• 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!

Dang Dude! Tell us how you REALLY feel!

Ockham said:
Same people who pick up the dead deer on the side of the road I would guess.
Click to expand...

You must be a city boy. Occasionally somebody might move a dead deer to the side of the road, but most of the time people just dodge them and the vultures will eat them, fairly quickly. Then the balance of the remains are simply crushed to smudges on the road. But such is life...or death. Wonder how long it would take for vultures to eat a person laying in the road? Anybody wanna volunteer?
 
Removable Mind said:
You must be a city boy. Occasionally somebody might move a dead deer to the side of the road, but most of the time people just dodge them and the vultures will eat them, fairly quickly. Then the balance of the remains are simply crushed to smudges on the road. But such is life...or death. Wonder how long it would take for vultures to eat a person laying in the road? Anybody wanna volunteer?
Click to expand...

Volunteer for what? To be the dead person in the road or the vulture? :mrgreen:
 
Removable Mind said:
You must be a city boy. Occasionally somebody might move a dead deer to the side of the road, but most of the time people just dodge them and the vultures will eat them, fairly quickly. Then the balance of the remains are simply crushed to smudges on the road. But such is life...or death. Wonder how long it would take for vultures to eat a person laying in the road? Anybody wanna volunteer?
Click to expand...

Actually the opposite - I'm a country boy always have been. I guess since I'm in NJ and deer are more plentiful here than birds sometimes, we have to have people drag them off the road or the roads would be littered up to the waist in dead rotting deer carcasses. I be fine with letting them rot on the the side of the road but the smell and the explosion of vulture population would be the worst. Getting rid of vultures I hear can be hellish. I guess I could throw them on the back of my truck and dump them in the pines somewhere.... maybe it'll be up to us to drag these bodies away. That or invest in a lot of lime.
 
Ockham said:
Actually the opposite - I'm a country boy always have been. I guess since I'm in NJ and deer are more plentiful here than birds sometimes, we have to have people drag them off the road or the roads would be littered up to the waist in dead rotting deer carcasses. I be fine with letting them rot on the the side of the road but the smell and the explosion of vulture population would be the worst. Getting rid of vultures I hear can be hellish. I guess I could throw them on the back of my truck and dump them in the pines somewhere.... maybe it'll be up to us to drag these bodies away. That or invest in a lot of lime.
Click to expand...

Maybe Jonathan Swift was on to something when he wrote "A Modest Proposal"?
 
Ockham said:
Wasn't that a sarcasm about poor children being used as food?
Click to expand...

Yeah...but in this instance, might as well throw in adults who don't carry their weight. Might solve hunger in America, huh?
 
Removable Mind said:
Funny. But not too funny. You're trying to change the premise. Gay marriage isn't about a gay man marrying a straight or lesbian woman. Or about a lesbian marrying a straight or gay man.
Click to expand...

Look who's trying to change the premise. The homosexual marriage issue isn't about trying to stop homosexuals from marrying, it's about redefining what marriage is.
 
clownboy said:
First, the power the court took to interpret the constitution was not thought to be the same as the judicial review mentioned in the constitution. So that is irrelevent. And it wasn't just some politicians, but ALL of the reamaining framers/founders - including the one who is known as the Father of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

As the link I posted proved, judicial review was considered to include the power to review laws for their constitutionality and nearly everyone agreed at the time the constitution was written and ratified. Even those who opposed the ratification agreed that it did. My link showed the nearly all of them agreed with my position.

You on the other hand haven't provided any shred of evidence that anyone, at the time the constitution was ratified, believed that judicial review did not grant the courts the power to overturn laws which were unconstitutional

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]


Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[15] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes.
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes, SOME of the conservatives are of the position that gays should not marry (mostly devote conservatives on religious grounds).
There are other conservatives who have no strong position on the matter, and there are yet other conservatives that support gay marriage, even if it is just passively.

Claiming that ALL conservatives are against gay marriage would not be accurate.
Click to expand...

You missed one category - non-religious conservatives who oppose homosexual marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with scripture or appeals to any form of religion.
 
