The Associated Press is reporting that the appeals court has ruled California’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, so we know what the next big right wing freak-out will be.
Here’s a link to the court’s decision.
Also see:
Prop. 8: Gay-Marriage Ban Unconstitutional, Court Rules
1 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:04:57am |
And on to the SC where it will be decided on completely partisan lines.
| 2 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:05:43am |
"WE NEED A FEDERAL LAW!"
Except if the Federal law makes it legal, then we'll hear "STATES RIGHTS!"
| 3 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:06:30am |
re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
"WE NEED A FEDERAL LAW!"
Except if the Federal law makes it legal, then we'll hear "STATES RIGHTS!"
Yes that will come as soon as the SC renders its judgement upholding the Appeals Court decision.
| 4 |
AK-47% Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:08:49am |
I wanna hear another inspiring Newt Gingrich speech on the Sanctity of Marriage. Please....
| 5 |
simoom Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:10:47am |
Poll: Birtherism seems to be resurgent among republicans:
[Link: today.yougov.com...]
"Barack Obama was born in the United States": Republicans Only,
Answered: TrueApril 2011
Before [2nd] Release of Birth Certificate - 30%
After [2nd] Release of Birth Certificate - 47%
---
January 2012 - 27%
| 6 |
shreck Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:10:47am |
Why bother holding elections at all, just let some judge decide.
| 8 |
wrenchwench Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:11:38am |
Black-robed cabalist manipulative Mandarins impeachable offense ignoring the will of the people!!1!
| 10 |
wrenchwench Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:12:25am |
re: #8 wrenchwench
I see I was about a minute slow on that one...
| 11 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:12:40am |
re: #6 shreck
Why bother holding elections at all, just let some judge decide.
Why should civil rights be a matter of a vote?
| 13 |
Locker Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:13:02am |
[Link: blogs.sacbee.com...]
Sacramento Bee on the decision.
| 14 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:13:09am |
re: #10 wrenchwench
I see I was about a minute slow on that one...
The times we live in. They're fast!
| 15 |
William Barnett-Lewis Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:13:31am |
re: #6 shreck
Karma: -9
shreck
(Logged in)
Registered since: Dec 11, 2007 at 11:01 am
No. of comments posted: 57
No. of Pages posted: 0
Stick around. Actually say something with thought behind it. But really, the little bit of a dropping is unworthy of even a troll.
| 16 |
shreck Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:13:42am |
re: #9 Gus 802
Butthurt?
I could care less, I just thought if the voters in Cali voted to change the law then they get to change the law. Actually this is why democracies are dangerous.
| 17 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:13:47am |
re: #6 shreck
We don't live in a flat democracy, but a representative one that enshrines protection of the minority. The judicial branch's ability to override majority rule is important-- as we saw with integration.
| 20 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:15:08am |
re: #11 Sergey Romanov
Why should civil rights be a matter of a vote?
They shouldn't. Regrettably when it comes to the SC, I am not sure it is any different. It is basically a vote, just one that was cast years earlier. I have little faith that this will get decided by the SC in any way other than on the partisan lines by which they were appointed.
| 21 |
Locker Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:15:24am |
re: #6 shreck
Why bother holding elections at all, just let some judge decide.
Because this isn't a straight democracy you freaking dumbass we use a 3 branch system. Why do people like you just pretend you can't hear or understand this basic fact about our own government.
We use a 3 branch system and specifically the judicial branch to stop the majority from fucking the minority which is obviously something you aren't happy about.
| 22 |
shreck Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:16:03am |
| 23 |
Locker Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:16:43am |
re: #22 shreck
No really I don't. Trust me.
Why would anyone trust someone who is so misinformed about our own system of government? I wouldn't trust you to pick your nose.
| 24 |
shreck Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:16:45am |
re: #21 Locker
Because this isn't a straight democracy you freaking dumbass we use a 3 branch system. Why do people like you just pretend you can't hear or understand this basic fact about our own government.
We use a 3 branch system and specifically the judicial branch to stop the majority from fucking the minority which is obviously something you aren't happy about.
Did you read what I said about democracies dumbass?
| 25 |
Locker Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:16:59am |
re: #24 shreck
Did you read what I said about democracies dumbass?
duh democracies are dangerous.. duhhhhhhhhhh
| 27 |
dragonfire1981 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:17:21am |
Interestingly, this story hasn't even popped up on Fox News yet.
| 28 |
Gus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:17:26am |
re: #16 shreck
I could care less, I just thought if the voters in Cali voted to change the law then they get to change the law. Actually this is why democracies are dangerous.
The judiciary always gets a chance to review laws whether they be created by referendum or through the legislature. You obviously don't have a full grasp of this democracy.
| 29 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:17:45am |
re: #16 shreck
(Charles? Please don't ban it, pretty please?)
So you agree that if 50%+1 vote to make Soylent Green out of the 50%-1, it should be done?
| 30 |
shreck Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:18:30am |
re: #29 Sergey Romanov
(Charles? Please don't ban it, pretty please?)
So you agree that if 50%+1 vote to make Soylent Green out of the 50%-1, it should be done?
No I think democracies are two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
| 31 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:18:33am |
re: #28 Gus 802
The judiciary always gets a chance to review laws whether they be created by referendum or through the legislature. You obviously don't have a full grasp of this democracy.
Fuck it. Lets just go with a simple thumbs up or thumbs down, followed by the gladiator.
| 32 |
steve_davis Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:18:57am |
re: #5 simoom
It isn't that Birtherism is resurgent amongst Republicans. It's that there are far, FAR fewer people now who are self-identifying as Republicans for the purposes of polling (at least, that's a guess, because the alternative is that people who believed the president was born here have suddenly decided he wasn't, which doesn't make any sense). So now, we're getting a more condensed version of crazy in polling.
| 33 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:18:59am |
re: #29 Sergey Romanov
(Charles? Please don't ban it, pretty please?)
So you agree that if 50%+1 vote to make Soylent Green out of the 50%-1, it should be done?
No, no, this is "why democracies are dangerous".
Also, Shreck don't care. He don't give a shit.
| 34 |
Sionainn Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:19:07am |
re: #27 dragonfire1981
Interestingly, this story hasn't even popped up on Fox News yet.
They are likely trying to put their own special spin on it.
| 36 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:19:27am |
I guess someone here never heard the term "Tyranny of the majority"
| 37 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:19:34am |
re: #30 shreck
No I think democracies are two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
OK. So what should the system be?
| 38 |
Alexzander Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:19:39am |
re: #30 shreck
No I think democracies are two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
What's your username on the stalker blog and why did you decide to start posting today?
| 39 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:19:41am |
re: #30 shreck
No I think democracies are two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
So you support the court's decision then.
9_9
| 40 |
shreck Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:19:41am |
re: #33 iossarian
No, no, this is "why democracies are dangerous".
Also, Shreck don't care. He don't give a shit.
Oh I'll give a shit to anyone who asks nicely.
| 41 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:19:47am |
I'm surprised that I am not surprised at all.
| 42 |
Locker Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:19:51am |
re: #30 shreck
No I think democracies are two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
It's funny how you bluster and demand everyone read what you said while you completely ignore all of the basic and common sense information being provided to you to correct your jacked up viewpoint.
Ignoring it to cause more drama makes you a troll... a willfully ignorant troll.
| 44 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:20:13am |
re: #31 Petero1818
Fuck it. Lets just go with a simple thumbs up or thumbs down, followed by the gladiator.
Gladiator?
Well, she certainly seemed happy.
/rimshot
| 45 |
dragonfire1981 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:20:22am |
re: #16 shreck
I could care less, I just thought if the voters in Cali voted to change the law then they get to change the law. Actually this is why democracies are dangerous.
So if a majority of people agree it's ok so say, break into houses and steal peoples stuff, then we should just let it go because hey, that's what the majority wants?
There's a flaw in here somewhere...
| 46 |
SpaceJesus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:20:47am |
re: #6 shreck
Why bother holding elections at all, just let some judge decide.
Fall asleep in government class did we?
| 47 |
shreck Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:20:50am |
re: #39 iossarian
So you support the court's decision then.
9_9
Actually yes, however I thought that the voters changed the Cal constitution.
| 48 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:20:55am |
BTW, where's DF when he's needed?
| 49 |
dragonfire1981 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:21:26am |
Damn, Judge says Texas Sonogram law can stand:
"A federal judge on Monday upheld the Texas law requiring women to have a sonogram before having an abortion, saying an appeals court had forced him to declare the law constitutional.
District Judge Sam Sparks had previously struck down parts of the law, but his latest ruling said he's bound to follow the direction of the New Orleans-based appeals court."
(Got it off Fox, but don't want to link them)
| 50 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:22:03am |
re: #47 shreck
Actually yes, however I thought that the voters changed the Cal constitution.
And the change was ruled to be illegal in a court of law because it violated the rights of other citizens.
| 51 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:22:45am |
re: #47 shreck
Actually yes, however I thought that the voters changed the Cal constitution.
Plz answer the question as to what political system is the best then.
Also, can you explain why you wrote in the first comment "Why bother holding elections at all, just let some judge decide.", which has obvious negative connotations, and now you write that you actually support the decision?
| 52 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:23:20am |
re: #37 Sergey Romanov
OK. So what should the system be?
I propose a system based on people doing what I tell them to do.
| 53 |
lawhawk Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:23:24am |
re: #6 shreck
The courts do play a role in whether laws are unconstitutional. Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment. There's no legitimate reason to treat gays differently than heterosexuals.
Prop 8 was an attempt to overturn the California Constitution, which permitted gay marriage.
| 54 |
Gus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:23:39am |
Article III | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
| 55 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:23:46am |
Whew. I'm glad we got that all cleared up.
re: #51 Sergey Romanov
Also, can you explain why you wrote in the first comment "Why bother holding elections at all, just let some judge decide.", which has obvious negative connotations, and now you write that you actually support the decision?
OR PERHAPS NOT
| 56 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:24:08am |
re: #52 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I propose a system based on people doing what I tell them to do.
Motion dismissed.
| 57 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:24:44am |
re: #16 shreck
I could care less
You have the ability to care less about this. Therefore, you do care.
If you did not have the ability to care less about this, as in "couldn't care less" that would mean that you didn't care.
