• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses[W:344,535,718]

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

translation: you cant
but please let us know when you cant, thanks
facts win again

There was no need for translation, everyone here, including you, understands just what I said. We all know where you go when you've failed at any valid argument, as you have here.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

That took a Civil War and more, Civil Rights Act for one, school busing, another, a long list, before becoming applicable. And today it is still not self evident.

To paraphrase Ataturk, rights are taken, not given.

To be more clear, the reality is that people give up rights in exchange for the safety and convenience of being part of a community. An individual alone in the wild has all of his/her rights, and most of us could choose to leave society and regain that freedom. Once you join a community you have to give up some freedoms. To regain that freedom requires a struggle.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Already have, and I refuse to go down the "facts" rabbit hole with you. It's just more of you doing what you always do, avoid any discussion by claiming your opinions are facts. You're not fooling anyone.


All you had to do was say that the US Constitution came before any State constitution, and that would have factually destroyed his argument about the Fed needing to be created to restrict the states tyranny, but I understand why you are playing with him. I do it too, but it gets old really quick. :)


Tim-
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

There was no need for translation, everyone here, including you, understands just what I said. We all know where you go when you've failed at any valid argument, as you have here.

translation: another dodge and deflection since you cant back up your failed and proven wrong claims lol
again, when you are done dodging please let us know when you can back them up with one single fact, thank you
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

All you had to do was say that the US Constitution came before any State constitution, and that would have factually destroyed his argument about the Fed needing to be created to restrict the states tyranny, but I understand why you are playing with him. I do it too, but it gets old really quick. :)


Tim-


WTH?
can you qoute me saying that? nothing like just posting blatant lies
sorry your strawman and lie fails

unless of course you can qoute me saying that, you wont be able to because i never did
facts win again
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

translation: another dodge and deflection since you cant back up your failed and proven wrong claims lol
again, when you are done dodging please let us know when you can back them up with one single fact, thank you

See post #651. Repeat that every time you use the word "fact" in any of your posts.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

See post #651. Repeat that every time you use the word "fact" in any of your posts.

another deflection,

what is needed is back up for your proven wrong claims, we are asking for ONE fact that supports your proven wrong claims, can this be done or not?
if so please do it in your next post . . or admit that it cant be done and you misspoke . . .anything else is just another failure of your false claims
thank you
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

translation: you cant point that out cause you made it up
sorry but that was your false assumption, you assumed and made up in your head thats what it implied, this is somethign that you commonly do but as usual that illogical assumption was factually wrong
only I can answer what my post was about and i did. Glad i could clear up your mistake for you. You're welcome

translation: you cant point that out cause you made it up
sorry but that was your false assumption, you assumed and made up in your head thats what it implied, this is somethign that you commonly do but as usual that illogical assumption was factually wrong
only I can answer what my post was about and i did. Glad i could clear up your mistake for you. You're welcome


Well sparky if your statement to Rogue was not an affirmation of his statement, then please tell me what you meant when you said this?

Some people have no interest with the facts

That, in proper syntax and in context implies that you agree that Rogue has the facts, and that I do not.

There's is NO other way to interpret that as meaning anything else? Look, I know this isn't fair when I pick on you, and I get it, but most of your pain can be mitigated by being reasonable. You invite people like me and clown to the table by your deliberate defiance and inability to separate facts from opinion. It's almost like I want to help you, and then you ignore my help, and then you just claim I'm the one that needs the help because I'm somehow clueless to your superior intellect. Clownboy is fully correct to point out that you always, and I mean like a clock, always pull out this bizarre "Facts this, facts that, translation this, translation that routine when cornered. Do you realize how you sound, and if you do, does us pointing it out to you cause you some kind of weird fantastical amusement?

I'm really serious in asking that question?


Tim-
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Well sparky if your statement to Rogue was not an affirmation of his statement, then please tell me what you meant when you said this?



That, in proper syntax and in context implies that you agree that Rogue has the facts, and that I do not.

There's is NO other way to interpret that as meaning anything else? Look, I know this isn't fair when I pick on you, and I get it, but most of your pain can be mitigated by being reasonable. You invite people like me and clown to the table by your deliberate defiance and inability to separate facts from opinion. It's almost like I want to help you, and then you ignore my help, and then you just claim I'm the one that needs the help because I'm somehow clueless to your superior intellect. Clownboy is fully correct to point out that you always, and I mean like a clock, always pull out this bizarre "Facts this, facts that, translation this, translation that routine when cornered. Do you realize how you sound, and if you do, does us pointing it out to you cause you some kind of weird fantastical amusement?

