Federal Judge Overturns California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban
A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a California ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that the Proposition 8 ballot initiative was unconstitutional.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 ballot a major victory.
Gay couples waving rainbow and American flags outside the courthouse cheered, hugged and kissed as word of the ruling spread.
Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume. That's because the judge said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. Posted by glassman on :
LOL, i thought you were a Republican and beleive that the mob shouldn't rule?
prop 8 was pretty blatant discrimination...
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
the question will now become whether the Feds can overrule state Govt.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
This isn't about 'rights' or the abridgement of such, Glass. It's still about the definition of marriage. Most folks are all about 'civil unions' for gays\lesbians, but they still want 'marriage' to denote a man\woman relationship. Every time this has been brought to a vote by the people, this view has won out. It's only through overriding these votes, or avoiding them altogether, that it has become 'legal' for gays\lesbians to be 'married'.
Posted by glassman on :
This isn't about 'rights' or the abridgement of such, Glass.
hmmm..... what's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?
i pretty much see a civil union as marriage without the Church
we can dispose of the Church marriage issue, i don't think a Church should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to... i think the Constitution forbids them being forced to as well.
on the other hand? if Church WANTS to preform gay marriages the Constitution seems to require that we allow them to also
Posted by glassman on :
the Defense of mariage act tried to create a civil union law that allowed other states to ignore each others laws..
you can get a "civil union" in one state and no other state has to recognise it under that law...
however? that law was unconstitutional on it's face...
Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
the Constitution is not convneient for all people at some time or another...
Posted by metal1 on :
I guess by that arguement about rights, you could say it should be legal to force blacks to the back of the bus. it's still a seat right? why shouldn't every PERSON have the right to marry? A civil union is viewed as sitting at the back of the bus.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
This isn't about 'rights' or the abridgement of such, Glass. It's still about the definition of marriage. Most folks are all about 'civil unions' for gays\lesbians, but they still want 'marriage' to denote a man\woman relationship. Every time this has been brought to a vote by the people, this view has won out. It's only through overriding these votes, or avoiding them altogether, that it has become 'legal' for gays\lesbians to be 'married'.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Obviously I disagree, Metal. This has nothing to do with racial discrimination or any equivilency. It has everything to do with societal strength. The nuclear family is the strongest\best building block for any society. If some choose to follow an 'alternative' lifestyle such as homosexuality, so be it. But I, and many others, feel that the 'alternative' choice should bear that distinction so that the preferred unit of a procreative union maintains its preeminence.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Obviously I disagree, Metal. This has nothing to do with racial discrimination or any equivilency. It has everything to do with societal strength. The nuclear family is the strongest\best building block for any society. If some choose to follow an 'alternative' lifestyle such as homosexuality, so be it. But I, and many others, feel that the 'alternative' choice should bear that distinction so that the preferred unit of a procreative union maintains its preeminence.
so you think being gay or lesbian is an alternative?
choice of religion is alternative. sexual orientation is not.
as to procreation? under your logic, we should ban marriage between two people if they cannot procreate. so we need fertility tests before marriage?
and divorce? that destroys the nuclear family it should be banned too...
Posted by metal1 on :
You don't have the right to vote because you are a woman. You can't vote because you are black. You have to use a separate bathroom because you are black. You can't get married because you are gay. How is this not pure and simple discrimination? Not sure how you justify that statement. Glass beat me to the puch about divorce stats. This has nothing to do with family either. There are plenty of male/female couples who are horrible parents. If you go down that argument you need to institute strong testing to see if couples are fit to get married and then more testing to see if a couple should be allowed to procreate and only have children if there is a strong nuclear core. Maybe fat people shouldn't be allowed to procreate either since obesity would not be a healthy core. Not only that but all of those kids whose procreative parents have dumped them in foster care might have a another married home of their own to go to.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Obviously I disagree, Metal. This has nothing to do with racial discrimination or any equivilency. It has everything to do with societal strength. The nuclear family is the strongest\best building block for any society. If some choose to follow an 'alternative' lifestyle such as homosexuality, so be it. But I, and many others, feel that the 'alternative' choice should bear that distinction so that the preferred unit of a procreative union maintains its preeminence.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
(Sigh)
We've been through this one several times, Glass. I doubt either of us has anything new to add. Unless Metal wants it, I won't even bother linking the most recent thread where we covered it.
My point of this thread was less a statement on the specific issue and more on the fact that the 'will of the people' seems to have less and less of an impact on what our rulers do.
Posted by glassman on :
My point of this thread was less a statement on the specific issue and more on the fact that the 'will of the people' seems to have less and less of an impact on what our rulers do.
LOL... unConstitutional is what it is.... i beleived until recently that Civil Unions were a reasonable replacement for marriage. Unfortuantley? the Civil Unions were not going to be recognised by all states, again that's unConstutional. This is the result of being totally unreasonable.
as for the "will of the people"? we don't live in a Democracy remember? We had this discussion about the Senate. We live in Republic and the will of the people is not the rule in a Republican form of Govt.
if it was just the will of the people that counted? Gore beat Bush in '00.... plain and simple.
if it was the will of the people the utlra-rich would be taxed much higher than they are now...
Posted by raybond on :
Its very simple you cannot pass laws that discriminate ,as much as certin people would like to. And do so under the heading of, Will of the People. A saying that sounds good and right to the stupid unamerican people people of this land.
At one time in this country it was the will of the people to have slavery and a certain group was targeted to be slaves.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
I didnt know being a homosexual was a constitutional right. Real nice to see sodomy, abortion, and amnesty to illegal aliens being ok with this administration. Centralized top down federal government that is nationalizing all of our decision making.
The judge that reviewed that case in CA was gay! Go figure!
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: I didnt know being a homosexual was a constitutional right. Real nice to see sodomy, abortion, and amnesty to illegal aliens being ok with this administration. Centralized top down federal government that is nationalizing all of our decision making.