Funny. I probably have five grammar mistakes in my correction.
| 58 |
Varek Raith Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:24:50am |
| 59 |
dragonfire1981 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:24:56am |
Here's a non Fox Link:
| 60 |
ramex Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:24:59am |
re: #30 shreck
No I think democracies are two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
This ruling shows how democracies are precisely not that thing about predator and prey you claim they are.
| 61 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:25:23am |
| 62 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:25:52am |
| 64 |
shreck Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:26:12am |
re: #51 Sergey Romanov
Plz answer the question as to what political system is the best then.
Also, can you explain why you wrote in the first comment "Why bother holding elections at all, just let some judge decide.", which has obvious negative connotations, and now you write that you actually support the decision?
The best political system would be the smallest. I see that my comment was negative but it seems capracious to overturn the election.
| 65 |
William Barnett-Lewis Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:26:35am |
re: #29 Sergey Romanov
(Charles? Please don't ban it, pretty please?)
Agreed. This ones almost as much fun as Alaska Kim was.
| 66 |
dragonfire1981 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:26:38am |
Prop 8 ban major story on Yahoo homepage and CNN, still MIA on Fox News.
| 67 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:26:57am |
re: #64 shreck
Make up your fucking mind whether you support or oppose the decision.
| 68 |
wrenchwench Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:27:04am |
re: #16 shreck
I could care less, I just thought if the voters in Cali voted to change the law then they get to change the law. Actually this is why democracies are dangerous.
No, this isn't why democracies are dangerous. Prop. 8 is why democracies are dangerous.
I'll re-ask Sergey's question: Why should civil rights be a matter of a vote?
| 69 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:27:10am |
| 70 |
shreck Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:27:13am |
| 71 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:27:21am |
re: #57 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Man, I don't know how to fix that.
| 73 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:27:43am |
re: #64 shreck
The best political system would be the smallest.
MUST... FIGHT... URGE... TO... USE... LOGIC...
| 75 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:28:33am |
re: #64 shreck
The best political system would be the smallest.
I'm almost afraid to ask, but the smallest what?
I see that my comment was negative but it seems capracious to overturn the election.
Um. Either you agree, or disagree. Make up your mind.
| 76 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:28:40am |
re: #69 Sergey Romanov
No you.
I propose a compromise.
Lets base our government on a moistened bint who lobs scimitars.
| 78 |
Locker Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:28:57am |
Trolls don't answer questions or use logic. They just talk shit, smear strained pees in their hair and clap with delight at the disruption they cause. Ball gag works wonders.
| 79 |
Gus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:29:25am |
re: #78 Locker
Trolls don't answer questions or use logic. They just shit, smear strained pees in their hair and clap with delight at the disruption they cause. Ball gag works wonders.
The passive stage comes next.
| 81 |
lawhawk Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:29:48am |
re: #68 wrenchwench
Civil rights have been established and reinforced both by courts and by vote.
The 13th and 14th Amendments were legislatively created (and votes required to confirm as amendments to the US Constitution. States have amended their own constitutions similarly.
Other times, it has been up to the courts to protect civil rights - notably Brown and its progeny.
| 83 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:29:55am |
| 84 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:30:03am |
re: #76 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I propose a compromise.
Lets base our government on a moistened bint who lobs scimitars.
FARCICAL AQUATIC CEREMONY
| 85 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:30:27am |
re: #76 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I propose a compromise.
Lets base our government on a moistened bint who lobs scimitars.
I propose basing it on a crustacean that whistles on a mountain after a Thursday rain.
| 86 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:30:39am |
| 87 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:30:58am |
| 88 |
Kronocide Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:31:31am |
re: #6 shreck
Why bother holding elections at all, just let some judge decide.
Why have rights at all, just let people vote on it.
| 89 |
wrenchwench Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:31:32am |
re: #64 shreck
The best political system would be the smallest. I see that my comment was negative but it seems capracious to overturn the election.
I'm sure you meant 'capricious', but I'm not sure why. Did they not consider the issue thoroughly?
| 90 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:31:37am |
re: #85 Sergey Romanov
I propose basing in on a crustacean that whistles on a mountain after a Thursday rain.
Too Disney.
| 91 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:32:36am |
| 92 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:32:50am |
| 93 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:33:14am |
| 94 |
RIRedinPA Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:33:19am |
re: #16 shreck
It doesn't work that way. The whole beauty of the Constitution is that it was designed by intent to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. When the mob votes to take away a right from a segment of society and compell them to second class citizenry there has to be a more compelling reason than "I don't like gays" or "it goes against my religion".
| 95 |
Daniel Ballard Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:33:23am |
Whew! Took a few minutes, but I made this Page as a reference to help discussion on SCOTUS and the certain appeal on Prop 8. Links to On The Issues
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 96 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:33:32am |
| 97 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:33:40am |
| 98 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:34:00am |
re: #92 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Waaay too Disney.
You guys just cannot be appeased. So it is decided.
| 99 |
wrenchwench Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:34:33am |
re: #81 lawhawk
Civil rights have been established and reinforced both by courts and by vote.
The 13th and 14th Amendments were legislatively created (and votes required to confirm as amendments to the US Constitution. States have amended their own constitutions similarly.
Other times, it has been up to the courts to protect civil rights - notably Brown and its progeny.
Thanks for this. I'd rather be corrected than continue to sound ignorant.
Others don't seem to mind so much.
| 100 |
dragonfire1981 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:34:44am |
It's up on Fox now. The vultures strike:
Every several hundred years, the people of a nation need to rally together and drag all their judges and politicians into the street for a good old fashion thrashing......Think it's about time here!!
This court violated the Constitution of the United States. Not unusual territory for them, though. Actually READING the Constitution WOULD be unusual territory for this appeals court.
Its pretty sad when the will of the people is only obeyed when its convenient for liberals.
Our judicial system is out of control. Liberal appointments are ruining this country.
Its a real shame California has any impact on the rest of America!
Well, it's election year, those politicians want that phag vote, especially Obama, he wants all the low-life votes
This is another sign the democracy in usa is over.The voice of sovran is muzzled by 2 people????since when a court can decide against millions of people,especially in america,a common law country.probably these 2 judges are g#@y too
| 101 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:35:04am |
re: #70 shreck
You might want to start "ogre".
| 102 |
RIRedinPA Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:35:41am |
re: #27 dragonfire1981
It takes time to frame something as dangerous that isn't. Probably trying to cue up video from the Stonewall riots and/or as offensive a pride parade attendee as they can find.
| 103 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:36:35am |
re: #100 dragonfire1981
It's up on Fox now. The vultures strike:
Ah yes the "phag and low life" demographic. That is what won the 2008 election./
| 104 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:36:49am |
Shreck, come back! All is forgiven.
*sidewink*
| 105 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:37:11am |
re: #16 shreck
I could care less, I just thought if the voters in Cali voted to change the law then they get to change the law. Actually this is why democracies are dangerous.
No, civil rights issues are not up to a vote.
That's why black people can vote in Mississippi now, where they largely could not in my father's childhood.
Says a Cali Voter.
| 106 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:38:37am |
re: #24 shreck
Did you read what I said about democracies dumbass?
Sure, I read it. Explain what you mean by it.
I would say, yes, pure democracies are dangerous, which is not news, and is one of the reasons we have the system we have. What's YOUR intent there.
| 107 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:38:57am |
(Did the crowd tear the poor beast apart? Damn, that was fast.)
| 108 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:39:09am |
re: #100 dragonfire1981
Its a real shame California has any impact on the rest of America!
Yeah, why the hell should one of the most populous states, with a higher economic output than most of the rest of the country, which has a reputation for the arts and higher learning, plus having an enormous agricultural base have any affect on the country at all?
| 109 |
Gus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:39:51am |
@davidfrum davidfrum
A happier Valentines day to all Californians.
| 110 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:40:02am |
re: #30 shreck
No I think democracies are two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
Or, in Prop 8s case, two wolves and a sheep voting on whether a sheep can get married.
| 111 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:40:15am |
Some really good news here. Now if only they'd let the marriages resume while waiting for the SC.
| 112 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:40:29am |
re: #36 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I guess someone here never heard the term "Tyranny of the majority"
Or did...he seems to have the concept, I'm just not sure how he's applying it.
| 113 |
William of Orange Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:41:14am |
First Handel quits, now this!
Did I hear some wingnut heads explode??!!
| 114 |
Interesting Times Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:41:25am |
OT - Putin made this possible:
Horrifying footage of Syrian bloodshed, by BBC reporter who managed to get "smuggled" into Homs
| 115 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:41:35am |
re: #47 shreck
Actually yes, however I thought that the voters changed the Cal constitution.
No, they voted to do so. The courts stepped in.
| 116 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:41:53am |
Finally, a flag-worshiping moment to feel good about.
| 117 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:42:03am |
I think at this point in history the primary meaning of a democracy is the "majority rules, minority rights" type of a democracy. A liberal democracy. This is what is meant by the "spread of democracy" in political speeches etc. I.e. democracy is automatically tied to human rights.
The "direct democracy" AKA "mob rule" AKA ochlocracy is pretty much a secondary meaning, if that.
| 118 |
William of Orange Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:42:42am |
re: #6 shreck
Why bother holding elections at all, just let some judge decide.
Wow...
A grand total of -62 in Karma for you. Could someone inform me what this man is doing here?
| 119 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:42:47am |
re: #114 publicityStunted
Death porn. I'll just read about it if that's okay.
| 120 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:42:48am |
re: #64 shreck
The best political system would be the smallest. I see that my comment was negative but it seems capracious to overturn the election.
I think the court would tell you that what would have been capricious is allowing a state proposition to enshrine inequality in the state constution. That's what we're on about here.
| 121 |
HappyWarrior Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:42:51am |
I expect Newt Gingrich to use this ruling to bash judges he doesn't agree with yet again and to claim that this is religious persecution.
| 122 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:43:15am |
re: #118 William of Orange
Wow...
A grand total of -62 in Karma for you. Could someone inform me what this man is doing here?
Shhh. He might sweep the bottom ten.
| 123 |
dragonfire1981 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:43:19am |
I paged the Sonogram story for you folks:
| 124 |
CarleeCork Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:43:23am |
re: #16 shreck
I could care less, I just thought if the voters in Cali voted to change the law then they get to change the law. Actually this is why democracies are dangerous.