I'm really serious in asking that question?


Tim-

already did in post 639
fact remains your assumption was wrong
facts win again
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

WTH?
can you qoute me saying that? nothing like just posting blatant lies
sorry your strawman and lie fails

unless of course you can qoute me saying that, you wont be able to because i never did
facts win again

Well sure, but this is me cornering you again, what will you do this time?

In post# 643 you said this:

correct tyranny is what the states were practicing over people and the fed fixed it

. . . . . hence liberty was gained

thank you for agreeing
facts win again


Oops. ;)

but let me guess. You meant something completely different?

Tim-
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Well sure, but this is me cornering you again, what will you do this time?

In post# 643 you said this:




Oops. ;)

but let me guess. You meant something completely different?

Tim-

thank you for proving yourself wrong

what you quoted is me pointing out what factually happened, i see NOTHING in there about somethign that needs to be CREATED to control the state which you claimed i did and you just proved yourself wrong'

let me guess you didnt really mean what you actually said? ooops is right on your part
so try again, please qoute me saying the lie you claimed, we are waiting thanks!
fact wins agin
 
Do you share the same disdain for Scalia and believe that he should recuse himself? Afterall, Scalia also said that it is coming and that the "writing is on the wall". Should Scalia have the "integrity to do the right thing" as well? Or just those who are likely to vote with the majority?

Haven't heard his quote. Did he do it while the case was before the court?
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

So, when god sends hurricanes and floods and earthquakes, he is just punishing us or disrupting our rights?

No idea what you are talking about.

I don't see any official proclaimation from god that states that he gave us our rights. Is he some kind of dictator?

Why do you need that? You seem unable to make your case, just able to make irrelevant wise cracks.

Evidently he likes Americans the best, he waited all them centuries for our nation to be founded...

Nobody is saying those rights began with American, that would be dumb.


As I said before, leave God out of it. Not everyone believes in God. But everyone has those rights.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

thank you for proving yourself wrong

what you quoted is me pointing out what factually happened, i see NOTHING in there about somethign that needs to be CREATED to control the state which you claimed i did and you just proved yourself wrong'

let me guess you didnt really mean what you actually said? ooops is right on your part
so try again, please qoute me saying the lie you claimed, we are waiting thanks!
fact wins agin

You said the Fed was created to stop the tyranny of the states, yet, that couldn't possibly have happened. The federal constitution came before the states constitutions. Unless of course you're saying that until the federal constitution that the states were tyrannical and needed being stopped. If you're going to make that claim (Which I am not saying you're saying) then shouldn't you be able to back it up with facts? Not facts showing that the states perhaps was unjust to some of their inhabitants because we all know that happened, but that the Federal constitution was born out a specific need to stop them for doing it.

Tim-
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

You said the Fed was created to stop the tyranny of the states, yet, that couldn't possibly have happened. The federal constitution came before the states constitutions. Unless of course you're saying that until the federal constitution that the states were tyrannical and needed being stopped. If you're going to make that claim (Which I am not saying you're saying) then shouldn't you be able to back it up with facts? Not facts showing that the states perhaps was unjust to some of their inhabitants because we all know that happened, but that the Federal constitution was born out a specific need to stop them for doing it.

Tim-

still waiting for you to post the qoute that backs up that lie
maybe in your next post? please and thank you
 
If Scalia said it....do you believe that he should recuse himself?

You need to quote what he said, and was it a case before the court?

Ginsberg said, "I think it's doubtful that it wouldn't be accepted" about a case that is before het right now.
What is she doing, drumming up support for a decision that she supposedly hasn't made yet? She is supposed to be applying the Constitution in her decisions, not saying, "I think that it would not take a large adjustment". WTF??? What the hell does that have to do with it? This woman does not even know what her job is, but that's nothing new.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

still waiting for you to post the qoute that backs up that lie
maybe in your next post? please and thank you

Never mind, I grow tired of you, as usually happens. Surprised I lasted this long, frankly.

Remember, a delusion ceases to be when lucid. ;)

Think about that, till we meet again!

Tim-
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Never mind, I grow tired of you, as usually happens. Surprised I lasted this long, frankly.

Remember, a delusion ceases to be when lucid. ;)

Think about that, till we meet again!