The judge that reviewed that case in CA was gay! Go figure!
Posted by jordanreed on :
wow!!!...and out pops cow....like a fart in the wind!.....jk..settle down...
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: wow!!!...and out pops cow....like a fart in the wind!.....jk..settle down...
Actually JR...they have documented proof that cows contribute to global warming due to all the gas they spew. And our resident cow is quite the lil gas bag! Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Pagan:
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: wow!!!...and out pops cow....like a fart in the wind!.....jk..settle down...
Actually JR...they have documented proof that cows contribute to global warming due to all the gas they spew. And our resident cow is quite the lil gas bag!
These days, what DOESNT cause global warming. Human farts are next, and I bet we need to have special taxes for that too. Did you hear the latest concern from the EPA? FARM DUST. Yes thats right, farm dust contributing to the destruction of the planet. Has anyone on this board driven down a gravel road in the country? How dare you pollute this earth with your carbon machine!
Posted by glassman on :
FARM DUST. have you ever seen pictures of the dust bowl? That was farm dust...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: FARM DUST. have you ever seen pictures of the dust bowl? That was farm dust...
You are comparing apples to oranges. A generational event shouldnt be applicable to forecasting this.
Posted by glassman on :
A generational event shouldnt be applicable to forecasting this.
i wasn't comparing anything to anything...
however, farming practices were in fact responsible for the dust. the lack of rain was generatioanl...
i have a few hundred acres in crop right next to my property, the dust from his road and at certain times when he is harvesting make a pure mess of my shop...
when i lived in NE? same thing...
now i took the time to look it up and according to teh EPA? they have no plans on regulating dust from farm fields or gravel roads...
maybe you can find me soemthing to prove that wrong...
dust is dangerous to some people, but not specifically me or my family.....
Posted by glassman on :
now the farmers do something in our area that should be banned, and that is burning off the fields after the harvest...
they are in fact releasing defoliants (agent orange) and pesticides when they do that, not to mention the burning dangers... and yes they get (safety) ticketed regularly for it especially if it creates a road hazard form the smoke, but they keep doing it....
if you knew what was int he dust? you might not be so quick to claim that it isn't pollution...
do you wash your fruits and veggies before you eat them? i do, and we can't wash the dust before we breathe it...
breathing is the fastest way to absorb toxins short of injection...
my understanding is that the EPA is studying what is in the dust, not regulating it...
now i can understand why some people might not want to know what's in the air they breathe, esp if it's a defoliant like agent orange...
Posted by glassman on :
even more interesting is that the mandates for the new rules were designated in '06... that's when Bush and the GOP was in control. Alotof times? these rules favor large business instead of small business, in this case the business is farming...
here's the rule:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562; FRL-8969-2] RIN-2060-AP27
Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
quote:Originally posted by glassman: now the farmers do something in our area that should be banned, and that is burning off the fields after the harvest...
they are in fact releasing defoliants (agent orange) and pesticides when they do that, not to mention the burning dangers... and yes they get (safety) ticketed regularly for it especially if it creates a road hazard form the smoke, but they keep doing it....
if you knew what was int he dust? you might not be so quick to claim that it isn't pollution...
do you wash your fruits and veggies before you eat them? i do, and we can't wash the dust before we breathe it...
breathing is the fastest way to absorb toxins short of injection...
my understanding is that the EPA is studying what is in the dust, not regulating it...
now i can understand why some people might not want to know what's in the air they breathe, esp if it's a defoliant like agent orange...
What type of crops are they burning off? Up here in MO/IL, they plant mainly corn/soy beans. Each year, they rotate the crops planted. They never burn off, they just let the remnants die after harvesting...then disc the remnants up the following year. Why burn them off?
Posted by glassman on :
the ones that burn, burn every crop. You'll see the smoke plumes from 20 30 miles away, hundreds of acres at a whack.... they use ATV's with kerosene spraying to start 'em. They just race along the upwind side and then go do a smaller break to stop it...
the producers (we don't call 'em farmers here) claim it's "clean". It does kill some bugs and thier eggs and larvae. Mostly they just say they "always done it" and they ain't gonna stop....
cotton is the primary crop that got this going. the palnt leaves very tough stalks that will build up over a few years... Think of how long your jeans last... The stalk is just as tough as the fibers. Cotton gets sprayed for whatever bugs, it gets sprayed with hormones to restrict flowering and then to induce flowering so that it all comes in at once. Then they hit it with defoliant to get the leaves out of the way of the harvesters.... The leaves gum up the works bad, cuz they are tough too..... The plant that's even harder on eqpt is hemp, that stuff destroys harvesters its so tough....
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the ones that burn, burn every crop. You'll see the smoke plumes from 20 30 miles away, hundreds of acres at a whack.... they use ATV's with kerosene spraying to start 'em. They just race along the upwind side and then go do a smaller break to stop it...
the producers (we don't call 'em farmers here) claim it's "clean". It does kill some bugs and thier eggs and larvae. Mostly they just say they "always done it" and they ain't gonna stop....
cotton is the primary crop that got this going. the palnt leaves very tough stalks that will build up over a few years... Think of how long your jeans last... The stalk is just as tough as the fibers. Cotton gets sprayed for whatever bugs, it gets sprayed with hormones to restrict flowering and then to induce flowering so that it all comes in at once. Then they hit it with defoliant to get the leaves out of the way of the harvesters.... The leaves gum up the works bad, cuz they are tough too..... The plant that's even harder on eqpt is hemp, that stuff destroys harvesters its so tough....
Wow! I thought "slash and burn" ended years ago in the US. No cotton up here...so not very familiar with the particulars you describe. But...seems there ought to be a better way.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
You might imagine that the Big is happy about this one. I hope they win the next two hurdles on the legal landscape as well.
Posted by Relentless. on :
I'm still a bit fuzzy about how government has any sort of mandate to declare who can or can not get married. Maybe its just me. Probably is. Have fun asking permission.