There's this thing called The Constitution. It's the Law of our land.
| 125 |
HappyWarrior Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:44:15am |
re: #100 dragonfire1981
It's up on Fox now. The vultures strike:
Love it when right wingers act like tough guys when these freaks are nothing buy keyboard commandos.
| 126 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:46:29am |
re: #121 HappyWarrior
I expect Newt Gingrich to use this ruling to bash judges he doesn't agree with yet again and to claim that this is religious persecution.
Yeah Newt has a slew of talking points in the last few days. I suspect he will have a mini surge on it. The Egypt -Iran / Obama- Carter thing, Prop 8, and Planned Parenthood. This is all manna to him.
| 127 |
Interesting Times Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:46:37am |
re: #119 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Death porn. I'll just read about it if that's okay.
Normally I feel the same way, but this is an exception. It's needed to drive home the point that Putin is providing the weapons used to butcher civilians. And were it not for site policies, I would describe in graphic detail the "poetic justice" deserved by him and his chinless little buddy Assad.
| 128 |
wrenchwench Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:47:30am |
re: #118 William of Orange
Wow...
A grand total of -62 in Karma for you. Could someone inform me what this man is doing here?
Bad karma is not a banable offense in itself.
| 129 |
Gus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:48:24am |
re: #128 wrenchwench
Bad karma is not a banable offense in itself.
There is a certain current record holder. I think he's at -5,000 or so?
| 130 |
uncah91 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:48:35am |
FYI
I think democracies are two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
is a an allusion to a quote I see a libertarian buddy of mine use on some frequent basis:
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
I really don't know how that quote applies negatively to the decision to protect the rights of minorities in this decision, but there you go.
| 131 |
Robert O. Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:48:37am |
First off, HOORAY for equality and congratulations to the gay community.
For the afterthought, this is all the more reason to ensure President Obama is re-elected. The next President is likely to nominate at least one - possibly more - Supreme Court judges. It is also a possibility that the Taliban folks will attempt to push this to the Supreme Court. We have to ensure that the Republican Party is not in a position to push more activist conservative judges in SCOTUS, who have already given us such disastrous decisions as Citizens United.
| 132 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:48:53am |
re: #16 shreck
I could care less, I just thought if the voters in Cali voted to change the law then they get to change the law. Actually this is why democracies are dangerous.
And there was a vote a long time ago that led to prohibition, which was arguably wrong. There were votes in states that led to Jim Crow laws which were, undeniably wrong. Just because people vote for something doesn't make it right. In this case the judges found, initially, that the law being passed was in violation of the state constitution and now federal judges have found it to be in violation of the U.S. constitution making it....unconstitutional. In our system of government if something is found to be unconstitutional it is, by it's nature, invalid and does not stand to be law.
| 133 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:49:13am |
| 134 |
dragonfire1981 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:49:48am |
Ok, so I know we all don't like Fox News much, but I've been tracking the comments over there and I see a surprising number of people dropping in to defend the decision and slam the wingnuts upset about it. Far less one sided than other Fox comment threads have been.
| 135 |
Gus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:49:49am |
re: #129 Gus 802
There is a certain current record holder. I think he's at -5,000 or so?
Oops. -9,263
| 136 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:50:03am |
re: #127 publicityStunted
Normally I feel the same way, but this is an exception. It's needed to drive home the point that Putin is providing the weapons used to butcher civilians. And were it not for site policies, I would describe in graphic detail the "poetic justice" deserved by him and his chinless little buddy Assad.
Putin wants the Syrian option open for dissent at home.
| 137 |
celticdragon Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:50:07am |
re: #47 shreck
Actually yes, however I thought that the voters changed the Cal constitution.
They did. State Constitutions do not get to run athwart the US Constitution...and by first extending the right of marriage and then taking it away for no apparent purpose, the California voters ran afoul of equal protection guarantees.
| 138 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:50:54am |
It's a damn shame that I'm a boil on the ass of the blogosphere and nobody cares what I have to say. Oh woe is me.
LGF Irrelevance Watch -- quoted at Politico (again): [Link: www.politico.com...]
| 139 |
Sheila Broflovski Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:52:40am |
re: #6 shreck
Because a majority can not vote to deprive a minority of their rights.
| 140 |
dragonfire1981 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:52:41am |
Gingrich responds to ruling on Twitter:
Court of Appeals overturning CA's Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary. Let's end judicial supremacy
| 141 |
William of Orange Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:53:14am |
re: #138 Charles
It's a damn shame that I'm a boil on the ass of the blogosphere and nobody cares what I have to say. Oh woe is me.
LGF Irrelevance Watch -- quoted at Politico (again): [Link: www.politico.com...]
Don't worry. We still love you. :-)
| 142 |
Renaissance_Man Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:53:35am |
re: #130 uncah91
I really don't know how that quote applies negatively to the decision to protect the rights of minorities in this decision, but there you go.
Whenever a libertarian uses that quote, it means 'whenever there's a policy decision I don't like, I'm going to get all upset and demand anarchy and revolution, and I can do it because I have a gun which makes me super tough'.
| 143 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:54:10am |
re: #140 dragonfire1981
Gingrich responds to ruling on Twitter:
Court of Appeals overturning CA's Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary. Let's end judicial supremacy
Is that real?
| 144 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:54:43am |
re: #138 Charles
It's a damn shame that I'm a boil on the ass of the blogosphere and nobody cares what I have to say. Oh woe is me.
LGF Irrelevance Watch -- quoted at Politico (again): [Link: www.politico.com...]
I'm sure the stalker blog gets quoted there all the time.
/
| 145 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:55:02am |
re: #140 dragonfire1981
yes, let's do away with the referree here and just make Newt supreme leader and everything will be ok. Doing away with an independent judiciary is one of the steps down the path to totalitarianism,.
| 146 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:55:18am |
Heh. It's real
[Link: twitter.com...]
| 147 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:55:30am |
re: #143 Killgore Trout
Is that real?
It sure is:
Court of Appeals overturning CA's Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary. Let's end judicial supremacy bit.ly/nyblQ7
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) February 7, 2012
| 148 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:55:36am |
re: #140 dragonfire1981
Gingrich responds to ruling on Twitter:
Court of Appeals overturning CA's Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary. Let's end judicial supremacy
Gingrich would replace it with rule by decree.
| 149 |
ProGunLiberal Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:55:39am |
| 150 |
dragonfire1981 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:55:48am |
Santorum tweets his thoughts on the 9th circuit:
"Given the opportunity, the 9th Circus would strike down the Constitution as unconstitutional."
| 151 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:56:26am |
re: #148 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Gingrich would replace it with rule by decree.
ON DAY 1 OF HIS PRESIDENCY
| 152 |
Randall Gross Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:56:52am |
Rights that a simple majority can vote away are not rights at all. Let's hear it for some good work by the courts.
| 153 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:57:10am |
re: #150 dragonfire1981
Santorum tweets his thoughts on the 9th circuit:
"Given the opportunity, the 9th Circus would strike down the Constitution as unconstitutional."
Yeah, "upholding the rights of all citizens", whats that shit about?
| 154 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:57:15am |
Gingrich has been saying that the President should just ignore any Supreme Court rulings he doesn't like: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 155 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:58:01am |
re: #147 Charles
It sure is:
Pretty amazing. I'm reading his constitutional fantasies now.
[Link: www.newt.org...]
| 156 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:58:03am |
| 158 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:58:19am |
That there's even a question of which way the Supreme Court would rule on this issue is very sad.
| 159 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:58:36am |
re: #154 Charles
Gingrich has been saying that the President should just ignore any Supreme Court rulings he doesn't like: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
Because he loves the Constitution.
| 160 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:58:40am |
re: #156 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Day 1, Year 1 N.E. (Newt Era).
Its going to be a really really long day.
| 161 |
ProGunLiberal Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:58:46am |
re: #154 Charles
Newt seems to think that being President makes you Dictator.
| 162 |
lawhawk Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:59:02am |
re: #154 Charles
Gingrich has been saying that the President should just ignore any Supreme Court rulings he doesn't like: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
Do as I say, just don't do as I do. And if President Obama were to comply with the court decision (let alone ignore one) with that same kind of attitude Newt says, Newt would be the first to bring the tar and feathers (and pitchforks).
| 163 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:59:18am |
re: #161 ProLifeLiberal
Newt seems to think that being President makes you Dictator.
He's got the dick part down pat.
| 164 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:00:14am |
re: #138 Charles
Are we a left-wing blog now?
| 165 |
Varek Raith Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:00:34am |
re: #161 ProLifeLiberal
Newt seems to think that being President makes you Dictator.
No, these fancy clothes do.
| 166 |
Archangelus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:01:15am |
re: #127 publicityStunted
Normally I feel the same way, but this is an exception. It's needed to drive home the point that Putin is providing the weapons used to butcher civilians..
Actually, he's doing more than that; Russia is apparently supplying weapons to both sides of the Syrian conflict - seems they don't care who's killing who, just so long as they make a profit off of it. And if those pesky rebels actually do win and Assad falls, then they'll be able to marginalize the involvement with Assad and portray themselves as having been on the rebel's side the whole time. Everything's legitimate for the sake of preserving economic (sales) and strategic (Tarsus port) interests in the region - human rights be damned...
| 167 |
Gus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:01:21am |
re: #147 Charles
It sure is:
@Gus_802 Gus
@newtgingrich Says the man on his third marriage. #p2 #tlot #prop8 #farright #extremist
| 168 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:01:31am |
| 169 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:02:01am |
re: #164 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Journalists love their classifications. There's no point in even protesting about it -- it's just what they do.
| 170 |
William of Orange Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:02:12am |
Another great result of this ruling:
I guess this ruins Karen Handel's podium!!
| 171 |
Gus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:02:35am |
re: #164 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Are we a left-wing blog now?
Hard to tell. The other night I was ready to bomb Assad's troops.
//
| 172 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:02:40am |
re: #164 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Are we a left-wing blog now?
Obama himself would be chased out as a wingnut troll.
| 173 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:02:44am |
re: #169 Charles
Journalists love their classifications. There's no point in even protesting about it -- it's just what they do.
I still prefer anti-idiotarian.
| 174 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:02:54am |
re: #164 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Are we a left-wing blog now?
But I thought we were a bunch of rabid right wing nutjobs?
| 175 |
Lidane Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:02:59am |
Dear wingnuts --
Civil Rights don't get to be voted on. Deal. With. It.
No love,
Me
| 176 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:03:12am |
re: #172 Killgore Trout
Obama himself would be chased out as a wingnut troll.
