As a reminder, Trump hasn’t held a White House press conference in over a year

[martybegan]

And all you offer is "fuh fuh fuh, the 5 of 9 unelected lawyers said so, fuh fuh fuh"

You offer no reason why a State can be forced to issue a SSM beyond "equal protection and an appeal to authority"

Choosing the gender of someone you wanted to marry was never even considered an option until recently. Marrying someone of another race has been considered an option fo millenia.

The concept is creating new law vs. interpreting established law with precedent.

Obergfell decided to create new law "just because". It's the jiggery pokery referenced by Scalia in his dissent.

You poor thing, now you're flat out lying. Of course I laid out a cohesive argument for why I believe Obergefell was correct.The Constitution demands everyone in the U.S., regardless of the laws passed in each individual state, be treated equally under the law.

Marriage is a fundamental right. No state can give a marriage license to one person but deny it to another based on nothing other than the gender of the person they wish to marry. Just like no state can deny a marriage license to someone based on the color of the skin of the person they with to marry ... or the religion of the person they wish to marry.

And that did not create a new law. It nullified an unconstitutional part of an existing law. It's no one else's fault that you remain bitter over Obergefell because you're too ignorant to comprehend any of this.

No, you just keep repeating "equal" without explaining WHY it's equal, which it isn't. It's an entirely new concept. Again, as NY did if a State wants to change its marriage contract via legislative action, go ahead. by forcing an idea that isn't even 3 decades old under the guise of equal is just plain crazy.

I have repeatedly said why it's equal. No state can deny something to someone based on nothing but gender, race, creed, religion, to one person but grant it to another.

No state can tell one person they can legally marry the person they wish to be legally married to while deny someone else that very same right due to nothing but the gender of the person they wish to marry.

I won't explain that again. If you still can't comprehend that, it's on you.

Only because Obergfell, which means you are applying circular logic.

Again, all your "logic" is based on a horrible SC decision, which is what you use as proof that the SC decision is constitutional....

Nope, it's not circular logic. I've been arguing in favor of protecting equal protection in marriage for years. Obergefell merely confirmed what I have been saying and cemented the belief in stone with their ruling.

You have been arguing it not as your opinion but as something validated by Obergfell, and Obergfell validating your opinion.

My view is the SC overstepped its bounds, just like it did in Roe.

 

[Slade3200]

is it because he’s a pussy who can’t handle hardball questions unlike the softies he gets from Fox News? Does he constantly need Fox News to coddle his ego? The white press conference is standard practice by Presidents that goes back generations.

Even If you want to pretend the press is unfair to him which of course is bullshit, why doesn’t he face them down like a real president would and defend himself? Be a man for once. Even better, he removes his fake hair and orange tan to show he has some balls.

Of course, maybe the true reason he doesn’t do them is because he knows he made a complete ass of himself last time.

Are you Trump supporters really going to pretend White House press conferences don’t matter? If Obama dodged them you would never shut the fuck about it.

In Trump era, the death of the White House press conference

Obama didn't have to worry because most of the press was there ready with kneepads to suck his dick.

Treat people with respect and they should respect you back... treat them like shit and well you get the point. It isn’t a hard concept

LOL. The whole progressive movement is about treating opponents like shit until the bend the knee or shut up and go away.

That train left the station decades ago.

We aren’t talking about the progressive movement, we are talking about how the press treated Obama vs how they treated Trump. Obama treated them with repspect most of the the time while Trump has treated them like shot for the majority of the time. His whole campaign was pretty much shit talking politicians and our media.

If the press had treated Donald Trump, the presidential contender, as they should have treated him, it would all be different now.

But from the very moment Donald Trump announced, he got nothing but scorn, ridicule and resentment from the so-called main stream media.

Respect was nowhere on the main stream media horizon.

They laughed at the idea that he can beat 16 other Republican contenders. Hell, these assholes ridiculed him for contending as a Republican.

Respect was nowhere to be found in the main stream media.

Then, when he demolished all the Republican wusses they ridiculed the idea that he could beat beat the woman who was "in line" supported by the Hungarian Jew whose name means in line.

Where was the respect of the main stream media then?

And then, to the very last minute on election night the contempt and pre-election disrespect peaked when it was foolishly declared by the main stream media that he has no path to the presidency.