Tim-

thats what i thought, you got busted on your lie and now you are bailing.
facts win again
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Depends, are you talking about the "rights" the entitled set pulls pull out of their ass at every turn, or actual rights? And yes, size matters, your girlfriend is lying to make you feel better. :mrgreen:

OK I will clarify the question- are you for or against SSM.
If against, why?
 
You need to quote what he said, and was it a case before the court?

Ginsberg said, "I think it's doubtful that it wouldn't be accepted" about a case that is before het right now.
What is she doing, drumming up support for a decision that she supposedly hasn't made yet? She is supposed to be applying the Constitution in her decisions, not saying, "I think that it would not take a large adjustment". WTF??? What the hell does that have to do with it? This woman does not even know what her job is, but that's nothing new.

First of all, she isn't commenting on a specific case. There is nothing in her statement that is "drumming up support" or indicates that she isn't applying the Constitution to her decision.
Scalia's comment was no different. In his vitriolic dissent, he lashed out against the other justices, while clearly anticipating a case coming down the pipes that the "Writing is on the wall", saying that the current make-up of the court is going to vote in favor of marriage equality.

What is sounds like to me is that you don't like the fact that the SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of marriage equality and are stomping your feet in the same manner as Scalia.

As Justice Kennedy wisely wrote in the DOMA case....while States are free to set rules/requlations governing the granting of marriage licenses, they must do so in a manner that does not violate the rights and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This was the line that set Scalia off. This doesn't indicate that Kennedy or Ginsburg or any of the other Justices for the matter have "prejudged" the case (any more than they pre-judge ANY case). The reality is that they are saying that they will look at the case to determine whether the state rules run afoul of the USSC. If they do, it will not be upheld. Sorry....but that IS following the Constitution.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

No idea what you are talking about.



Why do you need that? You seem unable to make your case, just able to make irrelevant wise cracks.



Nobody is saying those rights began with American, that would be dumb.



As I said before, leave God out of it. Not everyone believes in God. But everyone has those rights.

If you don't have proof from god, that he has granted us our rights, how do you know that our rights come from god?

Makes perfect sense.
Does god only grant rights to Americans?

Not being irreverent, but where is the proof that our rights come from a supreme being?

Very simple question.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Its interesting how conservatives and libertarians seem to turn any policy debate into a states rights issue. The reason that they love state's rights is because they know it is easier to implement and maintain discriminatory laws at the state level.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Its interesting how conservatives and libertarians seem to turn any policy debate into a states rights issue. The reason that they love state's rights is because they know it is easier to implement and maintain discriminatory laws at the state level.

Actually the reason libertarians like states' rights is because it pushes the decision making closer to those who have to live with the consequences of those decisions and allows people to set up communities that accord with their beliefs and desires - within the bounds of the Constitution.

Additionally we like states rights because it allows for variability and allows us to "vote with our feet" if we happen to not like the society that the laws of the state we're living in create. It essentially fosters competition.
 
First of all, she isn't commenting on a specific case.

LOL! Gee, what case was she talking about? Nah, no specific case. Please, don't insult us.

There is nothing in her statement that is "drumming up support" or indicates that she isn't applying the Constitution to her decision.

It's about as obvious as the nose on her face. Really, then what is she doing?

Scalia's comment was no different. In his vitriolic dissent, he lashed out against the other justices, while clearly anticipating a case coming down the pipes that the "Writing is on the wall", saying that the current make-up of the court is going to vote in favor of marriage equality.

Wait, Scalia's comment is no different? Then you say it was part of a dissent, which is completely different. He wasn't out doing interviews trying to get support for an unconstitutional action. Furthermore, he describes the current makeup of the court may continue to ignore the Constitution. Excuse me, but that is perfectly permissible.

What is sounds like to me is that you don't like the fact that the SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of marriage equality and are stomping your feet in the same manner as Scalia.

I guess you haven't been listening. First of all, it's not really a fact, they haven't made a ruling yet. And Scalia, and every American should be stomping their feet when the court ignores their responsibilities and the Constitution.

As Justice Kennedy wisely wrote in the DOMA case....while States are free to set rules/regulations governing the granting of marriage licenses, they must do so in a manner that does not violate the rights and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This was the line that set Scalia off.

You know why that set him off? Because Kennedy, a Supreme Court Justice, either is ignorant, just plain stupid, or has decided that he doesn't care what the Constitution says, he's going to ignore his responsibility and just make and ends-justifies-the-means decision.
 
Back
Top Bottom