*Not intended to be a factual statement.
| 177 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:03:56am |
re: #164 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Are we a left-wing blog now?
It depends. Are dislike for injustice, pseudoscience, abrogation of civil rights - left-wing values in the US right now?
Or has the right in general (not every single individual, of course), by abandoning them, has made anybody concerned about them "left-wingers" in at least some sense? I guess, it could be argued to be so.
| 178 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:04:02am |
re: #175 Lidane
Dear wingnuts --
Civil Rights don't get to be voted on. Deal. With. It.
No love,
Me
Two protesters interrupted Newt Gingrich at a campaign stop in Minnesota last night, challenging, “Why do you support discrimination against gays and lesbians all the time? Serial hypocrisy!” and “No hate in our state, why do you discriminate?” The crowd responded by booing the activists and chanting “Newt!” while Gingrich rebuffed the disruptions, saying, “My guess is it’s 407 to three.”
| 179 |
William of Orange Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:04:06am |
| 180 |
Gus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:04:13am |
re: #176 Obdicut
*Not intended to be a factual statement.
90 percent* of the people at LGF would chase Obama out of LGF as a wingnut!
*Not intended to be a factual statement.
//
| 181 |
Renaissance_Man Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:04:16am |
re: #164 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Are we a left-wing blog now?
Conservativist media has successfully redefined the word in modern America, so successfully that essentially all forms of media now use their definition. Which is, anything that espouses total hatred of Democrats, liberals and wants to radically change the USA into a libertarian anarchy is 'conservative'. All other viewpoints are 'lefty'.
| 182 |
ProGunLiberal Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:04:28am |
re: #166 Archangelus
If the Dissidents do overthrow Al-Assad, I don't think they would be keeping the deals with Russia, not after this.
| 183 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:06:13am |
re: #172 Killgore Trout
Obama himself would be chased out as a wingnut troll.
Well, let's see, you haven't been chased out, but Obama would be. The assumption is that he would be chased out from the far left blog. Ergo, you're to the left of Obama?
| 184 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:06:28am |
re: #182 ProLifeLiberal
If the Dissidents do overthrow Al-Assad, I don't think they would be keeping the deals with Russia, not after this.
That makes me worried. What do the Russians know that we don't? How far is Assad going to go to protect his regime? The Russians wouldn't be siding with him if they didn't think he'll last.
| 185 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:06:56am |
I have to say though -- since the right wing has gone completely bonkers, and the right wing blogosphere is now dominated by people who are utterly blind with hatred of everything that isn't them, if I have to be classified I'd much rather be "left wing."
| 186 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:07:05am |
re: #161 ProLifeLiberal
Newt seems to think that being President makes you Dictator.
Yes. No exaggeration there. He seems to believe that a president can do whatever he wants, without interference from other branches of government.
Which is sort of odd. He might recall what he did to poor ol' Bill Clinton back in the day, and be mindful that he would have a Congress too.
| 187 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:07:16am |
re: #183 Sergey Romanov
Well, let's see, you haven't been chased out, but Obama would be. The assumption is that he would be chased out from the far left blog. Ergo, you're to the left of Obama?
Or he is so far left, he's looped around right, and Kilgore is actually Karl Rove.
| 188 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:07:53am |
re: #185 Charles
Let's face it, the republican party and conservatives have gone so far out into the twilight zone that even reality is liberal at this point.
| 189 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:08:10am |
re: #183 Sergey Romanov
Well, let's see, you haven't been chased out, but Obama would be. The assumption is that he would be chased out from the far left blog. Ergo, you're to the left of Obama?
Actually by quite a bit. Gay Marriage for example. I'm a full on supporter of gay marriage and adoption. Obama, not so much.
| 190 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:08:12am |
re: #187 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Or he is so far left, he's looped around right, and Kilgore is actually Karl Rove.
So crazy it actually makes sense.
/
| 191 |
ProGunLiberal Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:08:21am |
re: #184 Killgore Trout
Now that you brought it up, I worry too. How far are Russia and China willing to let Assad go?
I think it is safe to say that, after this, there is a more positive view of the US. We didn't veto on this, so our stock rises as compared to Russia and China's.
| 192 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:09:22am |
re: #189 Killgore Trout
Actually by quite a bit. Gay Marriage for example. I'm a full on supporter of gay marriage and adoption. Obama, not so much.
But that's why you're not a President in the first place. //
| 193 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:10:17am |
re: #191 ProLifeLiberal
Now that you brought it up, I worry too. How far are Russia and China willing to let Assad go?
I think it is safe to say that, after this, there is a more positive view of the US. We didn't veto on this, so our stock rises as compared to Russia and China's.
It's a complicated situation. Russia and China are also probably going to stick with Iran. Things could get real complicated if they know what they're doing. I'm hoping they are making a mistake like they did with Libya.
| 194 |
Archangelus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:10:19am |
re: #182 ProLifeLiberal
If the Dissidents do overthrow Al-Assad, I don't think they would be keeping the deals with Russia, not after this.
Pretty much. There's nothing but hate coming from the dissidents and the civilians in the bombed cities when it comes to Putin. It was the case before the massacre over the weekend, and 1000x more the case after the Russian veto at the UN Security council.
Russia is still clinging to the illusion that they can pull this off without consequences, but if I were the Russian envoy visiting Syria this week to try and work a negotiation, I'd be fearful for my very life.
| 195 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:15:28am |
re: #189 Killgore Trout
Actually by quite a bit. Gay Marriage for example. I'm a full on supporter of gay marriage and adoption. Obama, not so much.
FASCIST OBAMA HATES GAY PEOPLE !!1!
| 196 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:15:58am |
Israeli hackers take down Hamas website
Israeli hackers took down a website run by Hamas on Tuesday, and warned that the web company which hosted the site will be their next target.
The 'IDF Team' hacker group took responsibility for the attack.
The affected website, [Link: www.qasssam.ps,...] is run by Hamas's Izzadin al-Qassam Brigades terrorist force, and often displays content celebrating rocket fire on Israeli civilians from Gaza.
The website was unavailable after IDF Team said it would take the site offline.
IDF Team added that it had first sent an email to the Nashirnet web hosting company asking them "to remove the Hamas terrorist site. But we got a negative answer."
Heh.
| 197 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:16:36am |
Completely OT
Last night, my daughter comes up and asks me if I have $10. I respond "No, but I've got 2 fives." She immediately grabs both my wrists and says, "I know what you had in mind."
Next time child, next time.
| 198 |
Archangelus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:17:30am |
re: #184 Killgore Trout
What do the Russians know that we don't? How far is Assad going to go to protect his regime?
In a nutshell, it seems Russia is planning for Assad to either leave voluntarily or run like hell if it comes to it. Sources seem to indicate that he's set up a safe haven in Moscow. Either way, the Russians have too much at stake (from their perspective) to risk losing Syria. As for Assad, the short answer is that he'll do anything and everything to protect his regime. It's more than just some leader trying to cling on to his rule by all means possible. He has the family "legacy" to maintain (which has been pressure enough over the years, as the son, in local eyes, doesn't even come close to the dead father), and the Allawite minority might suffer severe repercussions at the hands of the Sunni majority in the country if and when the regime collapses.
7000 killed is nothing as far as he's concerned. He'd risk slaughtering much if he'd think it would stabilize things (his father slaughtered more in the day). IMO, he'll stop at nothing until the very end.
| 199 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:19:10am |
re: #197 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Son: Dad? Can I have fifty dollars?
Dad: Forty dollars?! What do you need thirty dollars for? Here's ten bucks, give five to your brother.
| 200 |
palomino Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:20:33am |
re: #195 iossarian
FASCIST OBAMA HATES GAY PEOPLE !!1!
If that were true, he might get a few Republican votes.
Seriously, though, Obama may not have come out in favor of gay marriage yet, but he's far to the left of any of the GOP's candidates on the overall issue of gay rights.
| 201 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:21:24am |
The main reason why Russian govt doesn't want to be neutral again in the SC is Putin's view of the wily US plans for the Middle East (or in the world in general; "Orangist threat" and such). I was very surprised, in fact, when we didn't vote "no" on Libya. Medvedev still had a lot of influence at the time, and even publicly squabbled a bit with Putin on the issue, and I guess Putin let him do his thing and see what comes next. What came next was absolutely not to his liking and was covered rather negatively in the state media.
With Medvedev basically castrated, pre-election-wise, it would be no longer possible for him to influence things on Syria, even if he wanted to, which he probably doesn't anyway, since the reaction to the Libyan vote has been negative. So it was straight out of question that the Russian envoy would not vote "no" in SC when the next batch of shit hit the fan. It's incompatible with the anti-Western views now being pushed in aftermath of Libya.
| 202 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:22:19am |
re: #200 palomino
During the last POTUS election, I seem to recall him coming out squarely against gay marriage.
I'm wrong?
| 203 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:22:26am |
re: #196 NJDhockeyfan
Israeli hackers take down Hamas website
Heh.
And I applaud this criminal hacking just as I applaud some of the Anon's criminal hacking. (If Slumbering Behemoth reads this one ;).
| 204 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:22:53am |
re: #200 palomino
If that were true, he might get a few Republican votes.
Seriously, though, Obama may not have come out in favor of gay marriage yet, but he's far to the left of any of the GOP's candidates on the overall issue of gay rights.
I know - it's just such a standard right-wing desperation move: "Obama opposes gay marriage".
It's so obvious when you think about it - that's why he's doing nothing to avoid the spread of gay marriage throughout the US. It's all part of his tricky Mooslem stealthiness.
| 205 |
HappyWarrior Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:23:16am |
re: #200 palomino
If that were true, he might get a few Republican votes.
Seriously, though, Obama may not have come out in favor of gay marriage yet, but he's far to the left of any of the GOP's candidates on the overall issue of gay rights.
That's true. Can't imagine any of them doing what Obama did with DADT. Obama does need to be better on this issue but he is better on these kind of issues than the Republican candidates who by and large try to outdo each other by seeing who can be most reactionary on gay rights issues.
| 206 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:23:44am |
re: #200 palomino
If that were true, he might get a few Republican votes.
Seriously, though, Obama may not have come out in favor of gay marriage yet, but he's far to the left of any of the GOP's candidates on the overall issue of gay rights.
