President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Boomchild]

I'm sure Hillary will be equally as good as President. Word is leaking out now at how awful she was as SOS,

Not to worry. She'll have a re-reset button when she is crowned Queen er...I mean POTUS.

[Boomchild]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-libya-emails-withheld-benghazi-committee-119037.html

Some of Clinton's Libya emails said to be withheld from Benghazi Committee

Oh say it isn't so!

[Boomchild]

Russia says it would match any U.S. military buildup in Eastern Europe

MOSCOW — Russia would swiftly respond to any moves by the United States to build up military resources in Eastern Europe by fortifying its western border with more troops, tanks, planes and missile systems, a defense official told the Russian press Monday.

Yakubov said Russian forces “along the entire perimeter of Russia’s western border will be reinforced” as soon as Russia notes the buildup of any American heavy military equipment in the Baltics or Eastern Europe.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/rus ... ar-BBlb6RQ

Game Set Match! Things seem to moving along quite well in preparation for WWIII. Those NWO folks must be feeling pretty good right now. Nothing better then a WW to reduce the world population.

[Boomchild]

20 Hillary Clinton Quotes.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... /page/full

"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." -- Hillary Clinton per Barbara Olson's Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton

"No. We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices ... Government has to make those choices for people." – Hillary Clinton

"I think again we’re way out of balance. We’ve got to rein in what has become almost an article of faith that almost anybody can have a gun anywhere at any time. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people." -- Hillary Clinton

I think these three quotes are the most telling on just what type of government Hillary believes we should have. You can bet it isn't a Republic.

BTW Hillary, on ownership of firearms, it's not an "almost article of faith" that people are allowed to own firearms. It's an actual article in our Constitution. Perhaps you should read it some time. However, we all know that citizens being able to own firearms is one of the biggest fears for a politician that believes in a dictatorship.

[Monker]

20 Hillary Clinton Quotes.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... /page/full

"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." -- Hillary Clinton per Barbara Olson's Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton

"No. We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices ... Government has to make those choices for people." – Hillary Clinton

"I think again we’re way out of balance. We’ve got to rein in what has become almost an article of faith that almost anybody can have a gun anywhere at any time. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people." -- Hillary Clinton

I think these three quotes are the most telling on just what type of government Hillary believes we should have. You can bet it isn't a Republic.

BTW Hillary, on ownership of firearms, it's not an "almost article of faith" that people are allowed to own firearms. It's an actual article in our Constitution. Perhaps you should read it some time. However, we all know that citizens being able to own firearms is one of the biggest fears for a politician that believes in a dictatorship.

How does it feel to be manipulated by the propaganda of the Republican party? At least put those quotes in context to know "how she really feels.":


We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West. If one looks around the Western world, one can see the rumblings of discontent, almost regardless of political systems, as we come face to face with the problems that the modern age has dealt us.

And if we ask, why is it in a country as wealthy as we are, that there is this undercurrent of discontent, we realize that somehow economic growth and prosperity, political democracy and freedom, are not enough — that we lack meaning in our individual lives and meaning collectively; we lack a sense that our lives are part of some greater effort, that we are connected to one another.

All of us face a crisis of meaning. Coming off the last years when the ethos of selfishness and greed were given places of honor never before accorded them, it is certainly timely to ask about this problem.

This problem requires all of us to play a role in redefining what our lives are and what they should be ...

In other words, "remodeling society" meant changing our ideas of our place in society as both individuals and as a group...not remodeling in a political, or economic way.

Dennis Hastert ... began meeting in February [1993] with Clinton administration officials as part of an effort to craft a bipartisan approach to [health care] reform. One evening in June 1993, a group of Republican congressmen, including Hastert, met with Hillary at the Alexandria home of Republican Representative John Kaisch of Ohio. One of Hastert's ideas under discussion that night would have allowed employers the option of establishing medical savings accounts for their employees as an alternative to a government-managed system. Under Hastert's plan, employers would put the money they were willing to spend into tax-deferred accounts. Employees would be encouraged to buy high-deductible catastrophic care policies and pay for rudimentary services with the remainder of the money. At the end of the year, the unused funds could be rolled over tax-free into the next year and, like an IRA, be withdrawn at retirement. Hastert and other advocates believed that as people shopped around for insurance and spent their own money to purchase care, costs would be controlled and competition enhanced. But critics said the accounts would benefit healthier people, who would spend less than what employers contributed, and hurt the poor, who might pay higher premiums as healthier and wealthier people formed their own insurance purchasing pools.