Ohhh that's right.. this is a gay/straight issue..
Funny, I hardly even noticed the distraction everyone seems blinded by... Oh well.. Again, have fun asking permission.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I'm still a bit fuzzy about how government has any sort of mandate to declare who can or can not get married. Maybe its just me. Probably is. Have fun asking permission.
Ohhh that's right.. this is a gay/straight issue..
Funny, I hardly even noticed the distraction everyone seems blinded by... Oh well.. Again, have fun asking permission.
good point... it was once illegal for mixed races to get married too tho... not that long ago either...
next it'll be people marrying horses... or worse yet? mules wow, just think how that will destroy "the family social unit"...
maybe the Mormons could go back to polygamy? heck it'd be a great recruiting tool...
Posted by Relentless. on :
Never understood the allure of having more than one wife.. Just how much illogic can one house hold? Mule eh?... hmmmm
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Never understood the allure of having more than one wife.. Just how much illogic can one house hold? Mule eh?... hmmmm
it seems a little scary to me too.... but hey it IS Biblical....
i suppose polygamy with chickens would be stretching it huh? Posted by Relentless. on :
BS... you're in MS.. as long as the chickens are baptized its all good.
Posted by glassman on :
i dunno of any baptised hen's....there's nothin' madder than a wet hen...
Posted by Relentless. on :
oh.. and they have to have names...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I'm still a bit fuzzy about how government has any sort of mandate to declare who can or can not get married. Maybe its just me. Probably is. Have fun asking permission.
Ohhh that's right.. this is a gay/straight issue..
Funny, I hardly even noticed the distraction everyone seems blinded by... Oh well.. Again, have fun asking permission.
good point... it was once illegal for mixed races to get married too tho... not that long ago either...
next it'll be people marrying horses... or worse yet? mules wow, just think how that will destroy "the family social unit"...
maybe the Mormons could go back to polygamy? heck it'd be a great recruiting tool...
So what about NAMBLA? That is one sick group, but if you speaking against that you are not being "open minded" according to them. Who do you think a majority of NAMBLA people want in the White House? A liberal Democrat of course!
Am I being closed minded for thinking that Tijuana donkey shows are not normal and should be illegal in the United States?
Posted by Relentless. on :
That's right moo moo, if free people are allowed to make decisions about who they wish to marry? The next day you'll have fish banging koala bears in the streets!
Just remarkable that the conservatives are the ones rallying behind this.
"Less government is better government!!!! Except for queers.. Gubbment the **** out of them!!!"
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
I am not sure I understand your point in that post relentless
Posted by Relentless. on :
Sorry, I forgot to type slower for you.
The point is that you as a professed conservative should be first in line to declare any legislation that proclaims dominion over the unions of people a miss use of government and expressly forbidden by the constitution via its absence from it.
Sorry again for my departure from the literal I'm so known for.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Sorry, I forgot to type slower for you.
The point is that you as a professed conservative should be first in line to declare any legislation that proclaims dominion over the unions of people a miss use of government and expressly forbidden by the constitution via its absence from it.
Sorry again for my departure from the literal I'm so known for.
How did I know you would respond with a attempted self assertive "let me type slower for you".
Look, you didnt type too fast, the post I was responding to was garbling. Here is your post:
That's right moo moo, if free people are allowed to make decisions about who they wish to marry? The next day you'll have fish banging koala bears in the streets!
Just remarkable that the conservatives are the ones rallying behind this.
"Less government is better government!!!! Except for queers.. Gubbment the **** out of them!!!"
_________________________________________
Classic. So, I didnt know I was a self proclaimed conservative. Do I lean that way? Yeah, we all know that. We know who here likes big government, taxes, and a Woodstock lifestyle, and we know who does not like newer taxes, intrusive government, and so forth.
I find it bothersome that because I have expressed opposition to numerous Obama administration policies you seem to be able to automatically forecase what my view on new issues are without even discussing them with me! I am against messing with the constitution.
I am critical of any politician who does wrong. Even if they are an Independent, Libertarian, Republican, whatever. However, on here very very few posters will question Obama. There is a big "toe the line" following of him. His support base is shrinking. Face it, the only support he has long term are from blacks, and far left liberals. Before you go pulling the race card out because I said "black" do your DD. There are countless interviews online before the Presidential election with people voting for Obama not on the issues, but just because he is black. He is mixed by the way, 50-50 so I dont see how he is truly the first BLACK President. The proper way to put it is that he is America's most diverse President to date. It is a good sign because diversity can always bring good things.
I know the big right wing conspiracy is out to get everyone! BOO! BTW, how many vacations have the Obamas taken in the past few months? This guy golfs and takes more time off than Bush ever did from what I remember.
If gays want to be together so what. Give them civil union and give them equal services like hospital visits and tax them equally like they do married couples. Marriage has been man and woman since how long now? Just because in 2010 a small group wants it different then everyone else has to change to their needs?
I will say some flamboyant gay divorce court shows would be hilarious.
Posted by glassman on :
If gays want to be together so what. Give them civil union and give them equal services like hospital visits and tax them equally like they do married couples. Marriage has been man and woman since how long now? Just because in 2010 a small group wants it different then everyone else has to change to their needs?
i beleived that was fair for along time too cash, but it didn't happen... in fact? the Gubment got worse on civli unions
the feds refused to recognise them due to the Defense of Marriage act...
Posted by metal1 on :
That is my point, in that the will of the people can't matter when it is blatantly discriminatory.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: (Sigh)
We've been through this one several times, Glass. I doubt either of us has anything new to add. Unless Metal wants it, I won't even bother linking the most recent thread where we covered it.
My point of this thread was less a statement on the specific issue and more on the fact that the 'will of the people' seems to have less and less of an impact on what our rulers do.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I think you will be surprised at the composition of his support base come 2012 CCM. Pay attention to the demographics when that time comes.
