Home » xyzzy » Dungeon » Just for you Manual. Ann Coulter on the definition of Judicial Activism.
I was not yelling at you... [message #57358 is a reply to message #57356] Sat, 12 November 2005 06:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
Not sure why you would think that. You brought up the meaning of prissily and I was discussing it with you.

Re: Just for you Manual. Ann Coulter on the definition of Judicial Activism. [message #57359 is a reply to message #57357] Sat, 12 November 2005 07:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
There is a difference between state laws and the constitution. There are marriage laws from state to state but there is no constitutional right to marriage. So no, you are not off the hook as you put it. In our discussions you seem to confuse the difference between state laws, federal laws, and the constitution. There are many state laws that are not in the constitution. This is not to say the state laws are unconstitutional just that they aren't breaking any constitutional rules. This is the reason why most states are now passing laws to prevent gay marriage. There is no constitutional right to gay or heterosexual marriage so it's up to the states to decide for themselves.

Re: I was not yelling at you... [message #57360 is a reply to message #57358] Sat, 12 November 2005 07:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
I know that; I mean't it as a exaggeration for effect. I know when you are yelling because the print gets big.

Re: Just for you Manual. Ann Coulter on the definition of Judicial Activism. [message #57361 is a reply to message #57359] Sat, 12 November 2005 07:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Not really. The states that are enacting the no gay marriage laws will be brought before the Supreme Court soon as a result. The Constitution clearly states and the legal precedent backs it up see this:

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the states by the constitution nor prohibited it by the states are reserved to the states respectively or TO THE PEOPLE.

That and the Bill of Rights tied to the IX Amendment is the basis since the country was founded of the Privacy Right. It is fundamentally founded in our extensive body of decided law.

We'll see [message #57362 is a reply to message #57361] Sat, 12 November 2005 08:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
I don't believe you're correct. I am confident the Supreme Court will agree that bans to gay marriage is constitutional since marriage is not a constitutional right. But as I said we shall see. This is probably Several years away from getting to the Supreme Court so we will just have to sit tight.

BTW [message #57363 is a reply to message #57362] Sat, 12 November 2005 08:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
Clearly the people of the US don't want gay marriage. See link. I thought the Democrats only want what the people want? This is why polls are so important to them. In other words, when discussing topics such as the Iraq war the first thing a Democrat will say is look at the polls.

Re: BTW [message #57364 is a reply to message #57363] Sat, 12 November 2005 10:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
I am not sure where this one goes. Democrats want what Democrats want same for the Republicans.
Are you suggesting that Republicans don't track polls???

Lets forget gay marriage and discuss the real issue here which is how the hell does these religous groups get by with dictating to their parishoners how they must vote/campaigning for Republican Political issues and using the press to launch their Republican agenda and still get a tax deferment on all of their property and their income as organisations. You want to talk about whats fair? Thats rediculous that they get away with that BS.
How come Ann doesn't mention that?

Re: BTW [message #57365 is a reply to message #57364] Sat, 12 November 2005 12:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
Well, I haven't been to church in years so I can't say for sure. However the people can vote anyway they want. No one is dictating to them how they "must" vote or that they must campaign for anyone. So I would imagine that Ann didn't mention it because it doesn't happen. Explain to me how a leader of a church can force people to vote or campaign for a political party? BTW, when I did go to church I have never even heard politics mentioned.

If you want to be mad about something how about unions spending union dues on political campaigns without the knowledge or the approval of it's members? This is something that Arnold just tried to have stopped in CA. Unfortunately for him and the union members it wasn't passed. Of course you realize the unions are spending this money on the Democrat campaigns. Do you disagree with this practice?

Regarding religious institutions not having to pay taxes on property. This is for all religions. Not just the Christian religion. Jews generally vote for the Democrats. I don't see how this is unfair in anyway. That said I wouldn't be opposed to ending religious tax breaks. At least not with what I know of them. I must admit I am not familiar with the specifics. So I reserve the right to change my mind.

Re: BTW [message #57366 is a reply to message #57365] Sat, 12 November 2005 13:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
It does happen. Big time. And it stinks. And I'm sorry but she is redundent; superficial and boring.
How come you guys never mention any of the really thoughtfull and intelligent conservative writers?
Where's William F. Buckley?



Re: BTW [message #57367 is a reply to message #57366] Sat, 12 November 2005 13:46 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
Look in order to have a discussion you have to give some kind of facts. You can't just say something and not back it up. How can a church leader force it's church members to vote or campaign for a political party? Also what are you trying to say? If this did occur it's only happening with Republicans? You know African Americans are pretty religious and they vote almost exclusively for Democrats? Isn't it "Rev" Sharpton and "Rev" Jackson? Same with the Jewish people. I'm not sure what your compliant is.

You may not like Ann Coulter but she is anything but boring. I find her intelligent and very funny at times. But to each his own. William Buckley is great (see link). He's still around. Both Ann Coulter and Buckley (as well as Rush and Hannity) are very good IMO. But I can understand why you wouldn't like them. I can't stand liberal commentators. I do listen to a few but mostly just for the laughs. I really can't stand their negativity. All they do is name call. Sure Rush makes up names for the Dems but it's funny (to me and obviously many other people. He was just given a 300 million dollar contract. The largest in history). Rush is trying to be funny by making fun of the Dems. Rush is never angry. Neither are the other conservatives mentioned here. But every liberal I have listened to is very angry and nasty. Of course you may view them differently. Notice how almost no liberal radio talk show host can make it? It's because they have no concept of facts. Just name call and bitch about Bush. Nobody wants to listen to negativity all day. How is Air America doing lately?


Previous Topic: Still waiting for the COHERENT explanation of legislating from the bench
Next Topic: Manual - here's a little tid bit on Bob Grant you might be interested in.
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun May 05 10:48:41 CDT 2024

Sponsoring Organizations

DIY Audio Projects
DIY Audio Projects
OddWatt Audio
OddWatt Audio
Pi Speakers
Pi Speakers
Prosound Shootout
Prosound Shootout
Smith & Larson Audio
Smith & Larson Audio
Tubes For Amps
TubesForAmps.com

Lone Star Audiofest