RiverDad said:
Look who's trying to change the premise. The homosexual marriage issue isn't about trying to stop homosexuals from marrying, it's about redefining what marriage is.
Click to expand...

Still funny, but not too funny. I assume that you live in constant fear about how those marriage will destroy life as we know it....

By the way, how would redefining marriage cause any harm to society? We know that the gay population over time hasn't increased all that much. And even within the gay communities not all want to get married. And when they do marry and move in next door to you...think the gayness disease or influence might get to ya or what? Might change your kid's sexual orientation because gay people exists?
 
I don't think I said all conservatives, and I was indeed wrong if I did. What I will say is no conservative can come out pro SSM and get elected, for sure nationally and I doubt even locally.
eohrnberger said:
Yes, SOME of the conservatives are of the position that gays should not marry (mostly devote conservatives on religious grounds).
There are other conservatives who have no strong position on the matter, and there are yet other conservatives that support gay marriage, even if it is just passively.

Claiming that ALL conservatives are against gay marriage would not be accurate.
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
The framers who were still alive when they took the power to themselves that's who. The court just waited until they had all passed away to use their self grant, invoking it as precedence. It's a trick the court has used successfully for quite some time now.

But your position betrays that you don't know how the Constitution works.
Click to expand...

i seem to recall that John Marshall was supreme court justice at the same time that thomas jefferson was president.

the same John marshall who is famous for Marbury V Madison and McCulloch V Maryland, laying the foundation for judicial review.
 
mak2 said:
I don't think I said all conservatives, and I was indeed wrong if I did. What I will say is no conservative can come out pro SSM and get elected, for sure nationally and I doubt even locally.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see that. But then, I'm a conservative, but not a religious conservative (for the most part anyway).
 
RiverDad said:
You missed one category - non-religious conservatives who oppose homosexual marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with scripture or appeals to any form of religion.
Click to expand...

Ah-- so it's just bigotry without an excuse instead of with one.

It's sure good to have that one settled.
 
Captain America said:
Check out this guy's rant! :shock: Holy smokes! A little harsh, don't ya think?

"I meet you all the time. You hate Obama. You hate gay people. You hate black people, immigrants, Muslims, labor unions, women who want the right to make choices concerning their bodies, you hate em all. You hate being called racist. You hate being called a bigot. Maybe if you talked about creating jobs more than you talk about why you hate gay people we wouldn't call you bigots. Maybe if you talked about black people without automatically assuming they are on food stamps while demanding their birth certificates we wouldn't call you racist. You hate socialism and social justice. You hate regulations and taxes and spending and the Government. You hate.

You like war. You like torture. You like Jesus. I don't know how in the hell any of that is compatible, but no one ever accused you haters of being over-committed to ideological consistency. You like people who look like you or at least hate most of the things that you hate. You hate everything else.
Now, I know you profess to love our country and the founding fathers (unless you are reminded that they believed in the separation of church and state), but I need to remind you that America is NOT what Fox News says it is. America is a melting pot, it always has been. We are a multi-cultural amalgamation of all kinds of people, and yet you still demonize everyone who is not a rich, white, heterosexual christian male or his submissive and obedient wife.


You hate liberals, moderates, hell, anyone who disagrees with Conservative dogma as espoused by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. You hate em.
Well, here are the facts, Jack. If you hate the Government then you are unqualified to manage it. If you hate gay people more than you love America than you should take your own advice and get the hell out. There are several countries that are openly hostile to gay people, but they are full of brown people and you don't like them much either from what I understand. It looks like you are screwed, but that's not what I am here to tell you. <snip>"

An open letter to the people who hate Obama more than they love America
Click to expand...

I can agree with some of it, but it is a little harsh. I don't think all conservatives "hate" those particular groups mentioned above, but that they have different views than liberals about it. IOW, they hate the sin but not the sinner. (Just to be clear, I don't consider it a sin at all personally). I think a lot of conservatives have good intentions and that they honestly feel like the country is falling apart around them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom