What Is Wrong With Liberals??

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What Is Wrong With Liberals??

The OP would be well-advised to instead find out what's wrong with conservatives.

For example, one of her fellow rightwing loons thinks private citizens critical of talk radio constitutes a 'violation' of free speech.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hermaphrodite - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So too do hermaphrodites, they deny the reality of human biology. Clearly they don't exist.

I could list loads of deformities which kids are born with, and you'd say they deny human biology. Better make sure they can't marry then, eh?

You made my point. Gays have a mental "deformity". Calling a gay union a marriage is to deny human biology, just as calling a hermaphrodite a sexuallly normal human would be be.

No one wants to deny rights to these people, but they do not need the word 'marriage' to have equal rights.

Are you mentally handicapped? Why would anyone claim a homosexual marriage is a heterosexual marriage? Seriously, are you retarded?

Its the gay agenda that wants society to view them as the same, not me.

Seriously, I think you are smart enough to understand that if gay marriage is legalized, then there is absolutely no legal argument that can be brought against all forms of multi person marriage.

They will argue that their rights to marry whoever they choose are being denied and they will cite gay marriage as precedent------AND THEY WILL WIN THE CASE.

Is that the future that you see for your children and grand children?

Not true. They don't want to be heterosexual and married. They want to have their rights restored, that's all, so they can be homosexual and married.

Yes I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in a country where bigotry is not excused by the majority.

the right to marriage doesn't exist. States set their own laws regarding marriage. Age limits, you can't marry more than one person, you cant marry close relatives ect.

On your accusation that the right to marriage doesn't exist..

Bull shit. SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a traditional and fundamental aspect of life and therefore the states can't ban it from consenting adults. Marriage is a fundamental right for consenting adults.

States have been consistently loosing on their fight against plural relationships, that will fall just like the bans on homosexual marriage. These bans are not right, you know it and they will fall because of that fact.

Close relatives, pedophilia, and sex with non-consenting adults are completely different issues than marriages between consenting adults. You know this is true.

Accusations that plural and homosexual marriages between consenting adults is the same as sex with family members and children is asinine.

 

[RKMBrown]

What Is Wrong With Liberals??

The OP would be well-advised to instead find out what's wrong with conservatives.

For example, one of her fellow rightwing loons thinks private citizens critical of talk radio constitutes a 'violation' of free speech.

What's wrong with republicans? The same thing that's wrong with democrats. Authoritarians.

 

[Jroc]

You made my point. Gays have a mental "deformity". Calling a gay union a marriage is to deny human biology, just as calling a hermaphrodite a sexuallly normal human would be be.

No one wants to deny rights to these people, but they do not need the word 'marriage' to have equal rights.

Are you mentally handicapped? Why would anyone claim a homosexual marriage is a heterosexual marriage? Seriously, are you retarded?

Its the gay agenda that wants society to view them as the same, not me.

Seriously, I think you are smart enough to understand that if gay marriage is legalized, then there is absolutely no legal argument that can be brought against all forms of multi person marriage.

They will argue that their rights to marry whoever they choose are being denied and they will cite gay marriage as precedent------AND THEY WILL WIN THE CASE.

Is that the future that you see for your children and grand children?

Not true. They don't want to be heterosexual and married. They want to have their rights restored, that's all, so they can be homosexual and married.

Yes I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in a country where bigotry is not excused by the majority.

the right to marriage doesn't exist. States set their own laws regarding marriage. Age limits, you can't marry more than one person, you cant marry close relatives ect.

On your accusation that the right to marriage doesn't exist..

Bull shit. SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a traditional and fundamental aspect of life and therefore the states can't ban it from consenting adults. Marriage is a fundamental right for consenting adults.

States have been consistently loosing on their fight against plural relationships, that will fall just like the bans on homosexual marriage. These bans are not right, you know it and they will fall because of that fact.

Close relatives, pedophilia, and sex with non-consenting adults are completely different issues than marriages between consenting adults. You know this is true.

Accusations that plural and homosexual marriages between consenting adults is the same as sex with family members and children is asinine.