Christianity nay even Judaism did not coin the term marriage. It's root dwells in the Latin marītāre of ancient pantheistic and cultist Roman culture (509BC ish). The earliest recorded description of a marriage like 'contract' comes from Mesopotamia's Codex Hammurabi some 1200 years before that.
Posted by rounder1 on :
Hell, let'm marry. Queers have the right to be miserable just like everyone else.........and maybe then they will shut up.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Anyone see these constant vacations and lavish lifestyles hypocritical of this administration?
no..do you?...with the bs this ad has to deal with on a daily basis?...stress relief is a must!...and Im sure his mind constantly working no matter where he is..
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Anyone see these constant vacations and lavish lifestyles hypocritical of this administration?
How does that in any way relate to the current topic? ooohhh that's right you're on the losing side and trying to distance yourself. Jeeze used to be the weakness of the other side to change the subject and run.
So, back on topic. How can a smaller government is better government conservative believe it is within government's mandate to decide who does or does not get married???
Any bets on if an answer is even offered?
Posted by glassman on :
well if my neighbor was married to a flock of hens? i'd be pretty pissed.... horses? i prolly wouldn't care
as long as it isn't food Posted by Relentless. on :
We've discussed this. In MS as long as each of the hens has a proper name then yes it is perfectly fine. A proper name consists of letters only.. noo numbers.. I know this will present somewhat of a challenge, but for the right flock I hear it is well worth it.
Posted by glassman on :
i hear that over in Arkansas they can even have numbers
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: So, back on topic. How can a smaller government is better government conservative believe it is within government's mandate to decide who does or does not get married???
Any bets on if an answer is even offered?
Can any 'smaller government is better government conservative' take that one on or just Cash? Lol
Besides the 'nuclear family' arguements I've listed, my beef is a little historical. The Feds literally told the Mormons that they had to abandon a religious belief and accept marriage as only one man/one woman.
It's all good to be selective in religious freedom but not impose on sexual preference?
A little consistency would be nice.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Seems a flawed stance that is more aimed at appeasing an emotional symptom rather than following through on one's conservative political beliefs.
The core of conservatism (or liberalism for that matter) is the belief that government should be severely limited and the liberty of humans should be first and foremost in all endeavours.
Explain to me again how that belief leads one to believe government needs to be in charge of who marries who?
This of course will be known as try two.
Posted by glassman on :
The Feds literally told the Mormons that they had to abandon a religious belief and accept marriage as only one man/one woman.
it went to Territorial Supreme Court... but as we have seen the court doesn't always get it right...
it was the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 that made it illegal in the US Territory of Utah. We still had slavery then as well ...
i'm going to build me a big henhouse for all my future wives when SCOTUS rules this is a discriminatory practice
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
So nobody wants to acknowledge Michelle Obamas obesity campaign, while she goes to spain to spend hundreds of thousands on a vacation and eat ice cream? Oh but cash but cash George Bush cash George Bush!!!!! GB this !! GB that!!! The saudis and Bush!
We are talking about mr reach across the isle now, mr change, mr hope, mr im brining a new mindset to washington. bunch of crap, the whole admin! mr we all have to do out part, each and every citizen.
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: So nobody wants to acknowledge Michelle Obamas obesity campaign, while she goes to spain to spend hundreds of thousands on a vacation and eat ice cream? Oh but cash but cash George Bush cash George Bush!!!!! GB this !! GB that!!! The saudis and Bush!
We are talking about mr reach across the isle now, mr change, mr hope, mr im brining a new mindset to washington. bunch of crap, the whole admin! mr we all have to do out part, each and every citizen.
We can easily conclude that this response is the action of an automated AI program. Clearly the programmers have created a program to portray the average "conservative" as the dumbest mother ****er alive. Surely they have succeeded. It's actually pretty easy to create a program to replicate brilliance.. It takes true ingenuity to recreate slug like simplicity... You can teach a program to spell correctly with ease.. But to teach one to asymmetrically spell as a human would if drunk?... Wow.. Well done! Congrats moo moo.. you have succeeded in convincing us that you are not just dumb but the creation of a thousand minds focusing on what would be the epitome of dumb.. Again, job well done.
Posted by Relentless. on :
oh.. just an after thought here.. but any thoughts at all on the question you were asked? Anything?
quote:So, back on topic. How can a smaller government is better government conservative believe it is within government's mandate to decide who does or does not get married???
Just whack away at the buttony thing (Keyboard).. really we'll accept anything at this point.. your public awaits.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
relentless, what do you think the next historic moment this administration will do?
You know what, you can call me dumb, uneducated, whatever. The reality is that your ideology is going out the door this November. Liberals are going to take a beating, and all the minions and sheeple (yourself) of Nancy, Obama, et all are raging. They are slandering, smearing, and demonizing anyone who believes in Christ, pro-life, tax cuts, and does not think that government forcing the people to buy something is legal. Keith Olberman makes fun of Christians all the time, and that is just one of the MANY things that he does to show how weak he is. So, call me all the names you want. I will be laughing all the way to the polls. I wonder how many stimulus lies you have bought into. BTW, is it me or do hardly any Democrats want Obama helping them this fall? Even Europe and China are telling Obama to stop spending! lmao. Oh I forgot, this is all GWB fault. Liberals act worse than children when things dont go their way lol.
Oh yes the question I was asked.
"So, back on topic. How can a smaller government is better government conservative believe it is within government's mandate to decide who does or does not get married???"
Ok, do you want to try to make sense next time you ask a question? Your grammar is terrible.
Posted by Relentless. on :
I can be now called unimaginative, because we will now call this attempt three.
I do apolagise to all the folks out there lurking for my unusual lack of flair in naming my assaults upon the politically entrenched... but I am simply out of resources.
Moo Moo.. for the love of lactating mice can you please attempt to create the illusion that you might at some point answer the ****ing question.