As I recall I think he's in favor of civil unions but not marriage.
| 207 |
Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:24:16am |
re: #178 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Someone can save that "407 to 3" quote for the next time Newt throws a tantrum over losing a vote.
| 208 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:24:51am |
re: #206 Killgore Trout
As I recall I think he's in favor of civil unions but not marriage.
Heh. Recently I got convinced that he is secretly pro-SSM, but talks the moderate talk for political convenience. (Shocka!)
| 209 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:25:03am |
re: #189 Killgore Trout
Actually by quite a bit. Gay Marriage for example. I'm a full on supporter of gay marriage and adoption. Obama, not so much.
Well, except for not defending DOMA, voting against FMA, And when has he opposed gay adoption?
| 210 |
Varek Raith Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:25:08am |
re: #207 oaktree
Someone can save that "407 to 3" quote for the next time Newt throws a tantrum over losing a vote.
Bazinga!
| 211 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:26:14am |
Anyone who says they support gay marriage but won't vote for Obama against any of the Republican hopefuls is not being 100% serious.
| 212 |
Altermite Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:27:06am |
re: #211 iossarian
Anyone who says they support gay marriage but won't vote for Obama against any of the Republican hopefuls is not being 100% serious.
On gay marriage, they aren't that far apart thus far. On gay rights in general is where the differences appear.
| 213 |
Kragar Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:27:22am |
Romney Camp Sets Expectations To Zero For Tuesday Contests
Tuesday night sees GOP caucus contests in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota. And it would seem the Romney campaign’s internal polling suggests things aren’t looking too great for the GOP frontrunner in any of them. His team is scrambling to submerge expectations to ocean-floor depths, sending out a memo downplaying the contests’ importance and stressing that the March 6 Super Tuesday states should be the real test of Romney’s momentum.
According to the memo, by Romney political director Rich Beeson, “we expect our opponents to notch a few wins” over the course of the race, but the campaign plans to win with its superior resources over the long haul. It also stressed that the caucuses Tuesday in Minnesota and Colorado don’t immediately award any delegates and the Missouri primary doesn’t award delegates period (Gingrich isn’t on the ballot either). The basic gist of the message: ignore everything that happens in February no matter what.
| 214 |
Altermite Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:27:39am |
Also, I know its a thing that Romney will say anything to get elected, but Newt has really blown him out of the water on that front.
| 215 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:28:10am |
re: #205 HappyWarrior
That's true. Can't imagine any of them doing what Obama did with DADT. Obama does need to be better on this issue but he is better on these kind of issues than the Republican candidates who by and large try to outdo each other by seeing who can be most reactionary on gay rights issues.
Politically a lot of this stuff is untouchable so he'd have to wait for a second term. Unfortunately, Dems lost congress and Republicans are going to block everything. I had hopes we might see a Federal decriminalization of weed but that's looking doubtful.
He's also probably going to leave office with Gitmo still open, indefinite detention laws and a whole bunch of other stuff still on the books.
I have slim hope that someday we might see publicly funded campaigns but that's also looking very doubtful.
| 216 |
HappyWarrior Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:28:27am |
I think the only truly sincerely anti gay Republican candidate is Santorum. Mitt and Gingrich see gay bashing as a means to get nominated and elected more than anything else.
| 217 |
HappyWarrior Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:29:19am |
re: #215 Killgore Trout
Politically a lot of this stuff is untouchable so he'd have to wait for a second term. Unfortunately, Dems lost congress and Republicans are going to block everything. I had hopes we might see a Federal decriminalization of weed but that's looking doubtful.
He's also probably going to leave office with Gitmo still open, indefinite detention laws and a whole bunch of other stuff still on the books.
I have slim hope that someday we might see publicly funded campaigns but that's also looking very doubtful.
Yeah, political realities make a lot of this stuff hard. Hence why I have my disappointments with him but I don't feel "sold out" either.
| 218 |
Archangelus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:30:00am |
re: #214 Altermite
Also, I know its a thing that Romney will say anything to get elected, but Newt has really blown him out of the water on that front.
It's not even close IMO - might as well be comparing Bambi vs. Godzilla...
| 219 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:30:01am |
re: #208 Sergey Romanov
Heh. Recently I got convinced that he is secretly pro-SSM, but talks the moderate talk for political convenience. (Shocka!)
MAybe, it's always hard to tell with these guys. Clinton and Dubya also governed as moderates. Some of it's practical, some of it political. We can only guess what they really believe in their hearts.
| 220 |
General Nimrod Bodfish Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:30:55am |
OT:
Argentinian leader plans big announcement amid Falklands tensions
Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has announced plans for what local media are calling a major announcement Tuesday amid escalating tensions between Argentina and Great Britain over the Falkland Islands.
Kirchner is gathering ruling and opposition party politicians, diplomats and veterans from the 1982 war between Britain and Argentina over the South Atlantic islands, which Argentina calls Las Malvinas, the English-language Buenos Aires Herald reported. Her announcement is scheduled for 7 p.m. local time (5 p.m. ET).
Speculation in recent days has been that Kirchner will cut the Falklands air link to the South American mainland by banning the airline LAN Chile from using Argentinian airspace to fly to the islands from Chile. The Saturday flights are the only scheduled air service to the Falklands and carry fresh food as well as passengers, Britain's Sky News reports.
| 221 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:31:19am |
re: #212 Altermite
On gay marriage, they aren't that far apart thus far. On gay rights in general is where the differences appear.
re: #216 HappyWarrior
I think the only truly sincerely anti gay Republican candidate is Santorum. Mitt and Gingrich see gay bashing as a means to get nominated and elected more than anything else.
Once again, what politicians think in private is completely irrelevant. How they vote, and (secondarily, though importantly in the case of presidential candidates) what they say about how they will vote in the future, is what counts.
On that measure, there is absolutely no comparison between Obama and, essentially, any current mainstream Republican politician on the issue of gay rights.
| 222 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:31:32am |
re: #211 iossarian
Anyone who says they support gay marriage but won't vote for Obama against any of the Republican hopefuls is not being 100% serious.
I find that interesting given your earlier statements regarding people voting against their self interest. There are many fiscal conservatives who personally support the right of gays to marry but to be honest, may feel that the issue is of little relevance to their own life. They will vote with their pocketbook and hope for the best in the gay marriage debate.
| 223 |
palomino Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:32:00am |
re: #202 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
During the last POTUS election, I seem to recall him coming out squarely against gay marriage.
I'm wrong?
If he had come out "squarely against gay marriage," he probably wouldn't have opposed Prop 8 in California. But he did oppose it, and has never supported anything along the lines of a fed. law or const. amendment defining marriage as between only man and woman.
Like I said, he hasn't endorsed SSM yet, but he's far to the left of any of the GOP candidates on the overall issues of gay rights. Am I wrong?
| 224 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:32:14am |
re: #217 HappyWarrior
Yeah, political realities make a lot of this stuff hard. Hence why I have my disappointments with him but I don't feel "sold out" either.
I don't feel sold out at all. He's actually exceeded my expectations. Healthcare reform was a huge success that dems have been trying to pass for at least 20 years. I think he's ecxellent in the "war on terror" (or whatever they're calling it these days). He's also doing pretty damn well on foreign policy.
| 225 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:32:23am |
re: #217 HappyWarrior
Yeah, political realities make a lot of this stuff hard. Hence why I have my disappointments with him but I don't feel "sold out" either.
In retrospect, he has accomplished some amazing things, what with all the opposition from all the R's and stupid centrist D's.
And he's been taking a lot of flak for being slow on DADT, for having his lawyers defend it in courts, etc. At the time it was very annoying. But in retrospect? He did everything right, by the book, and made the policy iron-clad, and the reversal of the policy a political suicide (IMHO). Well played, Mr. President!
| 226 |
Archangelus Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:32:50am |
re: #216 HappyWarrior
I think the only truly sincerely anti gay Republican candidate is Santorum. Mitt and Gingrich see gay bashing as a means to get nominated and elected more than anything else.
Mitt will say anything to get elected. Newt on the other hand is just an equal-opportunity hater.
| 227 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:33:33am |
re: #222 Petero1818
I find that interesting given your earlier statements regarding people voting against their self interest. There are many fiscal conservatives who personally support the right of gays to marry but to be honest, may feel that the issue is of little relevance to their own life. They will vote with their pocketbook and hope for the best in the gay marriage debate.
OK, let me rephrase that to include the sub-clause that a "fiscal conservative" who will vote for a homophobe because he thinks he'll get a tax cut is a special kind of shitbag not covered by the main "not 100% serious" clause.
| 228 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:33:53am |
re: #217 HappyWarrior
Yeah, political realities make a lot of this stuff hard. Hence why I have my disappointments with him but I don't feel "sold out" either.
You will feel damn good about those political realities on (god forbid) President Gingrich's first day in office.
| 229 |
palomino Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:33:54am |
re: #205 HappyWarrior
That's true. Can't imagine any of them doing what Obama did with DADT. Obama does need to be better on this issue but he is better on these kind of issues than the Republican candidates who by and large try to outdo each other by seeing who can be most reactionary on gay rights issues.
Indeed many GOP politicians, including most of the presidential circus boys, want to reinstate DADT.
| 230 |
HappyWarrior Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:34:57am |
re: #226 Archangelus
Mitt will say anything to get elected. Newt on the other hand is just an equal-opportunity hater.
Newt's just an as big opportunist and flop artist as Mitt is. "We don't agree on much do we Nancy."
| 231 |
HappyWarrior Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:36:21am |
re: #224 Killgore Trout
I don't feel sold out at all. He's actually exceeded my expectations. Healthcare reform was a huge success that dems have been trying to pass for at least 20 years. I think he's ecxellent in the "war on terror" (or whatever they're calling it these days. He's also doing pretty damn well on foreign policy.
I have to agree in many ways. Still have some disappointments but HCR was as the veep put it a big fucking deal and getting Bin Laden and Qaddafi knocked out was huge. I wasn't surprised by his toughness on foreign policy. He was never a dove.
| 232 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:37:00am |
re: #230 HappyWarrior
Newt's just an as big opportunist and flop artist as Mitt is. "We don't agree on much do we Nancy."
I agree. Mitt just panders at a dumber level. I don;t think either Mitt or Newt are dangerous ideologues. They're campaign promises are pretty hollow.
| 233 |
palomino Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:37:23am |
re: #206 Killgore Trout
As I recall I think he's in favor of civil unions but not marriage.