Hastert soon concluded that there was little common ground on which to negotiate with the administration. "I guess the straw on the camel's back was a meeting that I had one evening with Mrs. Clinton," Hastert recalled:
I mentioned ... to the first lady about medical savings accounts and just right away she said, "We can't do that." And I said, "Well, why?" And she said, "Well, there's two reasons." And I said, "Well, what are they?" [And she said] "The first reason is with the medical savings account, people have to act on their own and make their own decisions about health care. And they have to make sure that they get the inoculations and the preventative care that they need, and we just think that people will skip too much because in a medical savings account if you don't spend it, you get to keep it or you can ... accumulate it in a health care account. We just think people will be too focused on saving money and they won't get the care for their children and themselves that they need. We think the government, by saying, 'You have to make this schedule. You have to have your kids in for inoculations here, you have to do a prescreening here, you have to do this' — the government will make better decisions than the people will make, and people will be healthier because of it." I said, "Well, part of that's an education process. People have to understand that [if] they behave in a certain way, they're going to save money, [with the] preventive medicine issue — you get the prescreenings, if you can inoculate your kids you save money on it. I mean, they're not sick. You save money." She said, "No. We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices ... Government has to make those choices for people."

In other words, she was speaking specifically to immunizations and medical milestones in childcare....not in the general political ways the out of context quote implies.

As for gun laws, it also says "as part of a well regulated militia." So, if you want to go by a strict interpretation, then you only have the right to own a gun if you are in a militia. Even in a loser interpretation, it also says REGULATED. Therefore, the state has the ability to pass gun control laws...and that has been the interpretation for a very long time.

When she says an 'article of faith', I think she is saying people are saying we have a god given right to own a gun. Well, nowhere in the Bible does it mention handguns or AK47's. Guns were not involved in Cain vs. Able. Jesus did not die via firing squad. So, no, I absolutely do not believe owning a gun is a god given right.

And, IMO, the second amendment has wording that is so out dated that it should be scrapped and rewritten. The wording is such that anybody can read whatever they want into it.

[Boomchild]

How does it feel to be manipulated by the propaganda of the Republican party? At least put those quotes in context to know "how she really feels.":

Sorry but, I couldn't tell you because I am not the one being manipulated. It's pretty clear to me that when someone believes they need to take things from one citizen and give it to another or that government needs to make decisions because the citizens are unable to they are not believers in a free society.

As for gun laws, it also says "as part of a well regulated militia." So, if you want to go by a strict interpretation, then you only have the right to own a gun if you are in a militia. Even in a loser interpretation, it also says REGULATED. Therefore, the state has the ability to pass gun control laws...and that has been the interpretation for a very long time.

When she says an 'article of faith', I think she is saying people are saying we have a god given right to own a gun. Well, nowhere in the Bible does it mention handguns or AK47's. Guns were not involved in Cain vs. Able. Jesus did not die via firing squad. So, no, I absolutely do not believe owning a gun is a god given right.

And, IMO, the second amendment has wording that is so out dated that it should be scrapped and rewritten. The wording is such that anybody can read whatever they want into it.

Those that purposed and wrote the second amendment were simply making it the right for every citizen to own a firearm. Period. It is those against the amendment or think it needs to be rewritten that want to split hairs in order to further an agenda. Even when it first came into law, I am sure there were citizens that were not allowed to own a firearm due to actions they took involving them. It's not like the killings by firearm only started to happen in the last few decades. People seem to think that those in support of the second amendment think that there shouldn't be any restrictions. That simply is not true. I think that proper background checks need to done both at the time of purchase and when a license is up for renewal. I also believe that if a person is convicted of any type of felony they should be bared from owning a firearm. As far as restricting certain types of firearms, I am not for that. Quite simply, if a person is bound and determined to commit mass murder they will find what ever tool the need to commit the act. It's the actions of the human beings that causes the deaths. Not the weapon, whatever it may be. The point is, you need to solve the root if the problem and the firearm isn't it.

[Monker]

Sorry but, I couldn't tell you because I am not the one being manipulated. It's pretty clear to me that when someone believes they need to take things from one citizen and give it to another or that government needs to make decisions because the citizens are unable to they are not believers in a free society.

The fact that nothing you quoted, when put in context, supports your claims proves that you are being manipulated.