And when he won 30 states the REAL disrespect really began.

And you wonder why President Trump wants to have as little to do with the main stream as media as possible.

Like you say, you get the respect you deserve and you get what you give.

Trump was the one running for president, Trump is now the president and leader of the country. It is his responsibility to lead.

If the school kids are being disrespectful to the teacher then it is the teachers job to handle the kids in a respectful way and lead through example. The last thing the teacher should do is stoop to the level of the kids and play the insult and embarrass games. See what I’m saying?

 

[martybegan]

Lol, you mean the press that would suck Obama's dick at a drop of the hat?

And guess what? the media and the politicians DESERVE IT.

But some Coastal moron like you won't get that.

Are you really not understanding the concept? Friendly prez friendly press... hostile prez hostile press. Trump did it to himself regardless of whether you think the press deserved it or not.

I thought the press was supposed to be the watchdog of our government, not some friend of it.

And it's not the person, it's the politics. most of the MSM are lefty twats, so it makes sense how they swallow for another lefty twat.

They should be watchdogs and ask hard questions and hold those in power accountable. But the demeanor is what I’m talking about and it is all in the gutter right now.

Arguing about the demeanor is like discussing how to fix a leaky faucet faucet on a sinking Titanic.

It hides the real issue, which is that most of the press, the supposed watchdog of our democracy has decided to be a snarling rottweiler when facing non-progressives and a mewling lapdog when facing progressive ones.

All the while lying about how impartial they are.

You are stepping all over yourself if you are trying to make a case that the press needs to be out watchdogs. If that’s your position then the harsh and critical treatment of trump should be welcomed and Trumps dishonest attacks on the press when he calls critical news “fake” should be criticized. I dont see you doing that

The press has earned every bit of scorn it gets from Trump. And their critical treatment of Trump has nothing to do with their sense of civic duty, but their hatred of him, his positions and anyone who agrees with him.

Your blindness to this just show how much of a prog-cock sucking hack you are.

 

[Faun]

You poor thing, now you're flat out lying. Of course I laid out a cohesive argument for why I believe Obergefell was correct.The Constitution demands everyone in the U.S., regardless of the laws passed in each individual state, be treated equally under the law.

Marriage is a fundamental right. No state can give a marriage license to one person but deny it to another based on nothing other than the gender of the person they wish to marry. Just like no state can deny a marriage license to someone based on the color of the skin of the person they with to marry ... or the religion of the person they wish to marry.

And that did not create a new law. It nullified an unconstitutional part of an existing law. It's no one else's fault that you remain bitter over Obergefell because you're too ignorant to comprehend any of this.

No, you just keep repeating "equal" without explaining WHY it's equal, which it isn't. It's an entirely new concept. Again, as NY did if a State wants to change its marriage contract via legislative action, go ahead. by forcing an idea that isn't even 3 decades old under the guise of equal is just plain crazy.

I have repeatedly said why it's equal. No state can deny something to someone based on nothing but gender, race, creed, religion, to one person but grant it to another.

No state can tell one person they can legally marry the person they wish to be legally married to while deny someone else that very same right due to nothing but the gender of the person they wish to marry.

I won't explain that again. If you still can't comprehend that, it's on you.

Only because Obergfell, which means you are applying circular logic.

Again, all your "logic" is based on a horrible SC decision, which is what you use as proof that the SC decision is constitutional....

Nope, it's not circular logic. I've been arguing in favor of protecting equal protection in marriage for years. Obergefell merely confirmed what I have been saying and cemented the belief in stone with their ruling.

You have been arguing it not as your opinion but as something validated by Obergfell, and Obergfell validating your opinion.

My view is the SC overstepped its bounds, just like it did in Roe.

No, what I alluded to earlier is that it's not my opinion that matters, nor is it yours, the U.S. Supreme Court is the opinion which matters. I never said I didn't have an opinion on the matter prior to Obergefell.

I'm not saying my opinion has any bearing on the court's decision, which would make it circular. I am saying, both my opinion and the opinion of the court is that some people were being treated differently under the law for the reasons I care not to repeat again.

And you're entitled to your opinion. What a pity you failed to demonstrate it beyond, nuh-uh.