But Obama opposes taking away marriage rights in states that already have it. (Thus his opposition to Prop 8). His statements that "my position is evolving" is something of a dodge. But it's still far more progressive than anything you'll find in the GOP, since it involves the concept of evolution (even if not necessarily the Darwinian type).
| 234 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:39:31am |
re: #232 Killgore Trout
I agree. Mitt just panders at a dumber level. I don;t think either Mitt or Newt are dangerous ideologues. They're campaign promises are pretty hollow.
Oops, I meant that Newt panders are the dumber level. Mitt has enough sense to avoid some of the more outlandishly stupid stuff.
| 235 |
uncah91 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:39:55am |
As to where Obama stands on gay marriage, there was a greal SNL bit after the VP debate where the the Joe Biden character did all but french kiss the idea of gay marriage, and then when asked "So you support gay marriage?" He said "No! Not at all."
That has pretty much been Obama's position all along. Civil Unions that act in all ways as marriage. Yeah, a politicians cop out, but essentially supporting the ideas of gay marriage without wanting to call it that.
| 236 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:40:06am |
re: #233 palomino
He voted against FMA, so I really don't see how he's done anything to actually oppose gay marriage except that say he prefers full-right civil unions. It's a dumb position, but voting against FMA is the important vote, so is instruction the DOJ not to defend DOMA, etc.
| 237 |
HappyWarrior Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:40:21am |
re: #221 iossarian
re: #216 HappyWarrior
Once again, what politicians think in private is completely irrelevant. How they vote, and (secondarily, though importantly in the case of presidential candidates) what they say about how they will vote in the future, is what counts.
On that measure, there is absolutely no comparison between Obama and, essentially, any current mainstream Republican politician on the issue of gay rights.
I don't disagree with you. I am just saying that I think Romney and Gingrich play the anti gay card to get political points and honestly I think that's scum. And I don't think they're identical to Obama on gay rights issues just to clear up my position. I'd like Obama to be more progressive on this issue but he has been better than McCain would be or any of the Republicans running against him. That alone is a huge plus for him in my book.
| 238 |
Daniel Ballard Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:42:03am |
re: #219 Killgore Trout
MAybe, it's always hard to tell with these guys. Clinton and Dubya also governed as moderates. Some of it's practical, some of it political. We can only guess what they really believe in their hearts.
It seems the day to day job reality of that high office has a rather severe centrist bias. Especially when things are being run with less deliberate manufactured drama than the past 12 years or so.
| 239 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:44:11am |
re: #237 HappyWarrior
I don't disagree with you. I am just saying that I think Romney and Gingrich play the anti gay card to get political points and honestly I think that's scum. And I don't think they're identical to Obama on gay rights issues just to clear up my position. I'd like Obama to be more progressive on this issue but he has been better than McCain would be or any of the Republicans running against him. That alone is a huge plus for him in my book.
Yeah, I realized you weren't really disagreeing with me.
I'm not sure that being anti-gay for votes is necessarily worse than being anti-gay because you're a bit slow*, but I can see where you're coming from there.
* See, e.g., [Link: www.joe.ie...]
| 240 |
William of Orange Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:45:12am |
re: #147 Charles
It sure is:
[Video]
Off-topic:
Can you post pictures now on LGF or is that a CJ privilege?
| 241 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:45:19am |
| 242 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:46:47am |
re: #240 William of Orange
Off-topic:
Can you post pictures now on LGF or is that a CJ privilege?
| 243 |
Daniel Ballard Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:47:31am |
re: #241 Charles
I can only laugh at what maybe went through the Secret Service squad leaders head when he started seeing what was coming in with the kids.
"A marshmallow WHAT?"
| 244 |
General Nimrod Bodfish Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:48:14am |
re: #241 Charles
Either astounded, or just realized that marshmallow was on a trajectory towards something very, very expensive LOL
| 245 |
HappyWarrior Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:48:20am |
re: #239 iossarian
Yeah, I realized you weren't really disagreeing with me.
I'm not sure that being anti-gay for votes is necessarily worse than being anti-gay because you're a bit slow*, but I can see where you're coming from there.
* See, e.g., [Link: www.joe.ie...]
I don't know what's worse to be honest with you-being sincerely bigoted i.e. Santorum or being a pandering jerk like Romney. I liken it to what happened during the Civil Rights era where there were sincere hardcore racists but also panderers like George Wallace. Anyhow, I think the country is moving forward on this issue and that's a great thing.
| 246 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:48:46am |
re: #227 iossarian
OK, let me rephrase that to include the sub-clause that a "fiscal conservative" who will vote for a homophobe because he thinks he'll get a tax cut is a special kind of shitbag not covered by the main "not 100% serious" clause.
I think you are way off base here. Asking a fiscal conservative 60 year old man - who may not know or socialize with any (out) gay people and who is on the verge of retirement - to vote on the issue of gay marriage rather than on the issue of whether his capital gains income (which may end up being 100% of his income in a year or so) should be taxed at 15%, 25% or 50% is truly confused and short sighted. I don't think it makes that person a shitbag. Right or wrong is a discussion you can have. Shitbag?
| 247 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:49:32am |
re: #240 William of Orange
Off-topic:
Can you post pictures now on LGF or is that a CJ privilege?
Check out the labels on those buttons next to "Post It".
| 249 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:50:55am |
re: #246 Petero1818
Why should it take knowing someone personally to be able to understand they deserve equal civil rights?
| 250 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:51:22am |
| 251 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:52:11am |
re: #249 Obdicut
Why should it take knowing someone personally to be able to understand they deserve equal civil rights?
It most certainly does not. But asking someone to vote against their perceived economic interests over one particular issue that may seem pretty remote to them, is deserving of a reality check.
| 252 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:52:46am |
Pump it up!
Image: x610.jpg
| 253 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:53:10am |
re: #249 Obdicut
Why should it take knowing someone personally to be able to understand they deserve equal civil rights?
People don't like to think of old people as being bigoted, I think is the issue.
On a somewhat related note, I think that one of the worst outcomes of the past 30 years has been the transferral of retirement financial security from a social obligation to a private one, in that it raises exactly the kinds of issue that we see here: the tying of one's personal comfort in retirement to the espousal of radical right-wing bigotry.
| 254 |
JeffM70 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:53:25am |
I'm not at all in support of the amendment, but it seems to me that a voter-approved amendment would pass judicial muster. It is a bit different than the government acting on its own. We shall see as no doubt it's heading to the Supreme Court.
| 255 |
Olsonist Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:54:21am |
Hmmm. Are those Halal or Kosher marshmallows?
| 256 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:55:03am |
re: #251 Petero1818
Why not? We ask people that all the time. That's the basis of society, that not everything is going to be in your best immediate interest.
| 257 |
Charles Johnson Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:55:38am |
The Supreme Court may very well overrule the Ninth Circuit on Prop 8 - don't forget that they're dominated by conservatives now, as a result of W's appointments.
This is why elections really do matter.
| 258 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:55:46am |
Republicans, incidentally, are quite keen on raising taxes on retirees at the moment, in order to provide tax breaks for the obscenely wealthy.
Socially liberal older people voting Republican to protect their financial security are misguided in more ways than one.
| 259 |
Varek Raith Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:55:58am |
| 260 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:56:30am |
Image: 610x.jpg
"Anyone who don't wanna get shot better clear on out the back"
/Unforgiven
| 261 |
HappyWarrior Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:57:14am |
I figure: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts to vote to overturn
Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg, Breyer to confirm.
Kennedy is the one that's up in the air.
| 262 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:57:44am |
re: #259 Varek Raith
Where's Sarkozy when he's needed?
Heh, Maybe Obama will bring it along to the next G20 meeting. They'd just end up shooting it at the cute chicks.
| 263 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:57:50am |
re: #241 Charles
Weird trivia bit... Gators love marshmallows.
Rode through the swamps on day on a gator tour, that's how they lured them out. Tossed marshmallows in the water.
They don't know why it works. I'm guessing because they taste good.
| 264 |
NJDhockeyfan Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:58:11am |
| 265 |
AK-47% Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:58:25am |
re: #64 shreck
The best political system would be the smallest. I see that my comment was negative but it seems capracious to overturn the election.
I agree that the smaller the better, but that line of thinking has been twisted into the Grover Norquist notion that the best government is the one so small that you can drown it in a bathtub.
| 266 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:58:32am |
re: #263 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Weird trivia bit... Gators love marshmallows.
Rode through the swamps on day on a gator tour, that's how they lured them out. Tossed marshmallows in the water.
They don't know why it works. I'm guessing because they taste good.
I'm thinking it's the Boy Scout association.
| 267 |
Varek Raith Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:59:10am |
| 268 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:59:36am |
re: #261 HappyWarrior
I figure: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts to vote to overturn
Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg, Breyer to confirm.
Kennedy is the one that's up in the air.
Thomas just "calls balls and strikes". I'm sure he'll go with the Constitution.
/
| 269 |
Lidane Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:59:50am |
re: #261 HappyWarrior
I figure: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts to vote to overturn
Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg, Breyer to confirm.
Kennedy is the one that's up in the air.
It all depends on how he interprets what he reads:
| 270 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:00:02pm |
re: #253 iossarian
People don't like to think of old people as being bigoted, I think is the issue.
On a somewhat related note, I think that one of the worst outcomes of the past 30 years has been the transferral of retirement financial security from a social obligation to a private one, in that it raises exactly the kinds of issue that we see here: the tying of one's personal comfort in retirement to the espousal of radical right-wing bigotry.
No I was trying to set out an example of a person that believes he "has no dog in the fight". The perception may be, Sure gays can marry, what do I care, or what is the big difference in gay marriage and civil unions. They may not be bigots at all and may be in favor of gay unions and or marriage. BUT, that is not the basis on which they vote. They vote with their pocketbook. And if you said to them are you willing to give up 30% of your retirement income so Jon and Jack can get married, they might say, you know I wish the best for Jon and Jack, but I am not going to eat saltines and spam for the next 20 years so they can get hitched.
| 271 |
prairiefire Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:00:57pm |
This is very good news. Now let's see what the Supreme Court says.
| 272 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:01:12pm |
re: #270 Petero1818
And if you said to them are you willing to give up 30% of your retirement income so Jon and Jack can get married, they might say, you know I wish the best for Jon and Jack, but I am not going to eat saltines and spam for the next 20 years so they can get hitched.