There is no "take things from one citizen and give it to another" in those quotes, in context. The "make decisions because the citizens are unable to" was also not in those quotes.

The closest you come is the quoted, in context, belief that there should be government controlled immunization...which I agree with because outbreaks of things like Measles affect the entire nation, not just that one family. In fact, she was proven right, IMO, by the measles outbreaks this past year.

So, yes, you are being manipulated by out of context quotes, misrepresentations and propaganda of the Republicans.

Those that purposed and wrote the second amendment were simply making it the right for every citizen to own a firearm. Period.

So, you either believe that the Constitution, and therefore other bills and laws, should be interpreted by INTENT rather then content, or you are admitting the wording is outdated and needs to be rewritten. Your own argument is evidence to me that this amendment is antiquated and needs to be updated.

Even when it first came into law, I am sure there were citizens that were not allowed to own a firearm due to actions they took involving them.

Oh, please, I don't agree with that at all. Back in that time, if you could buy or make a gun, you could own it. Show me the first instance in US history where someone was ordered to not own a gun.

It's not like the killings by firearm only started to happen in the last few decades.

Now YOU are the one who is politicizing it. I did not bring this up, you did.

People seem to think that those in support of the second amendment think that there shouldn't be any restrictions.

What Clinton was saying is it seems more and more people feel it is an 'article of faith'. To me that equates to a right you were born with. I do not believe that is true AT ALL.

That simply is not true. I think that proper background checks need to done both at the time of purchase and when a license is up for renewal. I also believe that if a person is convicted of any type of felony they should be bared from owning a firearm. As far as restricting certain types of firearms, I am not for that. Quite simply, if a person is bound and determined to commit mass murder they will find what ever tool the need to commit the act. It's the actions of the human beings that causes the deaths. Not the weapon, whatever it may be. The point is, you need to solve the root if the problem and the firearm isn't it.

What you are describing is NOT a 'right', but a privilege granted by the state. It is like driving a car. You have to get a license. The state then has the ability limit that privilege by restrictions due to your physical and mental abilities. For what you are describing, the second amendment is not even needed.

So, again, your own arguments are showing the second amendment is obsolete and should be rewritten...or, in what you describe above, should be removed entirely...because it is a PRIVILEGE granted by the state, and not a 'right'.

[slucero]

The Constitution, by design, creates the federal government, limits what it can do, and assigns the protection of specific (like the 2nd amendment) and inalienable rights to the federal government. The 10th Amendment is worded the way it is for that specific reason.

There is enough empirical info out there defining what James Madison and the Framers meant when writing the 2nd Amendment... and in the case of the 2A, Madison's own writings regarding the context of what he wrote, give the context for its intended meaning.. and that is of a militia that is capable of defending the Peoples sovereignty.

...so "well regulated" in this case means, EQUIPPED with a well functioning means of doing so... meaning ARMS....

Federalist No. 46 is an essay by Madison which specifically refers to an armed population, in order to keep the federal government honest.

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

Here is the essay in it's entirety:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

There is NO DOUBT that Madison was an advocate for preserving the right to bear arms by the People, and this essay can only confirm Madison's intended use of the word "regulated" in the 2A...


So the reality is.. taking in its literal and contextually correct form, the 2nd Amendment is clearly defined as a right, not a privilege..

[The_Noble_Cause]

There is NO DOUBT that Madison was an advocate for preserving the right to bear arms by the People, and this essay can only confirm Madison's intended use of the word "regulated" in the 2A...

So the reality is.. taking in its literal and contextually correct form, the 2nd Amendment is clearly defined as a right, not a privilege..

Madison was also staunchly against a standing army. In light of us having the biggest army in the world, you have no idea what he would actually think. Plus, he's dead. So who gives a fuck?

[Boomchild]

Looks like Obama and Kerrys dream of a treaty with Iran is falling apart. Anyone surprised ?

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-parliament-b ... 53448.html

As if any type of treaty is really going to stop their plans for developing a nuclear weapon. It's all a song and dance folks.

[Monker]

The Constitution, by design, creates the federal government, limits what it can do, and assigns the protection of specific (like the 2nd amendment) and inalienable rights to the federal government. The 10th Amendment is worded the way it is for that specific reason.

There is enough empirical info out there defining what James Madison and the Framers meant when writing the 2nd Amendment... and in the case of the 2A, Madison's own writings regarding the context of what he wrote, give the context for its intended meaning.. and that is of a militia that is capable of defending the Peoples sovereignty.