 

[easyt65]

is it because he’s a pussy who can’t handle hardball questions unlike the softies he gets from Fox News? Does he constantly need Fox News to coddle his ego? The white press conference is standard practice by Presidents that goes back generations.

Even If you want to pretend the press is unfair to him which of course is bullshit, why doesn’t he face them down like a real president would and defend himself? Be a man for once. Even better, he removes his fake hair and orange tan to show he has some balls.

Of course, maybe the true reason he doesn’t do them is because he knows he made a complete ass of himself last time.

Are you Trump supporters really going to pretend White House press conferences don’t matter? If Obama dodged them you would never shut the fuck about it.

In Trump era, the death of the White House press conference

Considering all the shit we have to listen to from him, I'm not missing more, tbh.

That's just the thing...you don't have to listen to a damn word the man says. You don't have to listen to / read his Twitter comments, don't have to listen to the news talking about him...but Libs are addicted, drawn to him like a moth to a flame. During the campaign the liberal media gave him millions of dollars of free publicity because they followed him around and reported everything he did and said. They do so now in hopes of catching him doing / saying anything they can use to attack him. It's sad...

 

[martybegan]

No, you just keep repeating "equal" without explaining WHY it's equal, which it isn't. It's an entirely new concept. Again, as NY did if a State wants to change its marriage contract via legislative action, go ahead. by forcing an idea that isn't even 3 decades old under the guise of equal is just plain crazy.

I have repeatedly said why it's equal. No state can deny something to someone based on nothing but gender, race, creed, religion, to one person but grant it to another.

No state can tell one person they can legally marry the person they wish to be legally married to while deny someone else that very same right due to nothing but the gender of the person they wish to marry.

I won't explain that again. If you still can't comprehend that, it's on you.

Only because Obergfell, which means you are applying circular logic.

Again, all your "logic" is based on a horrible SC decision, which is what you use as proof that the SC decision is constitutional....

Nope, it's not circular logic. I've been arguing in favor of protecting equal protection in marriage for years. Obergefell merely confirmed what I have been saying and cemented the belief in stone with their ruling.

You have been arguing it not as your opinion but as something validated by Obergfell, and Obergfell validating your opinion.

My view is the SC overstepped its bounds, just like it did in Roe.

No, what I alluded to earlier is that it's not my opinion that matters, nor is it yours, the U.S. Supreme Court is the opinion which matters. I never said I didn't have an opinion on the matter prior to Obergefell.

I'm not saying my opinion has any bearing on the court's decision, which would make it circular. I am saying, both my opinion and the opinion of the court is that some people were being treated differently under the law for the reasons I care not to repeat again.

And you're entitled to your opinion. What a pity you failed to demonstrate it beyond, nuh-uh.

I made several references to precedent and my view that it isn't equal via the constitution because it's a concept that wasn't even around when the 14th amendment was thought up.

Again, the right way was to let States figure out if they want to issue SSM licenses, but force all States to recognize those licenses, like all others, under full faith and credit.

 

[Slade3200]

Are you really not understanding the concept? Friendly prez friendly press... hostile prez hostile press. Trump did it to himself regardless of whether you think the press deserved it or not.

I thought the press was supposed to be the watchdog of our government, not some friend of it.

And it's not the person, it's the politics. most of the MSM are lefty twats, so it makes sense how they swallow for another lefty twat.

They should be watchdogs and ask hard questions and hold those in power accountable. But the demeanor is what I’m talking about and it is all in the gutter right now.

Arguing about the demeanor is like discussing how to fix a leaky faucet faucet on a sinking Titanic.

It hides the real issue, which is that most of the press, the supposed watchdog of our democracy has decided to be a snarling rottweiler when facing non-progressives and a mewling lapdog when facing progressive ones.

All the while lying about how impartial they are.

You are stepping all over yourself if you are trying to make a case that the press needs to be out watchdogs. If that’s your position then the harsh and critical treatment of trump should be welcomed and Trumps dishonest attacks on the press when he calls critical news “fake” should be criticized. I dont see you doing that

The press has earned every bit of scorn it gets from Trump. And their critical treatment of Trump has nothing to do with their sense of civic duty, but their hatred of him, his positions and anyone who agrees with him.

Your blindness to this just show how much of a prog-cock sucking hack you are.

What exactly do you think I’m blind too?

 

[martybegan]

I thought the press was supposed to be the watchdog of our government, not some friend of it.