That isn't a realistic scenario, though. No part of it. And there is benefit to him to having gay people get married.
| 273 |
HappyWarrior Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:02:04pm |
re: #268 iossarian
Thomas just "calls balls and strikes". I'm sure he'll go with the Constitution.
/
STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST! Except he's really not. Anyhow, speaking of the USSC- I've been reading The Brethren by Woodward for the last few weeks. Seems to me that the judicial activist meme started in the Warren Court years. I still contend that this adage: that a judicial activist is a judge that rules against your beliefs and a strict construction is one who affirms yours to be true. You never hear Republican candidates complaining about judges ruling activist like on issues favorably to them.
| 274 |
iossarian Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:02:49pm |
re: #270 Petero1818
No I was trying to set out an example of a person that believes he "has no dog in the fight". The perception may be, Sure gays can marry, what do I care, or what is the big difference in gay marriage and civil unions. They may not be bigots at all and may be in favor of gay unions and or marriage. BUT, that is not the basis on which they vote. They vote with their pocketbook. And if you said to them are you willing to give up 30% of your retirement income so Jon and Jack can get married, they might say, you know I wish the best for Jon and Jack, but I am not going to eat saltines and spam for the next 20 years so they can get hitched.
Well, I find it really hard to believe that there are people about to retire who would be both:
A) 30% worse off in net income under the Democrats and
B) in a low enough income bracket that they would be forced to eat saltines and spam as a result
But as a hypothetical I suppose it works.
| 275 |
allegro Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:04:00pm |
re: #265 ralphieboy
I agree that the smaller the better, but that line of thinking has been twisted into the Grover Norquist notion that the best government is the one so small that you can drown it in a bathtub.
In this as in... yanno, other things... it isn't the size, it's the effectiveness. The size of government is meaningless and the idiots who scream about "smaller government" are just showing their ignorance and willingness to be led by entirely empty rhetoric.
| 276 |
Targetpractice Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:04:13pm |
re: #257 Charles
The Supreme Court may very well overrule the Ninth Circuit on Prop 8 - don't forget that they're dominated by conservatives now, as a result of W's appointments.
This is why elections really do matter.
And why the GOP is so dead-set on winning this year, as two seats are expected to be up for grabs in the next 4 years and even winning a majority in the Senate would be enough to swing the court solidly conservative.
| 277 |
Lidane Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:04:40pm |
re: #273 HappyWarrior
STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST! Except he's really not.
I'm not convinced that he even pays attention to the cases being argued before the Court. He has to be one of the worst legal thinkers I've ever had the displeasure of reading.
| 278 |
HappyWarrior Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:07:11pm |
re: #277 Lidane
I'm not convinced that he even pays attention to the cases being argued before the Court. He has to be one of the worst legal thinkers I've ever had the displeasure of reading.
I've heard the same.
| 279 |
celticdragon Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:19:10pm |
re: #257 Charles
The Supreme Court may very well overrule the Ninth Circuit on Prop 8 - don't forget that they're dominated by conservatives now, as a result of W's appointments.
This is why elections really do matter.
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with civil rights and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to deal with LGBT rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had ruled that a law criminalizing homosexual sex was constitutional.[1]
An amendment to the Colorado state constitution ("Amendment 2") that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to recognize gay and lesbian citizens as a protected class was passed by Colorado voters in a referendum. A state trial court issued a permanent injunction against the amendment, and upon appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the amendment was subject to "strict scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The state trial court, upon remand, concluded that the amendment could not pass strict scrutiny, which the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with upon review. Upon appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the amendment did not even pass the rational basis test, let alone strict scrutiny.[2] The decision in Romer set the stage for Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where the Court overruled its decision in Bowers.[1]
| 280 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:19:32pm |
re: #274 iossarian
Well, I find it really hard to believe that there are people about to retire who would be both:
A) 30% worse off in net income under the Democrats and
B) in a low enough income bracket that they would be forced to eat saltines and spam as a result
But as a hypothetical I suppose it works.
Again, I know these are exaggerated. But my point is that to many, gay marriage is a fringe issue. I don't think it is, you don't think it is. But even to some that have no problem with gays marrying and would be happy to see it, the right to marry may seem fringe (and they may not even appreciate all the facts about what is entailed in that right).
a)Newt is pushing for a 0 cap gain rate, and democrats would like to see a 25% rate, so there is a 25% swing right there.
b) Stock market being as unpredictable as it is, I think people heading into retirement don't feel all that secure.
re: #272 Obdicut
That isn't a realistic scenario, though. No part of it. And there is benefit to him to having gay people get married.
It is realistic in the thought process. The numbers and impact are exaggerated. But if you think there aren't many people who support gay marriage or at least do not oppose it but vote with their pocketbook for real and defensible reasons you are not being realistic.
By the way, what is the benefit to that hypothetical man of having gay people get married? How do you think that benefit ranks in the priorities of such a person.
| 281 |
celticdragon Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:21:40pm |
re: #261 HappyWarrior
I figure: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts to vote to overturn
Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg, Breyer to confirm.
Kennedy is the one that's up in the air.
Roberts may join a majority to confirm. Scalia can be a hard one to predict based on the particulars of this case where a right that existed was actually taken away.
| 282 |
Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:22:31pm |
re: #232 Killgore Trout
I agree. Mitt just panders at a dumber level. I don;t think either Mitt or Newt are dangerous ideologues. They're campaign promises are pretty hollow.
But Socon pandering to win elections without actually delivering anything once in office has been GOP boilerplate for years. Which is one of the things that triggered the Socon grassroots movement in the GOP that the current candidates are being forced to reap.
| 283 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:27:29pm |
re: #280 Petero1818
It is realistic in the thought process. The numbers and impact are exaggerated.
How is it realistic, then, if you're dealing with an exagerrated situation? The real one would be someone decided that a small fraction of his income was more important than the civil rights of another.
And so what's your point? How can you reach someone who's that short-sighted?
By the way, what is the benefit to that hypothetical man of having gay people get married? How do you think that benefit ranks in the priorities of such a person.
It's the benefit of more stable families, fewer people depending on government assistance. A two-person household unit is more robust.
I'm not interested in figuring out the priorities of a completely bullshit hypothetical person. Because it's a hypothetical person. So, imagine whatever the hell you want as how important that benefit is to them.
If society were actually composed of people that can only see short-sighted self-interest, we'd already be in anarchy.
| 284 |
sffilk Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:28:05pm |
Unfortunately, this battle is not over yet. I'm sure it's heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.
| 285 |
HappyWarrior Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:28:24pm |
re: #281 celticdragon
Roberts may join a majority to confirm. Scalia can be a hard one to predict based on the particulars of this case where a right that existed was actually taken away.
True Scalia is capable of surprising here and I'd say the most of the court's "conservative" bloc of doing so.
| 286 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:45:14pm |
re: #283 Obdicut
How is it realistic, then, if you're dealing with an exagerrated situation? The real one would be someone decided that a small fraction of his income was more important than the civil rights of another.
No that would take it in the opposite direction. The real one would be someone who put a substantial impact on their economic prospects ahead of what they perceive as a fringe civil rights issue.
re: #283 Obdicut
I'm not interested in figuring out the priorities of a completely bullshit hypothetical person. Because it's a hypothetical person. So, imagine whatever the hell you want as how important that benefit is to them.
Ideological bs. These people are independents. Not hypothetical at all. In good times that have lots of time for social causes, and civil rights. In tough times, when they are scared, they retreat to pocketbook politics. You may believe they are hypothetical and irrelevant. I completely disagree.
| 287 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:51:22pm |
re: #286 Petero1818
No that would take it in the opposite direction.
Your numbers have nothing to do with reality.
Ideological bs.
That's nice. If what you're saying is "How do you appeal to the self-interest of someone on an issue where they don't have a self-interest", the answer is, you don't. You can't create a self-interest when there isn't one.
What's your point? That some people are assholes?
| 288 |
William Barnett-Lewis Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:53:06pm |
re: #257 Charles
The Supreme Court may very well overrule the Ninth Circuit on Prop 8 - don't forget that they're dominated by conservatives now, as a result of W's appointments.
This is why elections really do matter.
I keep telling that to the nutjobs who want to nader Mittens into the White House.
| 289 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:08:47pm |
re: #287 Obdicut
Your numbers have nothing to do with reality.
That's nice. If what you're saying is "How do you appeal to the self-interest of someone on an issue where they don't have a self-interest", the answer is, you don't. You can't create a self-interest when there isn't one.
What's your point? That some people are assholes?
Actually my point is exactly the opposite. They are not assholes (well some of them likely are). They are rational actors. Issue remoteness and issue sensitivity are real. I don't label everyone who votes Republican a bigot or shitbag as the op did, because they may in fact be neither. They may be someone for whom the gay marriage issue seems remote, whereas they may have real pocketbook issues to vote on. I don't buy into the you don't agree with me you are a shitbag routine from the right, nor do I buy it from the left.
| 290 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:10:53pm |
re: #289 Petero1818
Actually my point is exactly the opposite. They are not assholes (well some of them likely are). They are rational actors.
Why the hell do you think those are opposed terms?
I don't buy into the you don't agree with me you are a shitbag routine from the right, nor do I buy it from the left.
Do you think people who are okay with black people having fewer rights than white people are ethically okay?
| 291 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:12:11pm |
re: #269 Lidane
It all depends on how he interprets what he reads:
I really hope doesn't want to go down in history as "that old bigoted fuck".
| 292 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:24:12pm |
re: #285 HappyWarrior
True Scalia is capable of surprising here and I'd say the most of the court's "conservative" bloc of doing so.
I doubt that very much, for it was Scalia in the first place who, in Lawrence v. Texas, argued that striking down the anti-sodomy laws would lead to striking down the laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity. I don't expect him to rule for SSM any time soon.
| 293 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:30:16pm |
re: #290 Obdicut
Why the hell do you think those are opposed terms?
Do you think people who are okay with black people having fewer rights than white people are ethically okay?
That is a faulty syllogism. As I said, someone may vote republican and believe in the rights of gays to marry. End of story. You may be happy to go through life feeling the opposite. I believe is is a sophomoric attitude.
| 294 |
Lidane Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:30:42pm |
I'm laughing at some of the wingnut fail I've seen around the 'net today, starting with this genius from Free Republic:
I have actually read the Constitution and the Federalist papers. I don’t remember marriage being discussed. Maybe they’re talking about the equal protection clause. If that is the case then that doesn’t make any sense either. All homosexuals of adult age are allowed to get married with very few exceptions. They cannot presently be married, and they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. We have the exact same privledges.