We have recently seen you declare that you do not understand the question (Please press 1 if you would like the question displayed in Spanish). Would you like a chance to phone a friend? Perhaps I could display the answer in multiple choice?
You tell me how I can make this voyage from "uncomfortable that Rush won't answer for you" to "AHA I HAVE THE ANSWER". Help me help you Moo Moo.
Like a cat on a leash I see you shreaking... Just answer the ****ing question..
How can a conservative believe government can dictate who marries?
Come on tid bit...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
It sure takes a lot out of you to ask a question. Instead of just posting:
"How can a conservative believe government can dictate who marries?"
I didnt know the will of the people could be thrown down by a gay judge. The voters have spoken, and once again a small minority group has to weasel their agenda to the majority.
So, I see what you are trying to stab at. Trying to pin "the conservative" on a limited government issue. My goodness so much alarm from you over something so amature.
Instead of trying to push views onto me that I might not be for, and then hailing it as some kind of victory on your argument why dont you get more detailed than some wimpy question.
Throw me something not so irrational next time. I smell "right wing paranoia" all over you.
Posted by Relentless. on :
I feel almost belittled by declaring this the fourth try.. I should be capable of a more colorful decoration.. I am.. ashamed.
You do know this is a republic?
Press 1 for english
Press ;KLdfga;lskhdgao for retard
Baby did they tease you with the oxygen?... Hold it just out of reach when you were a pup?
Conservatives believe in a severely limited government with a mandate strictly declared by the constitution.
Do please show us all where it is stated in the constitution where government of any form can decide who marries who.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
You are just being weird and annoying now relentless. You are acting like a child. Grow up.
It does NOT say in the constitution that the government can decide who can marry who, so why are you defending government action to dictate who can marry who? You dont even know what you are trying to explain.
By the way, I bet you are in strong support for building a mosque at ground zero. Im not saying it is illegal, but it is extremely insensitive and quite frankly highly disturbing.
Now, how many gay marriages do you think will happen in mosques in America? 0! So much for a tolerant religion.
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:It does NOT say in the constitution that the government can decide who can marry who, so why are you defending government action to dictate who can marry who? You dont even know what you are trying to explain.
Bingo
When in doubt adopt the position of your victor.. You could easily be Mayan... or Aztec I guess.
You will follow me now.
I lead you follow.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
So is all this fuss because you have been waiting to marry another man? Is that why you are so defensive about this?
Posted by Relentless. on :
Just admit you know nothing and we can go from there.. attempting to best me.. as everyone can see... you can't do.
You are not a conservative.. you are not a thinker.. you are not capable in any manner.
You follow...
You will never lead.
Simple logic...
Simple..
Conservatism that you adore is nothing but a tool to entrap you in the lies of your masters...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
You are just straight up strange relentless. I am not some uber conservative like you attempt to brand me with. I have lead in numerous positions in the past, current, and will in the future. Business beyond your capabilities, trust me on that. I come here to let loose, have fun, and watch you get all worked up because I point out poor judgement in your leader that YOU follow.
Now, I am not going to argue with you. It is pointless. You talk about facts but dont produce any. So what if I believe capitalism is the best system. Better than any others. That makes me the bad guy huh? Arguing with you is no different that arguing with a muslim about how good pork is, or a strict mormon on how good drinking whiskey is. You are a zealot that mocks others in general. How old are you? Please tell me you are not in your 60s with a pony tail still. You know, the kind that wants to "stick it to the man" still trying to relive woodstock.
I know I am not going to change your mind. Hopefully, you realize you can not change mine. I look at Obama and see the same ol crap as anything else. What is so sickening is how he put himself on a platter of golden fleece. Promised 5 day public discussion for every bill on his desk, and live CSPAN debates on them. Lie after lie after lie. All I get from people around here is George Bush this, and George Bush that. Instead of running on any accomplishments, approval ratings, or anything good, we see a party running on George Bush. A has been. Nobody sees a problem with that around here. This board is about 90% liberal I would estimate. You know, a lot of you dont like my posts because they go against Obama, and liberalism. However, I dont post the cesspool comments that a lot of you do who disagree with me. Complete foolishness. Just look at the responses relentless has been posting in the threads. Jordan and Pagan can get pretty low themselves too at times.
So, relentless, although I cant change your mind. You can hopefully comprehend watching the election results this fall. So when you take catastrophic losses, what will you cry then? People are sick of runaway spending as the solution to our economic problems. They are sick of an administration going against the will of the people. Sick of turning a blind eye to immigration for votes. Sick of new tax after new tax. One after the other, every month there is some new tax on the table. Sick of Robert Gibbs playing spin doctor, and then flat out refusing to answer certain questions.
The list goes on, and we havent even hit his halfway point. You are a bitter old man, and that is what I get from you. Bitter that your best days are behind you, and now you feel it necessary to slam someone with an opposing view. How on earth can someone in their 50s or higher not be concerned with this administration? Maybe because they wont have to pay off the debt, and their care is on MY shoulders. Yes people, I do know Repulicans make mistakes. Some of you refuse to acknowledge my statements that are critical of Republicans. Why? Because you want to categorize me deeper than what should be. Im sorry if I dont see taxes as tithes, and wallow in self hatred. Your ideology is based on a belief not reality. If you showed me some intellectual honesty it would be shocking!
Who wants to make a bet, that the American people will come out this November and vote in a way that sends signals to the Obama administration that they are sick of a small minority group of leftists trying to impose their ideas on the majority? Who thinks Democrats are going to sweep this fall?
Can anyone here produce any evidence that the foreclosure crisis was GB fault? Anyone?
Posted by Relentless. on :
Really not trying to change your mind.. Just asking one friggen question.. One question that you have attempted to avoid in such a frantic manner that you remind me of a cat mid air over a swiming pool.
Just answer the ****ing question.
How is it possible for a smaller government is better government conservative to believe that government has the authority to decide who marries who?