And it's not the person, it's the politics. most of the MSM are lefty twats, so it makes sense how they swallow for another lefty twat.

They should be watchdogs and ask hard questions and hold those in power accountable. But the demeanor is what I’m talking about and it is all in the gutter right now.

Arguing about the demeanor is like discussing how to fix a leaky faucet faucet on a sinking Titanic.

It hides the real issue, which is that most of the press, the supposed watchdog of our democracy has decided to be a snarling rottweiler when facing non-progressives and a mewling lapdog when facing progressive ones.

All the while lying about how impartial they are.

You are stepping all over yourself if you are trying to make a case that the press needs to be out watchdogs. If that’s your position then the harsh and critical treatment of trump should be welcomed and Trumps dishonest attacks on the press when he calls critical news “fake” should be criticized. I dont see you doing that

The press has earned every bit of scorn it gets from Trump. And their critical treatment of Trump has nothing to do with their sense of civic duty, but their hatred of him, his positions and anyone who agrees with him.

Your blindness to this just show how much of a prog-cock sucking hack you are.

What exactly do you think I’m blind too?

Figure it out yourself.

 

[Faun]

I have repeatedly said why it's equal. No state can deny something to someone based on nothing but gender, race, creed, religion, to one person but grant it to another.

No state can tell one person they can legally marry the person they wish to be legally married to while deny someone else that very same right due to nothing but the gender of the person they wish to marry.

I won't explain that again. If you still can't comprehend that, it's on you.

Only because Obergfell, which means you are applying circular logic.

Again, all your "logic" is based on a horrible SC decision, which is what you use as proof that the SC decision is constitutional....

Nope, it's not circular logic. I've been arguing in favor of protecting equal protection in marriage for years. Obergefell merely confirmed what I have been saying and cemented the belief in stone with their ruling.

You have been arguing it not as your opinion but as something validated by Obergfell, and Obergfell validating your opinion.

My view is the SC overstepped its bounds, just like it did in Roe.

No, what I alluded to earlier is that it's not my opinion that matters, nor is it yours, the U.S. Supreme Court is the opinion which matters. I never said I didn't have an opinion on the matter prior to Obergefell.

I'm not saying my opinion has any bearing on the court's decision, which would make it circular. I am saying, both my opinion and the opinion of the court is that some people were being treated differently under the law for the reasons I care not to repeat again.

And you're entitled to your opinion. What a pity you failed to demonstrate it beyond, nuh-uh.

I made several references to precedent and my view that it isn't equal via the constitution because it's a concept that wasn't even around when the 14th amendment was thought up.

Again, the right way was to let States figure out if they want to issue SSM licenses, but force all States to recognize those licenses, like all others, under full faith and credit.

There is no precedent which can stand unconstitutionally. And the 14th amendment protects equality of all laws, not just those which existed before its ratification. Just like the Constitution protects Congress’ authority in maintaining an Air Force even though there was no such branch of the military in 1788.

And again, states don’t get to violate peoples’ constitutional rights.

 

[martybegan]

Only because Obergfell, which means you are applying circular logic.

Again, all your "logic" is based on a horrible SC decision, which is what you use as proof that the SC decision is constitutional....

Nope, it's not circular logic. I've been arguing in favor of protecting equal protection in marriage for years. Obergefell merely confirmed what I have been saying and cemented the belief in stone with their ruling.

You have been arguing it not as your opinion but as something validated by Obergfell, and Obergfell validating your opinion.

My view is the SC overstepped its bounds, just like it did in Roe.

No, what I alluded to earlier is that it's not my opinion that matters, nor is it yours, the U.S. Supreme Court is the opinion which matters. I never said I didn't have an opinion on the matter prior to Obergefell.

I'm not saying my opinion has any bearing on the court's decision, which would make it circular. I am saying, both my opinion and the opinion of the court is that some people were being treated differently under the law for the reasons I care not to repeat again.

And you're entitled to your opinion. What a pity you failed to demonstrate it beyond, nuh-uh.

I made several references to precedent and my view that it isn't equal via the constitution because it's a concept that wasn't even around when the 14th amendment was thought up.

Again, the right way was to let States figure out if they want to issue SSM licenses, but force all States to recognize those licenses, like all others, under full faith and credit.