There is no such right, as the right to marry. States can refuse to issue a marriage license under certain circumstances.. Like a drivers license, you're full of it just like the rest of the leftist nutjobs

 

[RKMBrown]

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
   [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
   [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
   [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
   [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
   

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/4dbd426fcdde01533f_92m6i6slj.pdf

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/f3c291f543be541150_4dm6b90ql.pdf

 

[LeftofLeft]

Why do they hate this great nation?
Why do they strive, not just to "fundamentally transform" it, but to end it??


Seems the very center of Liberalism is to find every wound and apply salt......how often must we hear of the evils of slavery, with hardly a word about the cathartic Civil War, and the monumental efforts Americans have made to amend same?



American history.....to be proud of:

September 13th, 1814 British begin 25 hour bombardment of Fort McHenry, Baltimore, but fail to take fort. A giant 15-stripe flag stitched together by Mary Young Pickersgill waved over the fort. By 1818 the third version of the flag, with 13 stripes, was created. Frances Scott Key wrote Star Spangled Banner honoring the 15-stripe version.(See 3/3) The British Navy had used “mortar vessels,” the mortar placed on the forecastle of an anchored boat, capable of blasting a 196-pound explosive shell four thousand yards in a thirty-second, high-arcing flight. Thus “bombs bursting in air.”



Why would Liberals attack these symbols of America.....such as this from a Liberal historian at a major Ivy League university:



1 "Is It Time to Ditch the Star-Spangled Banner?

2. The Star-Spangled Banner, so often a prelude to our ceremonies for others, finds itself on center stage this weekend as Baltimore, the city of its birth, celebrates the national anthem’s bicentennial.

3. Two hundred years ago, a Maryland-born lawyer, Francis Scott Key, poured out his anxious feelings for the fate of his country. Having witnessed the shelling of Fort McHenry by British forces throughout the night of Sept. 13-14, 1814, Key was elated to see the American flag still flying the next morning.He wrote out four stanzas of a poem titled “Defence of Fort M’Henry,”....

4. ... 18th-century London, where the music was actually composed. Indeed, the invading army that shelled Baltimore that night has nearly as much claim to authorship as the composer, for the tune was likely brought to America by British soldiers at the time of the American Revolution. It has been testing our vocal chords and our eardrums ever since.

5. Indeed, from its murky origins, the song has become so ubiquitous that it’s difficult not to hear it... Its martial strains launch every sporting contest, adding a kind of athletic drama of its own, ....Each performance forces us to relive Key’s emotional trauma ... a kind of musical bombardment that endlessly perpetuates Key’s agony of waiting and watching.




6.... the third stanza is troubling. One line taunts the British for their failure, and specifically calls out “the hireling and slave” who joined the British forces.

7. A deeper study of Key only compounds the problem. .... his position on slavery is impossible to avoid. Key was not only a slave-owner, but he zealously defended the peculiar institution in his legal work, persecuting local journalists who questioned slavery, and even those who possessed anti-slavery writings in their homes.

a. His brother-in-law was Roger Taney, who became chief justice of the Supreme Court and authored the infamous Dred Scott decision, which argued that African-Americans could never be citizens of the United States. Indeed, much of what we know about how Key wrote out “The Star-Spangled Banner” comes from an account Taney published in 1857, the year of Dred Scott.




8. .... the “Star-Spangled Banner” gained currency as the Navy began to play it more officially in the 1890s, in the same decade that the Navy was spearheading the spread of American influence around the world. Its use accelerated in World War I, ...

9. .... is it time to rethink the Star-Spangled Banner?.... the story of Key’s nearness to slavery cannot easily be forgotten, especially in an era that demands more accountability, and offers to tools to find it. Critics over the years—I am hardly the first—have been brutal about the Star-Spangled Banner’s many shortcomings.

a. The New York Herald Tribune dismissed it as “words that nobody can remember [set] to a tune that nobody can sing.” In 1918, a woman named Kitty Cheatham denounced the words as “German propaganda” (because they undermined the Anglo-American alliance), and saw the music as a product of “darkness,” “degeneracy,” and “the carnal mind.” .... the columnist Michael Kinsley has ripped its “empty bravado” and “mindless nonsense about rockets and bombs.”