...so "well regulated" in this case means, EQUIPPED with a well functioning means of doing so... meaning ARMS....

Federalist No. 46 is an essay by Madison which specifically refers to an armed population, in order to keep the federal government honest.

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

Here is the essay in it's entirety:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

There is NO DOUBT that Madison was an advocate for preserving the right to bear arms by the People, and this essay can only confirm Madison's intended use of the word "regulated" in the 2A...


So the reality is.. taking in its literal and contextually correct form, the 2nd Amendment is clearly defined as a right, not a privilege..

You can quote dead people from 200yrs ago all you want. The true reality that we live in is that gun ownership is regulated. I believe I even read a Supreme Court ruling where a judge specifically said that it wasn't a 'right'.

Therefore, again, bringing up arguments like this simply further convince me that the amendment is out dated and needs to be rewritten or removed.

[steveo777]

You will have never seen an uprising and mass killings as would be seen if our government makes a move for our guns. Not gonna happen. Regulated yes, complete confiscation, no. The people won't have it. In places with the most gun regulation, or where they are banned, well, these have some of the highest crime / murder rates in this country. Removing guns from society is not the answer. Guns are not the problem. The evil, sick, murderers are the problem. Let's focus on that, rather than the knee jerk response of "OMG, Guns are killing people. We must take them all away!".

[slucero]

The Constitution, by design, creates the federal government, limits what it can do, and assigns the protection of specific (like the 2nd amendment) and inalienable rights to the federal government. The 10th Amendment is worded the way it is for that specific reason.

There is enough empirical info out there defining what James Madison and the Framers meant when writing the 2nd Amendment... and in the case of the 2A, Madison's own writings regarding the context of what he wrote, give the context for its intended meaning.. and that is of a militia that is capable of defending the Peoples sovereignty.

...so "well regulated" in this case means, EQUIPPED with a well functioning means of doing so... meaning ARMS....

Federalist No. 46 is an essay by Madison which specifically refers to an armed population, in order to keep the federal government honest.

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

Here is the essay in it's entirety:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

There is NO DOUBT that Madison was an advocate for preserving the right to bear arms by the People, and this essay can only confirm Madison's intended use of the word "regulated" in the 2A...


So the reality is.. taking in its literal and contextually correct form, the 2nd Amendment is clearly defined as a right, not a privilege..

You can quote dead people from 200yrs ago all you want. The true reality that we live in is that gun ownership is regulated. I believe I even read a Supreme Court ruling where a judge specifically said that it wasn't a 'right'.

Therefore, again, bringing up arguments like this simply further convince me that the amendment is out dated and needs to be rewritten or removed.

what it should convince you is that the Supreme Court has exceeded its mandate to interpret the document... but your position on it itself speaks volumes...

[slucero]

There is NO DOUBT that Madison was an advocate for preserving the right to bear arms by the People, and this essay can only confirm Madison's intended use of the word "regulated" in the 2A...

So the reality is.. taking in its literal and contextually correct form, the 2nd Amendment is clearly defined as a right, not a privilege..

Madison was also staunchly against a standing army. In light of us having the biggest army in the world, you have no idea what he would actually think. Plus, he's dead. So who gives a fuck?

I do.

And apparently you don't...

[The_Noble_Cause]

I do.

And apparently you don't...

You're engaging in Founders porn. The Constitution is NOT the Ten Commandments. Many framers left the sweltering hot state house in May of 1787 glad to be out of there and thinking, "well, that sucked!" The way that you refer to it like some unimpeachable holy book strikes me as pretty authoritarian. And if you truly cared about what Madison wrote, you would have mentioned that he was against a standing army, which is WHY he supported well-regulated militias. Not so Bubba could blow away a ten point whitetail with an AK47.

[Monker]

You will have never seen an uprising and mass killings as would be seen if our government makes a move for our guns. Not gonna happen. Regulated yes, complete confiscation, no. The people won't have it. In places with the most gun regulation, or where they are banned, well, these have some of the highest crime / murder rates in this country. Removing guns from society is not the answer. Guns are not the problem. The evil, sick, murderers are the problem. Let's focus on that, rather than the knee jerk response of "OMG, Guns are killing people. We must take them all away!".

Oh, that's special. Please quote where anybody suggested such nonsense. Or, is your imagination making things up?

[Boomchild]

Removing guns from society is not the answer. Guns are not the problem. The evil, sick, murderers are the problem. Let's focus on that, rather than the knee jerk response of "OMG, Guns are killing people. We must take them all away!".