There is no precedent which can stand unconstitutionally. And the 14th amendment protects equality of all laws, not just those which existed before its ratification. Just like the Constitution protects Congress’ authority in maintaining an Air Force even though there was no such branch of the military in 1788.

And again, states don’t get to violate peoples’ constitutional rights.

It's not about laws before or after the amendment was passed, it's about concepts.

and air power can be equated to both cavalry and artillery, two things that were around when the Constitution was ratified.

Please show me any culture that even considered SSM prior to the past 3 decades.

So you are saying the 14th amendment is absolute? Be careful with that....

 

[Faun]

Nope, it's not circular logic. I've been arguing in favor of protecting equal protection in marriage for years. Obergefell merely confirmed what I have been saying and cemented the belief in stone with their ruling.

You have been arguing it not as your opinion but as something validated by Obergfell, and Obergfell validating your opinion.

My view is the SC overstepped its bounds, just like it did in Roe.

No, what I alluded to earlier is that it's not my opinion that matters, nor is it yours, the U.S. Supreme Court is the opinion which matters. I never said I didn't have an opinion on the matter prior to Obergefell.

I'm not saying my opinion has any bearing on the court's decision, which would make it circular. I am saying, both my opinion and the opinion of the court is that some people were being treated differently under the law for the reasons I care not to repeat again.

And you're entitled to your opinion. What a pity you failed to demonstrate it beyond, nuh-uh.

I made several references to precedent and my view that it isn't equal via the constitution because it's a concept that wasn't even around when the 14th amendment was thought up.

Again, the right way was to let States figure out if they want to issue SSM licenses, but force all States to recognize those licenses, like all others, under full faith and credit.

There is no precedent which can stand unconstitutionally. And the 14th amendment protects equality of all laws, not just those which existed before its ratification. Just like the Constitution protects Congress’ authority in maintaining an Air Force even though there was no such branch of the military in 1788.

And again, states don’t get to violate peoples’ constitutional rights.

It's not about laws before or after the amendment was passed, it's about concepts.

and air power can be equated to both cavalry and artillery, two things that were around when the Constitution was ratified.

Please show me any culture that even considered SSM prior to the past 3 decades.

So you are saying the 14th amendment is absolute? Be careful with that....

You were the one to posit, ”my view that it isn't equal via the constitution because it's a concept that wasn't even around when the 14th amendment was thought up,” and that’s an absurd excuse.

And against n, it matters not when it became a thing nor does it matter how other countries view it. We are not citizens of other countries and it’s a thing now where some people were being denied the fundamental right to marry the person of their choice while others were not.

Sadly for you, you’ve presented no compelling argument for why such discrimination should have been allowed to continue.

 

[Slade3200]

They should be watchdogs and ask hard questions and hold those in power accountable. But the demeanor is what I’m talking about and it is all in the gutter right now.

Arguing about the demeanor is like discussing how to fix a leaky faucet faucet on a sinking Titanic.

It hides the real issue, which is that most of the press, the supposed watchdog of our democracy has decided to be a snarling rottweiler when facing non-progressives and a mewling lapdog when facing progressive ones.

All the while lying about how impartial they are.

You are stepping all over yourself if you are trying to make a case that the press needs to be out watchdogs. If that’s your position then the harsh and critical treatment of trump should be welcomed and Trumps dishonest attacks on the press when he calls critical news “fake” should be criticized. I dont see you doing that

The press has earned every bit of scorn it gets from Trump. And their critical treatment of Trump has nothing to do with their sense of civic duty, but their hatred of him, his positions and anyone who agrees with him.

Your blindness to this just show how much of a prog-cock sucking hack you are.

What exactly do you think I’m blind too?

Figure it out yourself.

The easy way for me to make you look even more stupid than you make yourself look is by simply asking you to explain yourself. People like you never can so they respond like you just did, by either dodging or diverting. Nice try.

 

[hunarcy]

I have repeatedly said why it's equal. No state can deny something to someone based on nothing but gender, race, creed, religion, to one person but grant it to another.

No state can tell one person they can legally marry the person they wish to be legally married to while deny someone else that very same right due to nothing but the gender of the person they wish to marry.

I won't explain that again. If you still can't comprehend that, it's on you.

Only because Obergfell, which means you are applying circular logic.