10. It would take a gigantic effort to remove the “Star-Spangled Banner” from its throne—a throne that becomes a little more entrenched this weekend. But to ask hard questions about entrenched power is an American tradition even older than our attempts to sing this enduringly difficult national song."
Is It Time to Ditch the Star-Spangled Banner - Ted Widmer - POLITICO Magazine



What's next.....the flag itself?

LIberals are NEVER satisfied.

 

[Jroc]

Its the gay agenda that wants society to view them as the same, not me.

Seriously, I think you are smart enough to understand that if gay marriage is legalized, then there is absolutely no legal argument that can be brought against all forms of multi person marriage.

They will argue that their rights to marry whoever they choose are being denied and they will cite gay marriage as precedent------AND THEY WILL WIN THE CASE.

Is that the future that you see for your children and grand children?

Not true. They don't want to be heterosexual and married. They want to have their rights restored, that's all, so they can be homosexual and married.

Yes I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in a country where bigotry is not excused by the majority.

the right to marriage doesn't exist. States set their own laws regarding marriage. Age limits, you can't marry more than one person, you cant marry close relatives ect.

On your accusation that the right to marriage doesn't exist..

Bull shit. SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a traditional and fundamental aspect of life and therefore the states can't ban it from consenting adults. Marriage is a fundamental right for consenting adults.

States have been consistently loosing on their fight against plural relationships, that will fall just like the bans on homosexual marriage. These bans are not right, you know it and they will fall because of that fact.

Close relatives, pedophilia, and sex with non-consenting adults are completely different issues than marriages between consenting adults. You know this is true.

Accusations that plural and homosexual marriages between consenting adults is the same as sex with family members and children is asinine.

There is no such right, as the right to marry. States can refuse to issue a marriage license under certain circumstances.. Like a drivers license, you're full of it just like the rest of the leftist nutjobs

Wrong. You are clueless. They can't refuse consenting adults. DOMA fell. The new laws against homosexuals will all fall as unconstitutional. The laws against plural marriages will also fall as unconstitutional.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Google Scholar

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/4dbd426fcdde01533f_92m6i6slj.pdf

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/f3c291f543be541150_4dm6b90ql.pdf

Judges are not superhuman.... Even though you might you think they are

 

[RKMBrown]

Not true. They don't want to be heterosexual and married. They want to have their rights restored, that's all, so they can be homosexual and married.

Yes I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in a country where bigotry is not excused by the majority.

the right to marriage doesn't exist. States set their own laws regarding marriage. Age limits, you can't marry more than one person, you cant marry close relatives ect.

On your accusation that the right to marriage doesn't exist..

Bull shit. SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a traditional and fundamental aspect of life and therefore the states can't ban it from consenting adults. Marriage is a fundamental right for consenting adults.

States have been consistently loosing on their fight against plural relationships, that will fall just like the bans on homosexual marriage. These bans are not right, you know it and they will fall because of that fact.

Close relatives, pedophilia, and sex with non-consenting adults are completely different issues than marriages between consenting adults. You know this is true.

Accusations that plural and homosexual marriages between consenting adults is the same as sex with family members and children is asinine.

There is no such right, as the right to marry. States can refuse to issue a marriage license under certain circumstances.. Like a drivers license, you're full of it just like the rest of the leftist nutjobs

Wrong. You are clueless. They can't refuse consenting adults. DOMA fell. The new laws against homosexuals will all fall as unconstitutional. The laws against plural marriages will also fall as unconstitutional.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Google Scholar

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/4dbd426fcdde01533f_92m6i6slj.pdf

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/f3c291f543be541150_4dm6b90ql.pdf

Judges are not superhuman.... Even though you might you think they are

So we're supposed to rely on... YOU to educate us on what is constitutional? ROFL

 

[Jroc]

the right to marriage doesn't exist. States set their own laws regarding marriage. Age limits, you can't marry more than one person, you cant marry close relatives ect.

On your accusation that the right to marriage doesn't exist..

Bull shit. SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a traditional and fundamental aspect of life and therefore the states can't ban it from consenting adults. Marriage is a fundamental right for consenting adults.

