TwitterFacebook

Breaking: CA Appeals Court Rules Ban on Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional

Cue a gigantic religious right freak-out
US News • Views: 28,055

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.

UPDATE at 2/7/12 11:39:32 am

Here’s a link to the court’s decision.

Also see:
Prop. 8: Gay-Marriage Ban Unconstitutional, Court Rules

Jump to bottom

314 comments

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: True

April 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.

7 SpaceJesus  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:11:27am

Federal Court

Also, fuck yeah

8 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:11:38am

Black-robed cabalist manipulative Mandarins impeachable offense ignoring the will of the people!!1!

9 Gus  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:12:03am

re: #6 shreck

Why bother holding elections at all, just let some judge decide.

Butthurt?

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?

12 [deleted]  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:12:42am
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.

18 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:14:54am

re: #16 shreck

You clearly care.
Don't kid yourself.

19 iossarian  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:14:58am

re: #16 shreck

I could care less

Of course.

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

re: #18 Varek Raith

You clearly care.
Don't kid yourself.

No really I don't. Trust me.

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

26 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:17:12am

re: #24 shreck

So, who were you previously?

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.

35 lawhawk  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:19:14am

Text of the decision here.

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.

43 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:20:06am

Lol.

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

re: #56 Sergey Romanov

Motion dismissed.

Base Delta Zero commencing.

59 dragonfire1981  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:24:56am

Here's a non Fox Link:

Judge upholds Texas Sonogram Law

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

re: #56 Sergey Romanov

Motion dismissed.

STOP OPPRESSING ME!

62 Kragar  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:25:52am

re: #58 Varek Raith

Base Delta Zero commencing.

Its the Endor Holocaust all over again.

63 lawhawk  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:25:53am

Here's the opinion in Perry v. Brown from the 9th Circuit directly (allowing cut/paste for those so inclined). A summary is here.

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

re: #61 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

STOP OPPRESSING ME!

No you.

70 shreck  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:27:13am

re: #67 Obdicut

Make up your fucking mind whether you support or oppose the decision.

No.

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.

72 Alexzander  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:27:38am

re: #70 shreck

No.

QED.

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...

74 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:28:27am

re: #70 shreck

No.

Oy, what a time-waster.

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.

77 Gus  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:28:46am

re: #74 Obdicut

Oy, what a time-waster.

Pretty much.

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.

80 RIRedinPA  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:29:36am

re: #6 shreck

And out comes the stupid...

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.

82 Locker  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:29:48am

re: #79 Gus 802

The passive stage comes next.

Then the victim stage.

83 Kragar  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:29:55am

re: #79 Gus 802

The passive stage comes next.

What do you mean by that?
/

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

re: #84 iossarian

FARCICAL AQUATIC CEREMONY

Watery tart...

87 Kragar  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:30:58am

re: #82 Locker

Then the victim stage.

Now you're just being mean.
/

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

re: #90 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Too Disney.

OK, we'll also add some boobs.

92 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:32:50am

re: #91 Sergey Romanov

OK, we'll also add some boobs.

Waaaay too Disney.

93 Petero1818  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:33:14am

re: #92 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Waaay too Disney.

Real boobs.

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

re: #91 Sergey Romanov

OK, we'll also add some boobs.

Disney is highly boob.

97 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:33:40am

re: #93 Petero1818

Real boobs.

Oh. Nevermind.

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??!!

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.

Image: gay_rights_--_usa1.jpg

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:

Texas judge upholds sonogram law

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

re: #128 wrenchwench

Bad karma is not a banable offense in itself.

Except in a democracy...

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:

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

More good news today. From Al-Jazeera:

AJELive AJELive
Anonymous #Egypt officials tell Reuters SCAF will lift #NGO travel bans and "back down" on prosecutions. aje.me/ruz2TK

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

re: #151 Petero1818

ON DAY 1 OF HIS PRESIDENCY

Day 1, Year 1 N.E. (Newt Era).

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

re: #164 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Are we a left-wing blog now?

I'm a banded-winged Bull-Mooser.