That's just it. It's harder to solve or effect the actual reason behind why these mass murders happen. So for effect, the politicians want to use a band aid approach to the situation. It makes a great talking point for them and makes it appear that they are actually fixing or stopping the problem. Which of course they aren't. It would just mean that the sick, twisted or demented people who act out such things wouldn't be able to do so with a firearm. So they will figure out how to use something else. After all, it does nothing to treat or help them. Plus, depending on what they choose to use in place of a firearm the casualties could end up being higher.

[Boomchild]

Welcome to 1984.
http://www.examiner.com/article/it-s-of ... is-country

Did you really expect them to rule any different?

[Monker]

Welcome to 1984.
http://www.examiner.com/article/it-s-of ... is-country

Did you really expect them to rule any different?

Well, since you all want to interpret the constitution by what writers meant to say rather then what is actually written, then you should have no problem with this ruling.

But, you are correct...it is obvious what the ruling would be. That is why is was pushed.....to give conservatives something to cry about.

[Boomchild]

Just got a letter yesterday that after 13 years, my Assurant Health Insurance is being cancelled because they are getting out of Health Insurance because they are losing money. This was provided by my employer, he said "better start looking on the ACA. More and more companies are going to go under". Add me to the millions who have been screwed by the ACA.

Next stop, Single Payer Health Care. Brought to you by.....you guessed our ever protective Federal Government. Do the math. If it costs an employer less to just pay the penalty for not providing coverage to their employees then to offer a group HC plan, which one do you think they are going to choose? It's all by design. Not saying that this the case with your specific situation here.

[Boomchild]

Word is that banks in Greece will not open tomorrow. Liberal Progressive Socialoists should take note of what happens when you run out of other peoples money.

Except for the fact that from their point of view, it's not other people's money. The money belongs to everyone and not just someone. Of course you then need a large government to spread it around fairly.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Word is that banks in Greece will not open tomorrow. Liberal Progressive Socialoists should take note of what happens when you run out of other peoples money.

Greece is stuck with the Euro. They can't print their own currency like us. Conservative Teabaggers should take note of false analogies.

[The_Noble_Cause]

They are no longer a bleeding sore on the rest of Europe. I bet spain isn't far behind them, then in a few years, America.

Not all economies are created equal. You are generalizing. Greece does not borrow in it's own currency, has a small economy, and was subject to harsh austerity measures by IMF. Coincidentally, many of the same austerity policies that wrecked Greece are supported by the GOP here in the US (cut soc security! cut unemployment! cut school lunches!). Let me know how that's working out currently in Kansas under Brownback.

[Boomchild]

The Slippery Slope. Brought to you by the Supreme Court. You missed it FF. It isn't multipol spouses. Doesn't this legal adult and her father have rights?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/17/wo ... rs-dating/

I would not be surprised that NAMBLA soon starts making waves about needing rights and protections under the law.

[Monker]

The Slippery Slope. Brought to you by the Supreme Court. You missed it FF. It isn't multipol spouses. Doesn't this legal adult and her father have rights?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/17/wo ... rs-dating/

I would not be surprised that NAMBLA soon starts making waves about needing rights and protections under the law.

Think about how Gay Marriages are going to clog up the divorce courts. Lawyers are going to make a killing. I did like huckabee's remark to Obama, " if I can't complain about you lighting up the White House like a rainbow, then you don't complain when I'm President and put a nativity sceene in front of it at christmas".

You are so ignorant. The divorce rates in states which legalized same sex marriage are the lowest in the nation and same sex couples have a lower divorce rate. You can argue the statistics but the fact is there is no 'killing' being made here and the courts are not clogged with gays wanting divorce.

You are obviously iignorant or denying reality and have substituted your own.

As for Huckabee, he was an interest in candidate when he first ran, years ago. Nowadays it is obvious to me that he only does it to stay in the spotlight to sell books. Who cares what he says.

In general, I don't care who wants to get married, that's their business, not mine. And, if you don't like 15 year olds being considered adults, take it up with YOUR state. The 'slippery slope' argument is always made when a person has no clue how to argue against something...and it seems they are usually repeating someone else's lines anyway....again being completely ignorant and rejecting reality.

