Gay Marriage a Symptom, Not a Disease

[Gunny]

What precisely is an intellectual elitist anyway? I keep hearing that on Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck... but can never seem to come away with anything other than, "the smart people."


I still find it odd that Republicans complain that American education has taken such a "nose dive" in the past twenty years and don't realize that their assertion lines up exactly with their rise to power...

Democrats/liberals who think they're so much smarter than everyone else they need to think for them and know what's best for them. There favorite line is: "You don't understand ..." whenever they are disagreed with.

But the overriding common denominator is not a one has a lick of common sense.

Answer your question?

 

[jasendorf]

Democrats/liberals who think they're so much smarter than everyone else they need to think for them and know what's best for them.

Oh, I see... it only applies to Democrats/liberals... which is why the guy who thinks he has "talent on loan from God" isn't included...

 

[Gunny]

Oh, I see... it only applies to Democrats/liberals... which is why the guy who thinks he has "talent on loan from God" isn't included...

Whose talent ISN'T on loan from God?

 

[jasendorf]

Whose talent ISN'T on loan from God?

Fred Phelps.

 

[musicman]

What precisely is an intellectual elitist anyway? I keep hearing that on Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck... but can never seem to come away with anything other than, "the smart people."

You've answered your own question, then, haven't you? - and fully confessed to being an elitist yourself, in the same motion. That was good of you.

An elitist, by his definition, distrusts representative government - thinking government too important a matter to be left to the ignorant masses. Better they should hand the reins over to those who know better - those who think as HE does - "the smart people".

He is easy to spot; just talk with him for a few minutes. You'll hear things like, "extremist Republicans are pandering to their base on the immigration issue". In case you somehow miss the contempt dripping from a statement like that, he'll happily point out to you that the base "don't particularly like them furriners". As to a certain bothersome, outmoded document - he is quite pleased that "the USSC has pretty well decided the constitutional question of abortion". Judicial activism - along with any other means by which the will of the unwashed, undeserving masses can be circumvented - is an agreeable state of affairs for him, for he is - in his heart - an arrogant, contemptuous tyrant.

That's a pretty good working definition of an "elitist", I think.

 

[Hobbit]

If this were true, then the Amendment would say, "Marriage shall be defined by the individual States." But, since the Amendment doesn't say that... then it is obviously not what the Republicans are doing.

The Republicans are hosting another election year hoodwink... when they know that the Amendment won't pass the Senate, they make a great, big deal out of it... knowing that they've wasted their time, (which is OUR time since we're paying them for their time) and our money even addressing it. Well, wasting our money is a relative term I suppose. The money will be well spent come November for the Republican Party I suppose when they're running ads which say things like, "This Democrat wants to marry your son, and his dog, and a corpse! Just look how he voted on the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment."

I don't care for either party right now. Both are them are pandering to their base on an unimportant issue in order to get more votes. No matter what is decided upon, it'll be nothing but a vote grabbing band aid. What the ammendment needs to do is not ban gay marriage, but clearly define the role of the judiciary. The vague wording in the Constitution is what allowed them to start overturning laws in the first place.

 

[jasendorf]

There's nothing vague about it... the Constitution CLEARLY states:

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

That doesn't seem very vague to me.

Problem is that the Republicans hate the judiciary because the Judiciary is what keeps them from having the authoritarion theocracy they so desire. And, they desire it so badly that they'll say anything to undermine the judiciary... even ignore the Constitution.

 

[jasendorf]

You've answered your own question, then, haven't you? - and fully confessed to being an elitist yourself, in the same motion. That was good of you.

An elitist, by his definition, distrusts representative government - thinking government too important a matter to be left to the ignorant masses. Better they should hand the reins over to those who know better - those who think as HE does - "the smart people".

He is easy to spot; just talk with him for a few minutes. You'll hear things like, "extremist Republicans are pandering to their base on the immigration issue". In case you somehow miss the contempt dripping from a statement like that, he'll happily point out to you that the base "don't particularly like them furriners". As to a certain bothersome, outmoded document - he is quite pleased that "the USSC has pretty well decided the constitutional question of abortion". Judicial activism - along with any other means by which the will of the unwashed, undeserving masses can be circumvented - is an agreeable state of affairs for him, for he is - in his heart - an arrogant, contemptuous tyrant.

That's a pretty good working definition of an "elitist", I think.

So, I was right?