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


Newt disagrees

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

re: #176 Obdicut

*Not intended to be a factual statement.

I love the ghost of John Kyl's remark!!!

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)


Newt disagrees

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?

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?

Image: Should-I-try-it-Fortune-Cookies-in-China1.jpg

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".

248 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 11:50:55am

re: #241 Charles

Obama astounded by Extreme Marshmallow Cannon!

Hey Leon, heads up!

...What...*POW!*

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

re: #252 Killgore Trout

Pump it up!
Image: x610.jpg

Where's Sarkozy when he's needed?

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

re: #264 NJDhockeyfan

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man hardest hit.

We'll need a bigger cannon...

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:

Proposition 8 Ruling Takes Aim at Justice Kennedy

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.

Keep in mind the ruling the SCOTUS made on the Colorado Romer case, which serves as the major foundation for todays ruling:

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:

Proposition 8 Ruling Takes Aim at Justice Kennedy

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

re: #293 Petero1818

That is a faulty syllogism.

Please demonstrate how it is faulty.

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...]


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day (per month) or 22 cents a day (per year), our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This 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, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-03-07 2:19 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
Souliren
Cape Breton Music
More: weblog Buddy MacMaster died last month. I put him in the same artist class as Jimi Hendrix. Here is a documentary on him with a bit of music here and there. Cape Breton Island --- musicaly, was another country. ...

5 hours, 26 minutes ago
Views: 52 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Randall Gross
Rodrigo Y Gabriela - Eclectic - Live - Montreux Jazz Festival - 8 July 2014
Rodrigo y Gabriela - Eclectic - Live - Montreux Jazz Festival, Switzerland - 8 July 2014

5 hours, 48 minutes ago
Views: 76 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
The War TARDIS
Doctor Who “Into the Dalek” Open Thread
This episode will echo old Dalek episodes, both with a bit of a twist. Also, Clara will be finding someone, as she seems to be moving from her feelings of the 11th. But, this for talking.

1 day, 13 hours ago
Views: 226 • Comments: 37
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4
FemNaziBitch
Roger Goodell: ‘I Didn’t Get It Right.’ -NFL TAKES A NEW STANCE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell admits he was wrong on the Ray Rice decision, and Goodell took an important step Thursday towards showing the league is serious about cracking down on domestic violence as well as sexual assault. In a ...

2 days, 19 hours ago
Views: 211 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 3
sagehen
Doctor Who Spoiler Thread
For those who want to post immediately... live... without having to hide spoilers behind the button.

1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 682 • Comments: 99
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 6
EiMitch
Escapist: Maniac Cop
escapistmagazine.com Link broken? The gist is that this is an impressively sarcastic review of an old slasher flick based on the "unrealistic" premise of a cop abusing his power to murder people.

1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 498 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Hyped Up On Ganja
Hunt for German neo-Nazis was ‘complete disaster’
BERLIN (AP) -- Police and security services in Germany's eastern state of Thuringia bungled the hunt for three neo-Nazis, who years later turned out to be the main suspects in a far-right murder spree. Story

1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 714 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4
Rightwingconspirator
A Lizard’s Regenerating Tail
Don't ya hate it when that happens? You feel so short for a month. Anoles are curious little lizards capable of ditching their tails when they feel threatened. This self-amputation, called autotomy, takes about 25 days for the tail to ...

1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 510 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5
CriticalDragon1177
Io9 - Everything You Need To Know About Lemuria, The Lost Continent Of Lemurs
Esther Inglis-Arkell talks about the weirdest lost continent myth, I've ever heard. Its the only one I know of that ever included giant telepathic lemurs. No seriously! In 1858 a young zoologist, playing around with an idea, came up with ...

1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 693 • Comments: 4
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 7
Laughing Gas
Scumbag “HBD believer” claims Michael Brown charged officer
WARNING: LINK TO HATE SITE He links to some ijreview, a right wing site: This guy makes me sick.

1 week, 6 days ago
Views: 1,571 • Comments: 6
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 1
 Frank says:

It looks just like a Telefunken U-47!