Dear moran -- if a gay or lesbian person can't marry who they love and they have to marry someone of the opposite sex, they don't have the same rights under the law. How hard is that to understand?
| 295 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:31:15pm |
| 296 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:49:00pm |
re: #189 Killgore Trout
Actually by quite a bit. Gay Marriage for example. I'm a full on supporter of gay marriage and adoption. Obama, not so much.
socrates will tell us how it is 9_9
| 297 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:54:25pm |
re: #295 Obdicut
Please demonstrate how it is faulty.
I have argued that someone may in fact put their own economic interest ahead of a social issue that they may in fact even believe in especially when it may seem remote to them. That they are not shitbags for doing so.
You have argued that that is akin to thinking it is ok for black people to have fewer rights than white.
I do not think that at all. There is nothing in any of my posts to suggest that I support or believe it is ethical to believe straight people are more entitled to marriage than gays. I don't.
My point is that people are rational actors, that weigh priorities. The more remote an issue (or the perception of it), the less likely it is to impact their voting behavior. I do not believe that someone is by virtue of voting Republican on pocketbook issues that impact their lives necessarily a bigot and shitbag, or unethical. They may in fact be all those things, but one would need to dig a little deeper to figure that out.
| 298 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:57:57pm |
re: #297 Petero1818
My point is that people are rational actors, that weigh priorities.
Why do you think people are rational actors, anyway?
. I do not believe that someone is by virtue of voting Republican on pocketbook issues that impact their lives necessarily a bigot and shitbag, or unethical.
So someone who actively votes for someone who will deny civil rights to someone else is not unethical, even though you think that denying those civil rights is, in fact, unethical.
| 299 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:08:35pm |
re: #298 Obdicut
Why do you think people are rational actors, anyway?
So someone who actively votes for someone who will deny civil rights to someone else is not unethical, even though you think that denying those civil rights is, in fact, unethical.
Or to put it another way, I believe one can ethically vote for a candidate whom on the balance one agrees with, even where one of their positions is not one you agree with, and view as unethical. And you may in fact say as much, as in the case of pro life democrats and log cabin republicans.
| 300 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:11:44pm |
re: #299 Petero1818
Or to put it another way, I believe one can ethically vote for a candidate whom on the balance one agrees with, even where one of their positions is not one you agree with, and view as unethical.
Sure. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about someone deciding between civil rights or a small short-term economic benefit. That's what you set up. Now you're expanding it.
| 301 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:21:19pm |
re: #300 Obdicut
Sure. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about someone deciding between civil rights or a small short-term economic benefit. That's what you set up. Now you're expanding it.
They are birds of the same feather. You rank priorities. That is how it works. One is merely an end of the spectrum you are comfortable with, the other is not. Who are you to rank people's priorities for them. My point has been from the very start that people rank these priorities for themselves with regard to their impact or perceived impact on their own situation. And that one can be in favour of gay marriage and vote Republican. That has always been my point and if you read the thread you will see that it has always been my point. The fact that you believe 10 or 15% difference in someone's tax rate is a "small short term benefit" is irrelevant to how they perceive it or to their reality. Maybe it is the difference between their child or grandchild going to community college or Harvard.
| 302 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:23:32pm |
re: #301 Petero1818
Maybe it is the difference between their child or grandchild going to community college or Harvard.
Maybe it's the difference between life and death!
Where is this 10 to 15% difference coming from?
| 303 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:25:46pm |
re: #301 Petero1818
So basically, your position is that voting to deny someone their civil rights so that you can afford to send a child to college is not, in fact, unethical behavior?
| 304 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:26:52pm |
re: #302 Obdicut
Maybe it's the difference between life and death!
Where is this 10 to 15% difference coming from?
10 or 15% is a very defensible number if someone takes the swing between a Gingrich vs Obama on cap gains debate.
You are right. It might be life or death. My guess is a person weighs this out. Do they view opposition to gay marriage in the same way they would view rounding up homosexuals into work camps? I would seriously doubt it. Are they right? or wrong? That was never my point. Just that I don't think they are by definition assholes for voting with their pocketbook.
| 305 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:28:59pm |
re: #304 Petero1818
10 or 15% is a very defensible number if someone takes the swing between a Gingrich vs Obama on cap gains debate.
.
Only if you deal with the tiny corner case of a person who derives all their income from capital gains and is still only moderately wealthy.
Just that I don't think they are by definition assholes for voting with their pocketbook.
Are you married?
| 306 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:31:37pm |
re: #305 Obdicut
Only if you deal with the tiny corner case of a person who derives all their income from capital gains and is still only moderately wealthy.
Are you married?
Actually it is not that tiny a group. Retired people who earn their income primarily through cap gains is not really a small group..
Yes, I am married, you will need to look elsewhere, though I am sure you are lovely and will make someone very happy.
| 307 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:34:57pm |
re: #306 Petero1818
Actually it is not that tiny a group. Retired people who earn their income primarily through cap gains is not really a small group..
Show me some numbers, then.
Yes, I am married, you will need to look elsewhere, though I am sure you are lovely and will make someone very happy.
So, if you had been prevented from marrying, would that have had a large effect on your life?
| 308 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:37:46pm |
re: #303 Obdicut
So basically, your position is that voting to deny someone their civil rights so that you can afford to send a child to college is not, in fact, unethical behavior?
No what I am saying is voting to put one's own child or grandchild through College may rank higher than ensuring gays can marry for some people, even though that person may believe gays should have the right to marry. And in fact that person may participate in efforts to gain that right. That person my put their faith in a Judicial system that they expect will protect that right, that person may even know what is implicit in that right. And that said person is not by definition an asshole. You may disagree. It is your right.
| 309 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:39:34pm |
re: #308 Petero1818
No what I am saying is voting to put one's own child or grandchild through College may rank higher than ensuring gays can marry for some people, even though that person may believe gays should have the right to marry.
Yes. Or that it may rank higher than blacks being able to go to the same school as whites, or any number of other things.
So if someone voted for a candidate who would strip you of the right to marry your wife, and explained they did so so that they could have extra income, you wouldn't feel that person had acted in any wrong way?
| 310 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:41:44pm |
re: #307 Obdicut
Show me some numbers, then.
So, if you had been prevented from marrying, would that have had a large effect on your life?
Well, in so far as the rights that go along with it, those being related to income tax, death benefits etc, it likely would. Otherwise, not really important for me to have the paper. My Mother was very happy though.
Not sure your point though. I have reiterated numerous times my absolute support for gay marriage. Not even an issue of discussion for me.
| 311 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:45:15pm |
re: #310 Petero1818
And are you going to back up your claim that there's a lot of retirees depending mainly on capital gains income that'd be highly affected by any of the changes proposed by Obama et al?
| 312 |
Petero1818 Tue, Feb 7, 2012 3:22:42pm |
re: #311 Obdicut
And are you going to back up your claim that there's a lot of retirees depending mainly on capital gains income that'd be highly affected by any of the changes proposed by Obama et al?
I have to run, and I have beat this thing to death, while I should have been working, but let me say this to respond to you:
I don't need to defend it. People retiring, no more working income. They have investments that they live off. Those investments generate primarily capital gains. a 10 or 15 or 25 point swing in cap gain, will impact their disposable income. Maybe they benefit from the Bush tax cuts, don't want to lose them either. Maybe they have a fear of a value added tax down the road and view some of this as the thin edge of the wedge. Whatever it is. It is their issue. It is not mine and I don't need to defend it. The fact that they have that belief is sufficient.
As for your question about what if the right was denied to me, that is essentially the crux of the point. Voter's weigh impacts. The impact of right to marry for gays is measured against some other interests. It is not about right or wrong. assholes or not assholes. Ethical vs unethical. It is about where this issue sits in the perception of the voter. I can tell you, there are a great many people in the US, that spend exactly a second thinking about gay marriage as a factor in this election. Not because they hate gays, but because the issue is remote for them. Not because they want to deny gays that right, but because they vote on issues that are immediate to them. Not because they are assholes, though they may in fact be.
You may believe that the only ethical course for a voter to take is to vote only for a candidate whose every position is one you are in lockstep with philosophically. I disagree and have voted in enough elections to know otherwise. You may believe that some issues are so big, that even if you are willing to believe a candidate can differ from you on some things, they cannot on others. To that I say, welcome to politics. Not everyone has those same grail issues. You may believe that there is no personal situation that might cause you to vote in a way that contradicts a belief you had only a few years earlier. I disagree.
You may certainly respond, and I will likely read it, but I am not going to continue, as I have to do some other things and am pretty certain we are unlikely to convince each other.
| 313 |
Obdicut Tue, Feb 7, 2012 3:26:56pm |
re: #312 Petero1818
I don't need to defend it.
Then I don't have to treat it as real.
Voter's weigh impacts. The impact of right to marry for gays is measured against some other interests. It is not about right or wrong.
It is to me.
| 314 |
sagehen Tue, Feb 7, 2012 7:21:33pm |
re: #6 shreck
Why bother holding elections at all, just let some judge decide.
allow me to quote from slacktivist's article on the topic:
And you’re not allowed to have a law that “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity” of a given minority. It’s easy to pass such laws, given that minorities, being in the minority, are easily outnumbered. But this is what the Constitution and equal protection and the rule of law are for — making sure that the majority can’t pull stunts like that just because there happen to be more of them.
[Link: www.patheos.com...]
Turn off ads by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day, our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...
LGF Master Spy
LGF Articles Feed LGF Pages FeedThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title and text already filled in.
Last updated: 2013-05-24 5:08 pm PDT
Bubblehead II
Kragar
darthstar
Political Atheist
FemNaziBitch
Heywood Jabloeme FemNaziBitch Heywood Jabloeme Political Atheist
Bob Dillon Heywood Jabloeme Bob Dillon
Randall Gross FemNaziBitch
chaduMalcolman
Skip Intro
Vicious Babushka Political Atheist
thecommodore
Frank says:Consider for a moment any beauty in the name Ralph. -- In an interview with Joan Rivers who had just asked him why he gave his children such odd names, Frank gave the reply above.