[JBlake]

Montana polygamist family applies for marriage license

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/mont ... ge-license

Not a wonder why other countries hate America so much. America has attracted fuckheads from around the world for years now and they come to America, grow in numbers and then change it. And using the American military might, attempt to push the morbid agenda on to the rest of the world. I'm waiting to see what happens when a homo couple try to get "married" in a Muslim mosque within America. They'll be thrown out on their fucking heads so fast they won't even know what happened. And it's going to be at that point that it gets very interesting to see what local & Federal Government is going to do about it. That will be quite the dilemma for the Liberal Democrapers cause on one hand they stand for everyone being entitled to the same, yet on the other hand they stand for being supporters of everyone else's cultural/religious rights, except for Christians/Catholics of course.

[slucero]

All one needs to do is review this PEW Institute study on same sex marriage to see that by 2014 35 states had already legalized same sex marriage...

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/same ... -by-state/

The bottom line is the SCOTUS really didn't need to do anything but kick it back to the states.. who had already done (and were doing) the work.... as the Framers intended..


What the SCOTUS did do is undermine the 10th Amendment... and the precedence it sets will be felt for years to come..

[Monker]

Montana polygamist family applies for marriage license

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/mont ... ge-license

Not a wonder why other countries hate America so much. America has attracted fuckheads from around the world for years now and they come to America, grow in numbers and then change it. And using the American military might, attempt to push the morbid agenda on to the rest of the world. I'm waiting to see what happens when a homo couple try to get "married" in a Muslim mosque within America. They'll be thrown out on their fucking heads so fast they won't even know what happened. And it's going to be at that point that it gets very interesting to see what local & Federal Government is going to do about it. That will be quite the dilemma for the Liberal Democrapers cause on one hand they stand for everyone being entitled to the same, yet on the other hand they stand for being supporters of everyone else's cultural/religious rights, except for Christians/Catholics of course.

This is hillarious. Any priest or pastor can refuse to marry any couple they choose. Catholics can refuse to mary any couple where one or both are not in good standing with the Catholic church. Pastors set all kinds of rules around pre-marriage counseling and the couple's stance on being "saved" and babtized into the church.

Your example of a Christian being refused by a Muslim "mosque is so fucking stupid that it just proves how ignorant you are and how much f a dittohead you are...just repeating bullshit without any thinking for yourself.

Nothing is stopping a couple from going to the courthouse and getting legally married. THAT is the real point of this issue. Gays should be allowed equal protection under the law. I argued this in this very forum a LONG time ago, maybe a couple years ago. The courts are simply saying that gay couples have the right to be married...and they have the right to the same benefits that straight couples do.

The federal courts HAD to rule n this eventually because states were trying to (or did) enact unConstituational laws banning gay marriage. So, one state does that, and another makes it legal. So, a gay couple gets married in one state and moved into a state where it is not allowed. That is an issue above states rights...because it would be impossible for the states to resolve it on their own.

And, there is no "slippery slope". That is made up bullshit because you no longer have any argument here. The federal court ruled and states can no longer ban gay marriage. It has nothing to do with teens getting married. It has to do with equal protection under the law for gay couples.

[Monker]

All one needs to do is review this PEW Institute study on same sex marriage to see that by 2014 35 states had already legalized same sex marriage...

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/same ... -by-state/

The bottom line is the SCOTUS really didn't need to do anything but kick it back to the states.. who had already done (and were doing) the work.... as the Framers intended..


What the SCOTUS did do is undermine the 10th Amendment... and the precedence it sets will be felt for years to come..

That's ridiculous. The only thing that will be felt are gay couples feeling each other with rings on their fingers.

[Monker]

All one needs to do is review this PEW Institute study on same sex marriage to see that by 2014 35 states had already legalized same sex marriage...

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/same ... -by-state/

The bottom line is the SCOTUS really didn't need to do anything but kick it back to the states.. who had already done (and were doing) the work.... as the Framers intended..


What the SCOTUS did do is undermine the 10th Amendment... and the precedence it sets will be felt for years to come..

EXACTLY. They should have kicked it back to the States where it belonged. They can't do what they did. It took away states Rights and gave the ability of ALL power to the Federal Government.

Oh, cry me a river. What a baby you guys become when things don't go your way.

The CAN do what they did, and it is done.

It did not "take away" states rights. They ensured the rights of gays by interpreting, correctly, that they deserve equal protection of their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. States NEVER HAD the right to create laws that violate the Constitution of the United States.

The ironic thing here is Republicans and conservatives in general brought this on themselves by trying enact state laws that ban gay marriage. Good job, guys.