States have been consistently loosing on their fight against plural relationships, that will fall just like the bans on homosexual marriage. These bans are not right, you know it and they will fall because of that fact.

Close relatives, pedophilia, and sex with non-consenting adults are completely different issues than marriages between consenting adults. You know this is true.

Accusations that plural and homosexual marriages between consenting adults is the same as sex with family members and children is asinine.

There is no such right, as the right to marry. States can refuse to issue a marriage license under certain circumstances.. Like a drivers license, you're full of it just like the rest of the leftist nutjobs

Wrong. You are clueless. They can't refuse consenting adults. DOMA fell. The new laws against homosexuals will all fall as unconstitutional. The laws against plural marriages will also fall as unconstitutional.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Google Scholar

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/4dbd426fcdde01533f_92m6i6slj.pdf

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/f3c291f543be541150_4dm6b90ql.pdf

Judges are not superhuman.... Even though you might you think they are

So we're supposed to rely on... YOU to educate us on what is constitutional? ROFL

Judges have agendas. Politicians appoint them for political reasons. Doesn't mean they're right, they're just pushing an agenda. It's the states job to regulate marriage not some all powerful judge.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not true. They don't want to be heterosexual and married. They want to have their rights restored, that's all, so they can be homosexual and married.

Yes I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in a country where bigotry is not excused by the majority.

the right to marriage doesn't exist. States set their own laws regarding marriage. Age limits, you can't marry more than one person, you cant marry close relatives ect.[/QUOTE]

Actually the courts have said there is a right to marry. This doesn't mean laws aren't state laws at the same time.

You could argue for there not being constitutional protections of such a right, even then you'd probably fail.

There are limits to ALL rights. Close relatives is a logical one because we know the effects it has on children, ie, it harms them. Polygamy, well there's no real good reason to stop polygamy. I don't like polygamy, but it's not really my business whether a guy marries lots of women or not.

 

[Care4all]

liberty ... like the liberty to do as you please so far as you don't harm others... IOW liberty is not the liberty to take liberty away from others and cause them harm

So... I really wouldn't put the Republican Party down as those who love liberty then.

The main reason is that they try and hide behind stuff, pretend they're good but in fact are taking liberty away. Having a common enemy (USSR/Islam) has always been used to impose restrictions on people while supposedly "fighting for freedom", yet as in the case of fighting Islam, they're making things worse, not better, they're reducing freedoms in the US and all over the world for a lot of people.

Last time I checked Obama and the dems were in charge. The crap you are bitching about was done by them.

So, Obama fought against the USSR huh? Obama invaded Iraq in 2003 huh?

You seem to have just come up with a default answer.

I said "obama and the dems". The dems authorized, funded, and supported all of those stupid wars. Dems started the viet nam "war" where 58,000 americans died for nothing. your history is totally fucked up.

Actually you are wrong, a Republican President began the Viet Nam war, Dwight D Eisenhower.... The Dems just continued with what Eisenhower BEGAN.... and escalated it....BUT THEY DID NOT in any way, begin or start the Viet Nam war:

Encyclopedia Britanica

French rule ended, Vietnam divided
The Vietnam War had its origins in the broader Indochina wars of the 1940s and ’50s, when nationalist groups such as Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh, inspired by Chinese and Soviet communism, fought the colonial rule first of Japan and then of France. The French Indochina War broke out in 1946 and went on for eight years, with France’s war effort largely funded and supplied by the United States. Finally, with their shattering defeat by the Viet Minh at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in May 1954, the French came to the end of their rule in Indochina. The battle prodded negotiators at the Geneva Conference to produce the final Geneva Accords in July 1954. The accords established the 17th parallel (latitude 17° N) as a temporary demarcation line separating the military forces of the French and the Viet Minh. North of the line was the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, or North Vietnam, which had waged a successful eight-year struggle against the French. The North was under the full control of the Worker’s Party, or Vietnamese Communist Party, led by Ho Chi Minh; its capital was Hanoi. In the South the French transferred most of their authority to the State of Vietnam, which had its capital at Saigon and was nominally under the authority of the former Vietnamese emperor, Bao Dai. Within 300 days of the signing of the accords, a demilitarized zone, or DMZ, was to be created by mutual withdrawal of forces north and south of the 17th parallel, and the transfer of any civilians who wished to leave either side was to be completed. Nationwide elections to decide the future of Vietnam, North and South, were to be held in 1956.

