Ca court overrules voters???

areyoushittin'me? · #**181** (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 11:06 AM

bluedog · #**182** (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Well....it certainly was presented in the right FORMAT, being the joke that it is, make believe animation. It should be ingested with all the comprehension in which it was derived, ONE DIMENSIONAL, and a good joke. Personally, I if want to be entertained by Make Believe and find laughter I prefer "Jeff Dunham" and Achmed the dead terrorist a least he presented "three dimensional" animation. BD

areyoushittin'me? · #**183** (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 11:50 AM

Appears he struck a chord.

bluedog · #**184** (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Appears he struck a chord.

Yes, it was entertaining....I enjoy humor. But I also realize, it is"only" presented as entertainment. I also enjoy a good work of fiction. This clearly was presented to capture the attention span of uneducated "college graduates" that are indoctrinated via "one dimensional" methods. Yes, I could see how this would be quite entertaining with a few "hits" of mental stimuli ingested. To each his/her own....go for it. I enjoy the side show, now all we need is some popcorn. BD

smart makes a comeback · #**185** (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAT

Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

According to this, every state MUST acknowledge any same-gendered amrriages made in Massachussettes.

Exactly, and this is re confirmed in both the 1st and 14th amendments.....this thread is becoming more and more silly with each post from the ignorant anti constitutional homophobic right

areyoushittin'me? · #**186** (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 12:14 PM

mulp · #**187** (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

Well, mulp. name a system that is perfect. Sure ours makes mistakes, its run by human beings, and they are fallible. Just imagine being in your precious Pakistan, being a young woman, alone with a male, not of her family. She get killed, no trial, no court no appeal. I'll still take our system over any other I have seen.

What I see from you is nothing more than criticism, and its not even constrictive criticism. If you disapprove so strongly, why are you still here. Lack of conviction? You don't even suggest corrective measures, so what does that make you? A cronic whiner.

Well, I embrace the spirit you can find in many historic American documents, expressed in the US Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The enlightenment out of which the US grew included a quest for perfection, with some believing that it could be accomplished by establishing communities in the new world that promote perfection. One of those groups we label Puritans, and they were far from perfect, and certainly unjust.

By the mid to late 18th century, the path pursued by those like the Puritans was one that the intellectual elite were unwilling to travel again. And while the colonial insurrection and rebellion grew out of commercial interests, the elite sought to use it to perfect the society of the American colonies. To be fair, one would have to say in 1750-1800 that England was, as you put it, "Sure ours makes mistakes, its run by human beings, and they are fallible. ... I'll still take our system over any other I have seen."

In the next week, Obama and Clinton will be campaigning in another of the territories of the US, territories that have the same level of representation in their government as did the American colonies did in theirs. What is the difference between Puerto Rico and the American English colonies in 1776?

What I am doing is pursuing enlightenment as did those whose names we often call on: Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, .... And like them, I look at history from as many points of view as I can in order to inform myself of a more perfect understanding of history. Then, like them, I write to illuminate what I hope is a more perfect truth, a more enlightened understanding of the present.

Jefferson was far from perfect, and was quite human, but he is often quoted out of context "the tree of liberty is...." which comes from a letter that would today be seen like Rev Wright's oft quoted sermon. Jefferson's sentiments would be characterized by today's conservatives as an apology for terrorists, as he was explaining the reasons for Shay's Rebellion, and calling for understanding their reasons, and then forgiving their rebellion.

And, like Jefferson, Madison, Adams, I seek change through the pen, not the sword. I would hope that in the late 18th century, I would have been speaking out in opposition to the violent revolution. Jefferson wasn't giving an ultimatum in what we call the Declaration of Independence, hoping instead to give the English Parliament a means to resolve the conflict without war. The King was offered as the scapegoat for Parliament's actions, so that a negotiated settlement was possible. But as in 2002, the hotheads were determined to resort to violence, the voices seeking a negotiated settlement, and fearing war, the Jeffersonian figures of 2002 were Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and others, people who in their younger years were more optimistic about the ability of being able to force more "perfection."