 

[musicman]

So, I was right?

My assessment was essentially accurate, then?

 

[jasendorf]

My assessment was essentially accurate, then?

You can't answer a question with a question... can you?

 

[musicman]

You can't answer a question with a question... can you?

Certainly?

 

[jasendorf]

Certainly?

Does adding a question mark to the end of a statement make it any less of a statement? Cheating? What say you?

 

[musicman]

Does adding a question mark to the end of a statement make it any less of a statement? Cheating? What say you?

Did you notice that Articles I and II of the Constitution assign - respectively - legislative powers to a Congress, and Executive powers to a President? Cherry-picking? Disingenuous?

 

[jasendorf]

Did you notice that Articles I and II of the Constitution assign - respectively - legislative powers to a Congress, and Executive powers to a President? Cherry-picking? Disingenuous?

Does anyone see a need to cherry pick when the Constitution says the judiciary has the final say?

 

[musicman]

Does anyone see a need to cherry pick when the Constitution says the judiciary has the final say?

My God - you really believe that, don't you? Shall we read the paragraph which precedes the piece you cited?

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Does judicial power elevate one branch of central government to demigod status? Allow it to trample the separation of powers? To legislate? To create "rights" out of whole cloth? To steamroll the people in the name of an elitist social agenda? Was Ann Coulter correct when she opined that we hold judges too much in awe? That maybe it's the black robes that are throwing us off? That it might be a good thing for the country if the judiciary were made to wear lime-green leisure suits?

 

[jasendorf]

OK, tired of the wuestin game...

Does judicial power elevate one branch of central government to demigod status?

No. And their rulings haven't even come close to us assuming they have.

Allow it to trample the separation of powers?

No seperation of powers has been trampled. The USSC has upheld far more laws than it has ever struck down. And, those it has struck down it has done so with a Constitutional basis.

To legislate?

Show me their supposed "legislation." Oh, wait, it doesn't exist.

To create "rights" out of whole cloth?

They've done no such thing. You just don't care much for the rights the Constitution affords us. Those rights are a bit too "liberal" for your taste. You'd rather have a little less rights for us all. We are too stupid to know what to do with freedom is your stance I suppose.

To steamroll the people in the name of an elitist social agenda?

I know... those elitist ideas of freedom and equality and promoting the general welfare... How dare they!


Was Ann Coulter correct when she opined that we hold judges too much in awe?

Ann Coulter is never correct. Even when she's kinda right... she's still wrong. And a media whore too.

That maybe it's the black robes that are throwing us off?

I'm not thrown off. When a conservative, Republican judge determines that the state laws of Florida give a woman's husband the right to make end-of-life decisions for his wife, not the parents, I'm pretty sure he's basing that in state law. Oh, but wait, the sanctity of marriage isn't important if you don't want it to be...

That it might be a good thing for the country if the judiciary were made to wear lime-green leisure suits?

Oh great... Clarence Thomas looking like Shaft and Alito looking like he's in Taxi Driver. Brilliant.

 

[musicman]

Tell me how much more in violation of every constitutional principle regarding the separation of powers, the strict, specific limitations on the power of central government, and the devolution of power away from central government and to the people, we could get than a national policy on abortion - by judicial fiat.

 

[Avatar4321]

I didn't condone anything. But if it's really something that doesn't matter...

Gay marriage is definitely used by the GOP as a motivator to get people out to the polls. It's the biggest gift the dems have given in a loooooooong time.

You seem to be missing the point. We wouldnt be raising it if the left wasnt trying to freaking force it on us to begin with.

 

[Avatar4321]

There's nothing vague about it... the Constitution CLEARLY states:



That doesn't seem very vague to me.

Problem is that the Republicans hate the judiciary because the Judiciary is what keeps them from having the authoritarion theocracy they so desire. And, they desire it so badly that they'll say anything to undermine the judiciary... even ignore the Constitution.

since when has a government by the people been an authoritarian theocracy?

Lets think about this:

Republicans want the people to have a say in their laws and government.

Democrats want judges to make engrain their pet issues into society by circumventing the people.

So who is supporting an authoritarian government?

 

[Avatar4321]

Does anyone see a need to cherry pick when the Constitution says the judiciary has the final say?

The judiciary doesnt even claim that the Constitution says that the judiciary has final say. It's Marbury v. Madison that says the judiciary has the final say.

The Constitution, on the other hand, says the people have the final say.