• 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!

Iowans dismiss three justices

And we the people retain the power to remove judges who place their whims above the law. You may remember a Wisconsin case a few years ago where the judge dismissed charges against a child molester on the grounds that the five year old victim had "behaved provocatively." In that case, as in the current Iowa situation, the people decided at the next election that the judge lacked the qualifications and temperament to keep his job.

Politicians are not the only ones who occasionally suffer from a case of terminal arrogance.

More hair splitting. Yes, Blackdog, as we all know whenever people bring up pedophilia in a homosexuality thread it does not seek to find a link between the two. Even though that's the exact intent each and every time. Please stop being intellectually dishonest?

Then please point out where in his post he was comparing or making it known homosexuals are pedophiles. He did not even imply such nonsense.

Notice no mention of the sex of the victim or criminal.
 
Last edited:
Its great to see the electorate make these activist judges pay for their outrageous decision.........
 
Its great to see the electorate make these activist judges pay for their outrageous decision.........

You are proud that judges are being kicked out for doing their job by upholding the US Constitutioin?
 
Then please point out where in his post he was comparing or making it known homosexuals are pedophiles. He did not even imply such nonsense.

Notice no mention of the sex of the victim or criminal.

Ah I see you're well versed in the art of strawmen. Here is what I said.

Will you look at that.... 6 posts in and somebody mentions pedophilia in a thread about judges who were dismissed for supporting gay marriage.

Pedophilia. Godwin's law for Homos.

Care to tell show us where I said he compared anything to anything? I said he brought it up in a thread about homosexuality. Just like every other time somebody else brings up pedophilia in a thread about homosexuality in an attempt to draw a link between them. Do you have anything to add to the thread? Or are you going to continue creating straw man arguments?
 
You are proud that judges are being kicked out for doing their job by upholding the US Constitutioin?

I'm proud to see that judges are denied he ability to legislate from the bench.
 
Will you look at that.... 6 posts in and somebody mentions pedophilia in a thread about judges who were dismissed for supporting gay marriage.

Pedophilia. Godwin's law for Homos.

Ah I see you're well versed in the art of strawmen. Here is what I said.

Care to tell show us where I said he compared anything to anything? I said he brought it up in a thread about homosexuality. Just like every other time somebody else brings up pedophilia in a thread about homosexuality in an attempt to draw a link between them. Do you have anything to add to the thread? Or are you going to continue creating straw man arguments?

You implied he did it in the same way people bring up Hitler. This was not in any way connected. You went completely off topic about something that was not comparable in any way for the wrong reasons.

You tried to make contraversy where there was none.

Par for the course I guess.
 
It's obvious that to some "Constitutional rights" mean forcing their values on other people and an "activist" judge is anyone who doesn't agree with them. Anyone who says that the government should be able to tell two consenting adults that they cannot marry, or in some cases not to even have a relationship, is not a "Constitutionalist", they are at best oligarchists and at worst supporters for the tyrannical oppression of the minority by the majority based on nothing more than their own ignorance, fear and intolerance.
 
Its great to see the electorate make these activist judges pay for their outrageous decision.........

Activist judge = one who's ruling I disagree with for vague unexplained reasons.
 
It is terrible that judges got voted out based on a single decision, yet everything else they've done has been glossed over. As far as gay marriage goes, they were ruling in line with the constitution. Equal Protection is very real and very valid. Calling them activist judges is just a platitude. Ruling by the Bible is not what the U.S. is supposed to be about.

The right wing in your country is totally out of control.
 
You implied he did it in the same way people bring up Hitler.

And he did. Allusions to anything else are simply dishonest.

This was not in any way connected.

Ah so what you're saying is that he brought up an entirely unconnected case that happened to be about pedophilia in a thread about homosexuality? Your dishonesty is fooling nobody blackdog.

You went completely off topic about something that was not comparable in any way for the wrong reasons.

Completely off topic? How did I go off topic when I simply noticed what he did? He brought up pedophilia in a thread about homosexuality. That's not off topic. It's a fact.

You tried to make contraversy where there was none.

Par for the course I guess.

What controversy? He brought up pedophilia in a thread about homosexuality. It's the same tactic used over and over by right wingers whenever homosexuality is discussed with right wingers. End of story.
 
Activist judge = one who's ruling I disagree with for vague unexplained reasons.

Homophobe/Racist/Sexist/Bigot = Anyone that disagrees with a Liberal, on anything. Or, anyone that isn't blindly following in lockstep with the Liberal agenda.
 
Homophobe/Racist/Sexist/Bigot = Anyone that disagrees with a Liberal, on anything. Or, anyone that isn't blindly following in lockstep with the Liberal agenda.


So log cabin Republicans are homophobes:wow:
 
Homophobe/Racist/Sexist/Bigot = Anyone that disagrees with a Liberal, on anything. Or, anyone that isn't blindly following in lockstep with the Liberal agenda.

Yeah, because racists, sexists, bigots and homophobes simply don't exist. :roll:
I agree that there are people out there who get very overzealous in calling others these things, but there are times when it is accurate.
 