But if nothing else, I hope I can be a modern day Socrates who keeps asking the uncomfortable questions, who keeps things stirred up, who makes people angry. Socrates was condemned and executed in what one might call the most perfect democracy that ever existed, one where free speech was seen as necessary for democracy and where the citizens make every decision directly. Historians note that Athenians were constantly suing each other, and seeking the judgement of courts with small juries numbering 501 citizens. Socrates was essentially accused of the crime of being an elitist in a society that had had an uneasy relationship with the elite who exercised their free speech and caused discontent among the masses. And after being convicted by a jury of 1501, he was asked for his suggestion for a punishment, and he dismissed the masses by saying they should make him a hero; more voted to execute him than voted to convict him. Most people have heard of Socrates than of Athena or its accomplishments, those conservatives who praise democracy generally find Athenian values to be corrupting, what with their free speak, criticism of the gods, homosexuality, and especially their liberal intellectual elite.

So, what am I doing? Well, following the example of Socrates and Jefferson and other historic liberal thinkers and writers.

mulp · #**188** (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

Since marriage is not even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, its clealy a state issue. To be decided by each state as they deem appropriate.

That was true in 1796, but not after the ratification of the 14th amendment.

Of course, the full faith and credit clause requires the Federal government and all States to respect the laws of the States which aren't in conflict with the US Constitution, and the Mass Commonwealth document mandates the option of gay marriage, and that requires the Fedral government to recognize them as marriages. With seven justices appointed by Republicans, we can expect them to legislate to the contrary from the Supreme Court for some time.

But perfection is a long slow quest.

smart makes a comeback · #**189** (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

Well, I embrace the spirit you can find in many historic American documents, expressed in the US Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The enlightenment out of which the US grew included a quest for perfection, with some believing that it could be accomplished by establishing communities in the new world that promote perfection. One of those groups we label Puritans, and they were far from perfect, and certainly unjust.

By the mid to late 18th century, the path pursued by those like the Puritans was one that the intellectual elite were unwilling to travel again. And while the colonial insurrection and rebellion grew out of commercial interests, the elite sought to use it to perfect the society of the American colonies. To be fair, one would have to say in 1750-1800 that England was, as you put it, "Sure ours makes mistakes, its run by human beings, and they are fallible. ... I'll still take our system over any other I have seen."

In the next week, Obama and Clinton will be campaigning in another of the territories of the US, territories that have the same level of representation in their government as did the American colonies did in theirs. What is the difference between Puerto Rico and the American English colonies in 1776?

What I am doing is pursuing enlightenment as did those whose names we often call on: Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, .... And like them, I look at history from as many points of view as I can in order to inform myself of a more perfect understanding of history. Then, like them, I write to illuminate what I hope is a more perfect truth, a more enlightened understanding of the present.

Jefferson was far from perfect, and was quite human, but he is often quoted out of context "the tree of liberty is...." which comes from a letter that would today be seen like Rev Wright's oft quoted sermon. Jefferson's sentiments would be characterized by today's conservatives as an apology for terrorists, as he was explaining the reasons for Shay's Rebellion, and calling for understanding their reasons, and then forgiving their rebellion.

And, like Jefferson, Madison, Adams, I seek change through the pen, not the sword. I would hope that in the late 18th century, I would have been speaking out in opposition to the violent revolution. Jefferson wasn't giving an ultimatum in what we call the Declaration of Independence, hoping instead to give the English Parliament a means to resolve the conflict without war. The King was offered as the scapegoat for Parliament's actions, so that a negotiated settlement was possible. But as in 2002, the hotheads were determined to resort to violence, the voices seeking a negotiated settlement, and fearing war, the Jeffersonian figures of 2002 were Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and others, people who in their younger years were more optimistic about the ability of being able to force more "perfection."

But if nothing else, I hope I can be a modern day Socrates who keeps asking the uncomfortable questions, who keeps things stirred up, who makes people angry. Socrates was condemned and executed in what one might call the most perfect democracy that ever existed, one where free speech was seen as necessary for democracy and where the citizens make every decision directly. Historians note that Athenians were constantly suing each other, and seeking the judgement of courts with small juries numbering 501 citizens. Socrates was essentially accused of the crime of being an elitist in a society that had had an uneasy relationship with the elite who exercised their free speech and caused discontent among the masses. And after being convicted by a jury of 1501, he was asked for his suggestion for a punishment, and he dismissed the masses by saying they should make him a hero; more voted to execute him than voted to convict him. Most people have heard of Socrates than of Athena or its accomplishments, those conservatives who praise democracy generally find Athenian values to be corrupting, what with their free speak, criticism of the gods, homosexuality, and especially their liberal intellectual elite.