Good god chuckles... Is it truly that much of an assault on your system to know you can't answer the question such that you'd have to play the part of a scared head slapping autistic girl?
It all goes away sweetie.. Just answer the question. Stop telling me you are a conservative and just answer the question. It's ok... Daddy's got you.
Posted by jordanreed on :
fatcow has no firm convictions...he is still trying to find himself. ..and thats,,,ok. we all struggle with our identity ..some longer than others. He still fancies himself as some kind of stud,for gods sake. Just a little boy trying to play with the adults.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Really not trying to change your mind.. Just asking one friggen question.. One question that you have attempted to avoid in such a frantic manner that you remind me of a cat mid air over a swiming pool.
Just answer the ****ing question.
How is it possible for a smaller government is better government conservative to believe that government has the authority to decide who marries who?
Good god chuckles... Is it truly that much of an assault on your system to know you can't answer the question such that you'd have to play the part of a scared head slapping autistic girl?
It all goes away sweetie.. Just answer the question. Stop telling me you are a conservative and just answer the question. It's ok... Daddy's got you.
Again, you are being weird. I am not against a government system. Taxes, infrastructure, defense, commercem and regulation are all important. It is when government becomes overbearing and forces you to do things such as pay a heavy penalty for not buying healthcare. 16,000 new IRS agents? You really think we need 16,000 more IRS agents? The faith you put into other people to responsibly handle your money is amazing.
Jordan, just because you might be older than me does not give you any entitlement. I know there is a lot of that around here, especially with libs. For all I know you could beat up on women when you have had a few too many, cheat on your taxes, and be infested with STDs. You know? Nobody really knows anyone here. I have seen many "grown" 50 year old mean act more juvenile than a 15 year old. Key example of this would be relentlesses juvenile posts in this thread. No wonder this board doesnt have that many posters anymore.
Posted by glassman on :
So, I didnt know I was a self proclaimed conservative.
that's funny... everybody else does know that cash...
why do you deny it if Bush's legacy is so darn trivial?
isn't that really the point here?
i voted for the man, and about the time he told Sadam he "had to geto ut of town before sundown" i was gettin' concerned...
not because he was conservative, but because i'd never heard that sort of talk out of a President before except once, and that when his daddy ILLEGALLY invaded Panama to capture Noriega...
Conservaitism had anew face cash, they called it Neo-Conservatism and it looks fascist to me....
so, you can deny all you want, i am conservative but i am no longer a Conservative cuz they changed and i did not...
people were trying to tell me who volunteered to go fight while we had hostages in Iran that i was an anti-war hippie or something... nothing could be further from the truth. I'vbe been looking for a good fight all my life... the emphasis being on the GOOD.
Posted by glassman on :
as to this thread? the will of the people is being followed.
the Constitution expresses the long-term will of the people, polls express the short-term.
the dems came up with the "gun-ban" such as it was with it's sunset clause. the Dems lost ehir hold on Congress cuz of it. the sunset expired.
Bush's tax cuts had a similar sunset clause they should expire.
It's hilarious that people who had no problem borrowing from China to invade a couple of countries are suddnely concenred about debt.
don't get me wrong, i was concerned about the debt befor ethe economy collapsed.
but not spending what the Dems have spent would mean that China would actually own our country much more than they do now. That's not speckelashun, that's their plan. They have been held off temporarily and if we do not raise taxes AND cut spending BOTH, their plan will just continue on..... The state of China has 2.3 trillion in cahs assets at last count. The total cash reserves of US businesses are only about 2.75 trillion at last count. The US Govt debt is 10 trillion or so, and beleive me the last 2 trillion the Dems "spent" means jackchit in terms of the Chines to US issue. The Chinese commies are beating our Capitalistic azzes and the Liberals and the Conservatives want to fight about who gets married? shhheh, this country is folding.
Under Capitalism, everything is for sale.
The Capitalists' greatest value is profit. All other values are secondary and dispensable as long as the first value is obtained. Any social reality is acceptable as long that first value is materialized.
That is why they will sell the undertakers of capitalism the rope, and be too busy counting their profits to see the noose tied.
get it? our country is being sold piecemeal by Conservatives and Liberals BOTH and they all stink.
there is no Patriotism in our leadership where profit is concerned.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
I never thought borrowing from China to pay for a war with no exit strategy was a good idea. Rumsfeld seemed to just shrug his shoulders when asked what the strategy was.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: I never thought borrowing from China to pay for a war with no exit strategy was a good idea. Rumsfeld seemed to just shrug his shoulders when asked what the strategy was.
but cash, right now? you are against raising taxes? yes or no will do.
you see the problem? we are at war, in war the rich pay and the poor fight. that's the rule, always has been always will be. there's no free ride.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: I never thought borrowing from China to pay for a war with no exit strategy was a good idea. Rumsfeld seemed to just shrug his shoulders when asked what the strategy was.
but cash, right now? you are against raising taxes? yes or no will do.
you see the problem? we are at war, in war the rich pay and the poor fight. that's the rule, always has been always will be. there's no free ride.
I am not against the tax cuts expiring. It is all the other taxes that just come out of nowhere.
Posted by glassman on :
well, i've got a problem with govt overspending too, but the problem we are facing right now is that we have sent all our jobs to China and they ain't never coming back...
we collected taxes from those jobs....
the ratioanle WAS that China has abillion potential customers...
WTF are we supposed to sell them tho? stock? LOL...
KFC, Pizza Hut and Happy Meals? LOL...
we are in this mess because Patriotism was put behind the Profit of the Few
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
They wont come back, but we can produce new jobs. Obama wanting to shut down the gulf to all drilling isnt helping the thousands upon thousands of oil workers who depend on energy production that we need in this country.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: They wont come back, but we can produce new jobs. Obama wanting to shut down the gulf to all drilling isnt helping the thousands upon thousands of oil workers who depend on energy production that we need in this country.