Accepting the de facto partition of Vietnam as unavoidable but still pledging to halt the spread of communism in Asia, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower began a crash program of assistance to the State of Vietnam—or South Vietnam, as it was invariably called. At the same time, Viet Minh leaders, confidently expecting political disarray and unrest in the South, retained many of their political operatives and propagandists below the 17th parallel even as they withdrew their military forces to the North. Ngo Dinh Diem, the newly installed premier of South Vietnam, thus faced opposition not only from the communist regime in the North but also from the Viet Minh’s stay-behind political agents, armed religious sects in the South, and even subversive elements in his own army. Yet Diem had the full support of U.S. military advisers, who trained and reequipped his army along American lines and foiled coup plots by dissident officers. Operatives of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) bought off or intimidated Diem’s domestic opposition, and U.S. aid agencies helped him to keep his economy afloat and to resettle some 900,000 refugees who had fled the communist North.

By late 1955 Diem had consolidated his power in the South, defeating the remaining sect forces and arresting communist operatives who had surfaced in considerable numbers to prepare for the anticipated elections. Publicly opposed to the elections, Diem called for a referendum only in the South, and in October 1955 he declared himself president of the Republic of Vietnam. The North, not ready to start a new war and unable to induce its Chinese or Russian allies to act, could do little.

Vietnam War 1954-75 -- Encyclopedia Britannica

 

[RKMBrown]

On your accusation that the right to marriage doesn't exist..

Bull shit. SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a traditional and fundamental aspect of life and therefore the states can't ban it from consenting adults. Marriage is a fundamental right for consenting adults.

States have been consistently loosing on their fight against plural relationships, that will fall just like the bans on homosexual marriage. These bans are not right, you know it and they will fall because of that fact.

Close relatives, pedophilia, and sex with non-consenting adults are completely different issues than marriages between consenting adults. You know this is true.

Accusations that plural and homosexual marriages between consenting adults is the same as sex with family members and children is asinine.

There is no such right, as the right to marry. States can refuse to issue a marriage license under certain circumstances.. Like a drivers license, you're full of it just like the rest of the leftist nutjobs

Wrong. You are clueless. They can't refuse consenting adults. DOMA fell. The new laws against homosexuals will all fall as unconstitutional. The laws against plural marriages will also fall as unconstitutional.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Google Scholar

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/4dbd426fcdde01533f_92m6i6slj.pdf

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/f3c291f543be541150_4dm6b90ql.pdf

Judges are not superhuman.... Even though you might you think they are

So we're supposed to rely on... YOU to educate us on what is constitutional? ROFL

Judges have agendas. Politicians appoint them for political reasons. Doesn't mean they're right, they're just pushing an agenda. It's the states job to regulate marriage not some all powerful judge.

In these cases the so called agenda of the SCOTUS was liberty under the constitution.

Like it or not the 14th amendment and subsequent federal civil rights acts have resulted in the federal government taking regulatory supremacy over the States in such matters. Elections matter. If you want us to go back to being more of a republic you're gonna need representatives with that agenda.

If you want to make bigoted hatred of gays the law of the land you are gonna have to show due process. You are gonna have to show the societal harms that befall you poor heteros by allowing two consenting adult homosexuals to marry.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Redfish]

How many times have I heard rightwingers wanting to get back to what the founding fathers intended as if they were prophets or something.

How many times have said declarations fallen on your deaf and dumb ears?

You tell me. I thought I'd always been pretty open to your 'declarations'.

Depends on the topic. We agree on topics where democrats are for liberty... and we disagree on topics where democrats are against liberty.

Like the liberty for gays to marry one another? The liberty for a women to obtain an abortion? The liberty to board an airplane without having to be poked, prodded, and x-rayed?