Again, all your "logic" is based on a horrible SC decision, which is what you use as proof that the SC decision is constitutional....

Nope, it's not circular logic. I've been arguing in favor of protecting equal protection in marriage for years. Obergefell merely confirmed what I have been saying and cemented the belief in stone with their ruling.

You have been arguing it not as your opinion but as something validated by Obergfell, and Obergfell validating your opinion.

My view is the SC overstepped its bounds, just like it did in Roe.

No, what I alluded to earlier is that it's not my opinion that matters, nor is it yours, the U.S. Supreme Court is the opinion which matters. I never said I didn't have an opinion on the matter prior to Obergefell.

I'm not saying my opinion has any bearing on the court's decision, which would make it circular. I am saying, both my opinion and the opinion of the court is that some people were being treated differently under the law for the reasons I care not to repeat again.

And you're entitled to your opinion. What a pity you failed to demonstrate it beyond, nuh-uh.

I made several references to precedent and my view that it isn't equal via the constitution because it's a concept that wasn't even around when the 14th amendment was thought up.

Again, the right way was to let States figure out if they want to issue SSM licenses, but force all States to recognize those licenses, like all others, under full faith and credit.

But, States don't always recognize licenses issued by other States, thus invalidating the full faith and credit clause. So, it should be codified into Federal Law to prevent regressive states from discrimination.

 

[martybegan]

You have been arguing it not as your opinion but as something validated by Obergfell, and Obergfell validating your opinion.

My view is the SC overstepped its bounds, just like it did in Roe.

No, what I alluded to earlier is that it's not my opinion that matters, nor is it yours, the U.S. Supreme Court is the opinion which matters. I never said I didn't have an opinion on the matter prior to Obergefell.

I'm not saying my opinion has any bearing on the court's decision, which would make it circular. I am saying, both my opinion and the opinion of the court is that some people were being treated differently under the law for the reasons I care not to repeat again.

And you're entitled to your opinion. What a pity you failed to demonstrate it beyond, nuh-uh.

I made several references to precedent and my view that it isn't equal via the constitution because it's a concept that wasn't even around when the 14th amendment was thought up.

Again, the right way was to let States figure out if they want to issue SSM licenses, but force all States to recognize those licenses, like all others, under full faith and credit.

There is no precedent which can stand unconstitutionally. And the 14th amendment protects equality of all laws, not just those which existed before its ratification. Just like the Constitution protects Congress’ authority in maintaining an Air Force even though there was no such branch of the military in 1788.

And again, states don’t get to violate peoples’ constitutional rights.

It's not about laws before or after the amendment was passed, it's about concepts.

and air power can be equated to both cavalry and artillery, two things that were around when the Constitution was ratified.

Please show me any culture that even considered SSM prior to the past 3 decades.

So you are saying the 14th amendment is absolute? Be careful with that....

You were the one to posit, ”my view that it isn't equal via the constitution because it's a concept that wasn't even around when the 14th amendment was thought up,” and that’s an absurd excuse.

And against n, it matters not when it became a thing nor does it matter how other countries view it. We are not citizens of other countries and it’s a thing now where some people were being denied the fundamental right to marry the person of their choice while others were not.

Sadly for you, you’ve presented no compelling argument for why such discrimination should have been allowed to continue.

it isn't at all. Concepts like artillery and cavalry when the constitution was written so expanding the concept of an army to an air force isn't much of a stretch.

Again, SSM is a very new concept, that was never ever considered equal until now, and by some people. on the other hand interracial/tribal marriage is something that has been considered equal through various points in US and world history.

And you haven't provided a compelling argument why States should be forced to issue SSM licenses beyond "I think they should, fuh fuh fuh, obergfell, fuh fuh fuh"

 

[martybegan]

Arguing about the demeanor is like discussing how to fix a leaky faucet faucet on a sinking Titanic.

It hides the real issue, which is that most of the press, the supposed watchdog of our democracy has decided to be a snarling rottweiler when facing non-progressives and a mewling lapdog when facing progressive ones.

All the while lying about how impartial they are.

You are stepping all over yourself if you are trying to make a case that the press needs to be out watchdogs. If that’s your position then the harsh and critical treatment of trump should be welcomed and Trumps dishonest attacks on the press when he calls critical news “fake” should be criticized. I dont see you doing that

The press has earned every bit of scorn it gets from Trump. And their critical treatment of Trump has nothing to do with their sense of civic duty, but their hatred of him, his positions and anyone who agrees with him.