Wrong yet again Cowpie! You gotta read more than the Repuke talking points. The temporary ban is only of deepwell drilling. Not "all" gulf drilling. Don't you get tired of being proven wrong sooooo many times on a daily basis?
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Deep well drilling is where they are all moving to. YOU are wrong. Brazil is the new hot spot, and a lot of companies are going onshore now. Its just a mess down there. There are numerous in this administration who are calling for a permanent ban.
You have not proven me wrong. I love how you and others try to give yourself knock up credits on me, when really you just blast weak thoughts. More just smearing. Thats all you can expect from libs anyway. Smears, foul language, and deceit.
Posted by glassman on :
Deep well drilling is where they are all moving to.
all 33 rigs? this is just more propagnada.
the US has over 600 rotary drilling oil rigs in use right now those 33 represents about 5% of all drilling rigs in operation in the US.
972 nat gas rigs..
you should look at Baker Hughes news more often.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Deep well drilling is where they are all moving to. YOU are wrong. Brazil is the new hot spot, and a lot of companies are going onshore now. Its just a mess down there. There are numerous in this administration who are calling for a permanent ban.
You have not proven me wrong. I love how you and others try to give yourself knock up credits on me, when really you just blast weak thoughts. More just smearing. Thats all you can expect from libs anyway. Smears, foul language, and deceit.
Posted by glassman on :
International rig count, which excludes the US and Canada, increased 9 to 1,099 for the month of June 2010 and is 132 rigs (13.7%) above last year's 967.
The total number of rotary rigs worldwide in June was 2,869 up 109 from May and is 872 higher than last year.
that means we actually increased MORE than the rest of the world-
more Fox news LIES! they never friggin stop and it's just sad that peopl beleive them.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Keep telling yourself that Pagan.
"Brazil is plowing ahead with a $220 billion five-year plan to tap oil fields even deeper than BP’s (BP.L) ill-fated Gulf well,"
"Since operators are shutting down at least temporarily in the U.S. Gulf, some companies are planning to move their rigs to Brazil now,” he said, without offering details."
"With an estimated 35 rigs idled in the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil is already receiving inquiries from companies looking to move their rigs here, where vast discoveries in recent years may soon turn the country into a major crude exporter."
quote:Originally posted by glassman: International rig count, which excludes the US and Canada, increased 9 to 1,099 for the month of June 2010 and is 132 rigs (13.7%) above last year's 967.
The total number of rotary rigs worldwide in June was 2,869 up 109 from May and is 872 higher than last year.
that means we actually increased MORE than the rest of the world-
more Fox news LIES! they never friggin stop and it's just sad that peopl beleive them.
Where are the rigs being manufactured and then exported to?
BTW where was a Fox News link posted with the figures being discussed in the thread?
Posted by glassman on :
Where are the rigs being manufactured and then exported to?
cash. our rig count in north america has risen by 100 while the whole rest of the world number has risen 9 in the month of June.
when are you going to stop beleiving everything they tell you?
i don't share stock picks anymore cuz it's a magnet for the crooks, but i know how to find out what i need to know to make good investments and i'll still share that..
Baker Hughes makes drill bits for oil and nat gas that's why i know who's drilling and who isn't... we are still drilling hard.
Posted by glassman on :
i could literally sit here all day and shoot down 90% of what i hear on Fox lairs Channel, and i'm not talking about opinions i'm talking about verifiable facts that are not even hard to find. It would be a full time job.
Obama is not superman, he's not transparent enough, he's still ten times better then Dubya was on his best day. the GOP has NO-ONE to put agianst him right now and i hope the GOP wins the Senate and the House this fall, but they won't. They might get close on the House, but the Seante? they will be doing very well to gain 5 seats...
it is the GOP's fault adn no-one elses that they lost control of the Govt... they did it to themselves and they'll do it again when they finally do get it back cuz that's just the way the world works..
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
It IS sad that the GOP is not capitalizing on this opportunity to put a fresh face out there. I really do not like Michael Steele. The guy is a joke. He is the token black guy they chose to counter Obama to claim diversity. 2008 was just a disaster, the GOP candidates, coming from the Bush era. Obama had it handed to him on a silver platter.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Where are the rigs being manufactured and then exported to?
cash. our rig count in north america has risen by 100 while the whole rest of the world number has risen 9 in the month of June.
when are you going to stop beleiving everything they tell you?
i don't share stock picks anymore cuz it's a magnet for the crooks, but i know how to find out what i need to know to make good investments and i'll still share that..
Baker Hughes makes drill bits for oil and nat gas that's why i know who's drilling and who isn't... we are still drilling hard.
"when are you going to stop beleiving everything they tell you?"
What WHO tells me Glass? I havent disputed your findings, and I never claimed a source. So what are you talking about?
Now if you want to talk about the international and U.S. rotary rig count, I actually have July 2010 World Oil mag in front of me with as in depth data as you need. So instead of assuming I am watching Fox News all the time, some of you might consider the fact that I read books and publications!
P.S. Pretty soon we are going to have to drill for arctic oil.
PPS, for the record I am pretty sure Glass watches Glenn Beck more than me, because I cant watch him. I cant watch the kooks on MSNBC either. I think you watch more Fox News than I do! I watch more of the Science and History channel in HD.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
33 rigs are affected by the moratorium imposed by Obama. On those rigs 8000 workers are employed. (That number includes the chefs, laundry workers, and other subsidiary services that work on the rigs themselves. It does not count suppliers or ship captains who ferry men or supplies.)
BP has set up a 100 Million dollar fund to support workers directly related to the rigs that are under the moratorium. This does not replace the full salary that the workers were receiving but will be awarded according to need on an individual basis to support these families during the 6 months of the moratorium which ends November 28th.
The moratorium on approving new leases for deep water drilling extends into 2012.
If your magazine doesn't jive with those numbers CCM then toss the mag. A ten minute fact check over the internet was all I needed to get multiple sources for everything above.