Homophobe/Racist/Sexist/Bigot = Anyone that disagrees with a Liberal, on anything. Or, anyone that isn't blindly following in lockstep with the Liberal agenda.

Do you disapprove of homosexuality? Do you supports laws that discriminate against homosexuals? Do you worry about a gay man touching your dick when you're in the shower?

If the answer to all those is yes then you are in fact a homophobic bigot. Having a different opinion doesn't make you a bigot. It's what you say and do within those opinions that makes you a bigot.

Quit complaining about being called out for what you are.
 
Last edited:
You implied he did it in the same way people bring up Hitler. This was not in any way connected. You went completely off topic about something that was not comparable in any way for the wrong reasons.

You tried to make contraversy where there was none.

Par for the course I guess.

I have to agree with Hatuey. Bringing up pedophilia in a thread discussing so-called pro-homosexual activism is a not so subtle way of trying to connect the two. We aren't creating the controversy, the person who originally made the comment is. Blaming us for spotting something so obvious is kind of dishonest.
 
Homophobe/Racist/Sexist/Bigot = Anyone that disagrees with a Liberal, on anything. Or, anyone that isn't blindly following in lockstep with the Liberal agenda.

I am not calling any one any of those things here. Any other straw men?
 
It is terrible that judges got voted out based on a single decision, yet everything else they've done has been glossed over. As far as gay marriage goes, they were ruling in line with the constitution. Equal Protection is very real and very valid. Calling them activist judges is just a platitude. Ruling by the Bible is not what the U.S. is supposed to be about.

The right wing in your country is totally out of control.

We tried reasoning with them, but they seem to be immune to it! HELP!
 
We tried reasoning with them, but they seem to be immune to it! HELP!

There's not much you can do. It will take your country collapsing around them to finally wake up. History tells us that that is the way people wake up to reality.
 
And he did. Allusions to anything else are simply dishonest.

Forgive me. I had no idea you could read minds.

Ah so what you're saying is that he brought up an entirely unconnected case that happened to be about pedophilia in a thread about homosexuality? Your dishonesty is fooling nobody blackdog.

No. He brought up a case involving another dismissed judge. Where the judge said a 5 year old was behaving provocatively. The rest on your part amounts to hyperbole.

Completely off topic? How did I go off topic when I simply noticed what he did? He brought up pedophilia in a thread about homosexuality. That's not off topic. It's a fact.

Because unless you can read minds, his post has nothing at all to do with your ridicules claims.

What controversy? He brought up pedophilia in a thread about homosexuality. It's the same tactic used over and over by right wingers whenever homosexuality is discussed with right wingers. End of story.

In this case he brought up a judge who was voted out for blaming a 5 year old for enticing an adult into sex.

Had nothing to do again with your hyperbole.
 
Bringing up pedophilia in a thread discussing so-called pro-homosexual activism is a not so subtle way of trying to connect the two. We aren't creating the controversy, the person who originally made the comment is. Blaming us for spotting something so obvious is kind of dishonest.
The dishonesty is in misrepresenting the post, the topic of which was that judges who go off the rails can and should be recalled. We elect legislators to make the laws, and judges to apply those laws; judges who are unable to perform their duty need to be removed.
 
I have to agree with Hatuey. Bringing up pedophilia in a thread discussing so-called pro-homosexual activism is a not so subtle way of trying to connect the two. We aren't creating the controversy, the person who originally made the comment is. Blaming us for spotting something so obvious is kind of dishonest.

OK again with the mind reading. The child molesting involved had nothing to do with the point of the post at all. It also did not name the sex of the child or sex offender. Kind of hard to make it a "gay" thing when no sex was posted.

That's OK, keep attributing things based on what amounts to a knee jerk reaction to someones lean, rather than the meat of the post.
 
No. He brought up a case involving another dismissed judge. Where the judge said a 5 year old was behaving provocatively. The rest on your part amounts to hyperbole.

And the only example he could think of was a judge who ruled in favor of a pedophile? C'mon DC. I know you're sweet and all, but surely you aren't this naive.
 
And the only example he could think of was a judge who ruled in favor of a pedophile? C'mon DC. I know you're sweet and all, but surely you aren't this naive.

Don't patranize me you shameless hussy! :2razz:

Seriously, do we know the sex of the child? What about the adult? Was it a male adult and a female child? Who knows he did not say.

It has little to do with him trying to attribute anything other than the judge was dismissed for protecting a child molester by blaming the child.

Naive, not likely.
 
Last edited:
You are proud that judges are being kicked out for doing their job by upholding the US Constitutioin?

I think he is.

The major problem here is the judges did their job. Rule on law and used law as their justification. Calling them activist is inaccurate and removing people for doing their job sends a very wrong message.
 
The dishonesty is in misrepresenting the post, the topic of which was that judges who go off the rails can and should be recalled. We elect legislators to make the laws, and judges to apply those laws; judges who are unable to perform their duty need to be removed.

That's what these judges were doing. Applying the law and the consitution and found that a same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional.
 
Back
Top Bottom