approval, and the Democrat party wouldn't be on the verge of destruction in the upcoming November elections as they most certainly are. Missouri would not have just voted to opt out of Obamacare and it's individual mandate by a 40% margin on Tuesday. And so on.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Kevin also thinks the civil rights act was a bad thing too.

You're the biggest fucking idiot on TA. And your revisionist history is equally bad. Allow me to educate you. The KKK was established by the Democrat party. Republican President Ulysses Grant destroyed the KKK with the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Democrat President Woodrow Wilson premiered the movie "Birth of a Nation" in the White House, which spawned a new rise of the Klan. They became such a driving force within the Democrat party that in 1924, their Democrat National Convention was nicknamed "the Klanbake". In 1937 Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed a former member of the Klan, Senator Hugo Black (D-AL), to the Supreme Court.

In the 50s and 60s, members of the KKK who fought the civil rights movement were uniformly Democrats. Police commissioner Bull Connor not only attacked protesters with fire hoses, dogs and clubs, but served as both a KKK member and a committeeman for the Democrat Party.

Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was a recruiter and executive for the KKK. He filibustered the Civil Rights act, as did Al Gore Senior.... Democrat.

Read a fucking book.

Occasionally, I think I'm going to do a really big fart, but it ends up just a little one, like a 'pop'. If it's really humid (in my pants) sometimes the expelled air from the 'pop' gets trapped between my cheeks, and I can feel it travelling around when I clench/unclench my butt. Finally, it gets released, and then smells pretty bad.

___________________