Your blindness to this just show how much of a prog-cock sucking hack you are.

What exactly do you think I’m blind too?

Figure it out yourself.

The easy way for me to make you look even more stupid than you make yourself look is by simply asking you to explain yourself. People like you never can so they respond like you just did, by either dodging or diverting. Nice try.

Fine, you are blind to your own obvious hatred and biases.

i.e. "slade hates trump, so he will gladly turn a blind eye to anyone who is an ass as long as they hate trump"

You would probably give them a reach around while rimming their asshole at the same time.

 

[martybegan]

Only because Obergfell, which means you are applying circular logic.

Again, all your "logic" is based on a horrible SC decision, which is what you use as proof that the SC decision is constitutional....

Nope, it's not circular logic. I've been arguing in favor of protecting equal protection in marriage for years. Obergefell merely confirmed what I have been saying and cemented the belief in stone with their ruling.

You have been arguing it not as your opinion but as something validated by Obergfell, and Obergfell validating your opinion.

My view is the SC overstepped its bounds, just like it did in Roe.

No, what I alluded to earlier is that it's not my opinion that matters, nor is it yours, the U.S. Supreme Court is the opinion which matters. I never said I didn't have an opinion on the matter prior to Obergefell.

I'm not saying my opinion has any bearing on the court's decision, which would make it circular. I am saying, both my opinion and the opinion of the court is that some people were being treated differently under the law for the reasons I care not to repeat again.

And you're entitled to your opinion. What a pity you failed to demonstrate it beyond, nuh-uh.

I made several references to precedent and my view that it isn't equal via the constitution because it's a concept that wasn't even around when the 14th amendment was thought up.

Again, the right way was to let States figure out if they want to issue SSM licenses, but force all States to recognize those licenses, like all others, under full faith and credit.

But, States don't always recognize licenses issued by other States, thus invalidating the full faith and credit clause. So, it should be codified into Federal Law to prevent regressive states from discrimination.

Which states reject marriage licenses from other States?

 

[hunarcy]

Nope, it's not circular logic. I've been arguing in favor of protecting equal protection in marriage for years. Obergefell merely confirmed what I have been saying and cemented the belief in stone with their ruling.

You have been arguing it not as your opinion but as something validated by Obergfell, and Obergfell validating your opinion.

My view is the SC overstepped its bounds, just like it did in Roe.

No, what I alluded to earlier is that it's not my opinion that matters, nor is it yours, the U.S. Supreme Court is the opinion which matters. I never said I didn't have an opinion on the matter prior to Obergefell.

I'm not saying my opinion has any bearing on the court's decision, which would make it circular. I am saying, both my opinion and the opinion of the court is that some people were being treated differently under the law for the reasons I care not to repeat again.

And you're entitled to your opinion. What a pity you failed to demonstrate it beyond, nuh-uh.

I made several references to precedent and my view that it isn't equal via the constitution because it's a concept that wasn't even around when the 14th amendment was thought up.

Again, the right way was to let States figure out if they want to issue SSM licenses, but force all States to recognize those licenses, like all others, under full faith and credit.

But, States don't always recognize licenses issued by other States, thus invalidating the full faith and credit clause. So, it should be codified into Federal Law to prevent regressive states from discrimination.

Which states reject marriage licenses from other States?

None now, but some states, like regressive Texas, might. As their precedent, they can point to states ignoring CCW licenses issued by other states.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free

Yes seeking truth is important

Your version of it, perhaps.

Better than pretending a magic book has all the answers so you don’t have to bother seeking anything

Better a "magic book" than taking hints from the Democratic Party platform.

Weak

Heh, at least I have a firm basis for my beliefs. You have only emotion. Consider that while you float around in messageboard oblivion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Three words: he’s a pussy

Actually, that's five.

Not if you only count the words AFTER the colon. Dipshit.

Three words: you’re not smart

I still see five.

You really can't understand sarcasm, can you?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Why would he when he can travel around the country and give live speeches that the press will cover...

Also today press is not the press our parents grew up with and what we have today is tabloid new with political spin and satire that passes as news...