So, what am I doing? Well, following the example of Socrates and Jefferson and other historic liberal thinkers and writers.

It is off topic,,and perhaps better saved for a seperate thred...,but when I hear people refur to Jefferson as a liberal thinker...it sends chills down my spine. Even for his time, he was reactionary, and was pulled into Liberal thought kicking and screaming

More on topic, to hear a die hard right winger call another a "cronic whiner" lends a whole new meaning to textbook psycho projection

Teak · #**190** (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

Well, I embrace the spirit you can find in many historic American documents, expressed in the US Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The enlightenment out of which the US grew included a quest for perfection, with some believing that it could be accomplished by establishing communities in the new world that promote perfection. One of those groups we label Puritans, and they were far from perfect, and certainly unjust.

By the mid to late 18th century, the path pursued by those like the Puritans was one that the intellectual elite were unwilling to travel again. And while the colonial insurrection and rebellion grew out of commercial interests, the elite sought to use it to perfect the society of the American colonies. To be fair, one would have to say in 1750-1800 that England was, as you put it, "Sure ours makes mistakes, its run by human beings, and they are fallible. ... I'll still take our system over any other I have seen."

In the next week, Obama and Clinton will be campaigning in another of the territories of the US, territories that have the same level of representation in their government as did the American colonies did in theirs. What is the difference between Puerto Rico and the American English colonies in 1776?

What I am doing is pursuing enlightenment as did those whose names we often call on: Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, .... And like them, I look at history from as many points of view as I can in order to inform myself of a more perfect understanding of history. Then, like them, I write to illuminate what I hope is a more perfect truth, a more enlightened understanding of the present.

Jefferson was far from perfect, and was quite human, but he is often quoted out of context "the tree of liberty is...." which comes from a letter that would today be seen like Rev Wright's oft quoted sermon. Jefferson's sentiments would be characterized by today's conservatives as an apology for terrorists, as he was explaining the reasons for Shay's Rebellion, and calling for understanding their reasons, and then forgiving their rebellion.

And, like Jefferson, Madison, Adams, I seek change through the pen, not the sword. I would hope that in the late 18th century, I would have been speaking out in opposition to the violent revolution. Jefferson wasn't giving an ultimatum in what we call the Declaration of Independence, hoping instead to give the English Parliament a means to resolve the conflict without war. The King was offered as the scapegoat for Parliament's actions, so that a negotiated settlement was possible. But as in 2002, the hotheads were determined to resort to violence, the voices seeking a negotiated settlement, and fearing war, the Jeffersonian figures of 2002 were Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and others, people who in their younger years were more optimistic about the ability of being able to force more "perfection."

But if nothing else, I hope I can be a modern day Socrates who keeps asking the uncomfortable questions, who keeps things stirred up, who makes people angry. Socrates was condemned and executed in what one might call the most perfect democracy that ever existed, one where free speech was seen as necessary for democracy and where the citizens make every decision directly. Historians note that Athenians were constantly suing each other, and seeking the judgement of courts with small juries numbering 501 citizens. Socrates was essentially accused of the crime of being an elitist in a society that had had an uneasy relationship with the elite who exercised their free speech and caused discontent among the masses. And after being convicted by a jury of 1501, he was asked for his suggestion for a punishment, and he dismissed the masses by saying they should make him a hero; more voted to execute him than voted to convict him. Most people have heard of Socrates than of Athena or its accomplishments, those conservatives who praise democracy generally find Athenian values to be corrupting, what with their free speak, criticism of the gods, homosexuality, and especially their liberal intellectual elite.

So, what am I doing? Well, following the example of Socrates and Jefferson and other historic liberal thinkers and writers.

Mulp, you ain't no Socrates, Jefferson, Madison, or Adams and to even try comparing yourself to any of them points out what an inflated ego you have. In all the claptrap you have posted you have done nothing but whine about conditions. I'm willing to bet that is how you have led your entire life, never contributing one thing positive to any aspict of it.