Oh...and the Obama vacation rap you like to post about. That 89 day count or whatever it is now...the people who published that number are counting all Saturdays and Sundays in that total. Do you consider weekends vacation days? I don't.
According to factcheck.org in his 1st year as President Obama took 26 vacation days. George W Bush had 69 days of vacation in his first year. Clinton had 21 days George Sr. had 40 Reagan had 42 Carter had 19
For all of the above it is noted that some of these days were half days out of the White House or days spent touring part business part pleasure.
Posted by glassman on :
What WHO tells me Glass? I havent disputed your findings, and I never claimed a source. So what are you talking about?
actually i have a TV in my shop and i leave it on CNN, CNBC or FOX at random... it runs from 6am to almost midnight most days
i gave up on MSNBC sometime during the alast election campaign for the very reason you suggest. they are in love with Obama.
why do i leave it on Fox? because everywhere i go in public, my bank, the barber the gas stations the tire store, you name it? Fox news is on here.
i like to get my news all over. and Fox news says that Obamas moratorium is costing a hundred thousand jobs over and over again all the time.
Whereever you get your news from? They agree with Fox. I may actaully watch (or more correctly listen) to them more than you do.
But i am very serious that i hear more lies there than i did when i was in the Navy, and i heard alot of lies there.
Rupert has his tenatcles all over the place and i find it disconcerting how his media outlelts all say the same stuff over and again and actually use each othr as sources to sound like there's even more people agreeing with him.
so who told you this:
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: They wont come back, but we can produce new jobs. Obama wanting to shut down the gulf to all drilling isnt helping the thousands upon thousands of oil workers who depend on energy production that we need in this country.
that is exaclty what i hear people on Fox lairs channel say over and over and over again all day every day, and it just isn't true..
word for word they say Obama shut down all the gulf drilling, and it's just not true.
i even hear them say it's costing 100,000 jobs....
Fox news is nothing more than a propaganda network and the brother of the Prince of Saudi Arabia that Bush sent to China to negotiate secretly for the release of the 24 service members on the spy plane? he own 7% of Fox News parent organisation now second only to the Murdch family holdings...
wonder why Fox might be so oil friendly? they were surely Bush friendly.. for the same reasons
i know we'll need oil till it's all gone, i don't hate it, what i hate is how we are so dependant on a sole source of energy... that needs to end
Posted by Relentless. on :
I'd go one further in suggesting all broadcast news are state sponsored lie factories. I can't remember the last time I actually watched one of them..
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
One of the reasons I love the internet. A little work provides a lot of information and a little more work you can sift a lot of the spin out of information.
Of course, everyone will interpret based on their own perspective which creates its own spin but it is better than only being able to rely on two or three outlets to get your info.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Yeah, exactly. Having so many web resources for news truly makes it possible to see how worthless TV news is.
Instead of listening to some script reader tell me about the horrible people in Iran I can simply talk to them myself.. I can have a conversation with anyone and experience perspectives that have changed mine.
Posted by glassman on :
yeah but you have to have a working point of reference to find out what you want to find out about hence you watcht he stuffed shirts with their hors d'oeuvre trays Posted by Relentless. on :
Oh I dunno.. I start with Drudge then go from there to all my various news sites. I get news alerts from ABC emailed to my phone in case something big happens.. Just can't find a use for TV news anymore.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Oh I dunno.. I start with Drudge then go from there to all my various news sites. I get news alerts from ABC emailed to my phone in case something big happens.. Just can't find a use for TV news anymore.
When was the last time (most recent) you changed your mind?
Posted by Relentless. on :
During the oil spill.. Go back and look at my posts at the start of the spill.. I was fairly sure the spill was a nothing event.. A month or so in I was really reading alot about it.. the chemicals being used.. I changed my mind in that the near term effects would be far worse than I initially thought.
Still kind of pondering the event..
I know the long term effects will be nothing.. The Earth will be fine.. But the effects on our food supply is what I'm debating internally.
Posted by Relentless. on :
I changed my mind about 9/11.. You'd have to go back a ways but I at one time was quite the party line Rushbot... After exposing myself to the information on the net I really became quite the opposite of what I was, politically. Due in large part to this board oddly enough. Arguing with Glass, Bdgee and all the rest has changed my perception massively. I don't ever feel as though I'm arguing with anyone as much as I only ever feel I am challenging my perception by bouncing it off of those who think I'm arguing with them.
rather perplexing way of learning yes I know.. but how else can one be sure?
Posted by Relentless. on :
I don't doubt my ability to argue.. look at poor Moo Moo.
I do however doubt my perception.
If I put my opinion out there and argue with clearly stated logic and I feel that I lose.. then it is my perception that is flawed... I then re-examine my perception to the point that I can present it to my combatants and prevail.
I then move on to my next defeat/lesson.
Posted by T e x on :
That's pretty interesting. And, yeah, I remember the initial spill reaction...was wondering about that.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I don't doubt my ability to argue.. look at poor Moo Moo.
I do however doubt my perception.
If I put my opinion out there and argue with clearly stated logic and I feel that I lose.. then it is my perception that is flawed... I then re-examine my perception to the point that I can present it to my combatants and prevail.
I then move on to my next defeat/lesson.
I dont doubt your ability to argue either, but your ability to debate in a professional and sound manner without personal attacks is another story. You would be a great guest on Keith Olberman!
Posted by Relentless. on :
I am quite civilized in my approach. I made references that were aggressive enough to maybe spur you into answering the question I was asking. A question you have still avoided. A question aimed at proving the republican party and the conservative movement is based on the exact same principles as the democratic party.
More government controlling everything.
It is an undeniable premise.
Were you to answer the question, you would see that.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
I answer the staged questions, I just dont give the staging answers you want me to post so you can drag it out further.
![[More Crap]](graemlins/morecrap.png)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
...