Two consenting adults of the same sex getting married harms no one.

Abortion kills the baby.. killing someone with forethought is not liberty, it is murder.

Yes, one with no record of violence, and having shown no evidence that they might be about to do something violent, should be able to get in their car or bus or train or plane without being poked, prodded, and x-rayed.

Many believe that gay marriage harms society and would lead to all forms of multiple marriage. I am one of those.

If you think otherwise, fine. Is it to be a crime to disagree with some mandated government societal policy?

Thats the real danger here------------thought control and punishment for illegal thoughts and beliefs.

 

[Redfish]

liberty ... like the liberty to do as you please so far as you don't harm others... IOW liberty is not the liberty to take liberty away from others and cause them harm

So... I really wouldn't put the Republican Party down as those who love liberty then.

The main reason is that they try and hide behind stuff, pretend they're good but in fact are taking liberty away. Having a common enemy (USSR/Islam) has always been used to impose restrictions on people while supposedly "fighting for freedom", yet as in the case of fighting Islam, they're making things worse, not better, they're reducing freedoms in the US and all over the world for a lot of people.

Last time I checked Obama and the dems were in charge. The crap you are bitching about was done by them.

So, Obama fought against the USSR huh? Obama invaded Iraq in 2003 huh?

You seem to have just come up with a default answer.

I said "obama and the dems". The dems authorized, funded, and supported all of those stupid wars. Dems started the viet nam "war" where 58,000 americans died for nothing. your history is totally fucked up.

Actually you are wrong, a Republican President began the Viet Nam war, Dwight D Eisenhower.... The Dems just continued with what Eisenhower BEGAN.... and escalated it....BUT THEY DID NOT in any way, begin or start the Viet Nam war:

Encyclopedia Britanica

French rule ended, Vietnam divided
The Vietnam War had its origins in the broader Indochina wars of the 1940s and ’50s, when nationalist groups such as Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh, inspired by Chinese and Soviet communism, fought the colonial rule first of Japan and then of France. The French Indochina War broke out in 1946 and went on for eight years, with France’s war effort largely funded and supplied by the United States. Finally, with their shattering defeat by the Viet Minh at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in May 1954, the French came to the end of their rule in Indochina. The battle prodded negotiators at the Geneva Conference to produce the final Geneva Accords in July 1954. The accords established the 17th parallel (latitude 17° N) as a temporary demarcation line separating the military forces of the French and the Viet Minh. North of the line was the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, or North Vietnam, which had waged a successful eight-year struggle against the French. The North was under the full control of the Worker’s Party, or Vietnamese Communist Party, led by Ho Chi Minh; its capital was Hanoi. In the South the French transferred most of their authority to the State of Vietnam, which had its capital at Saigon and was nominally under the authority of the former Vietnamese emperor, Bao Dai. Within 300 days of the signing of the accords, a demilitarized zone, or DMZ, was to be created by mutual withdrawal of forces north and south of the 17th parallel, and the transfer of any civilians who wished to leave either side was to be completed. Nationwide elections to decide the future of Vietnam, North and South, were to be held in 1956.

Accepting the de facto partition of Vietnam as unavoidable but still pledging to halt the spread of communism in Asia, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower began a crash program of assistance to the State of Vietnam—or South Vietnam, as it was invariably called. At the same time, Viet Minh leaders, confidently expecting political disarray and unrest in the South, retained many of their political operatives and propagandists below the 17th parallel even as they withdrew their military forces to the North. Ngo Dinh Diem, the newly installed premier of South Vietnam, thus faced opposition not only from the communist regime in the North but also from the Viet Minh’s stay-behind political agents, armed religious sects in the South, and even subversive elements in his own army. Yet Diem had the full support of U.S. military advisers, who trained and reequipped his army along American lines and foiled coup plots by dissident officers. Operatives of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) bought off or intimidated Diem’s domestic opposition, and U.S. aid agencies helped him to keep his economy afloat and to resettle some 900,000 refugees who had fled the communist North.

By late 1955 Diem had consolidated his power in the South, defeating the remaining sect forces and arresting communist operatives who had surfaced in considerable numbers to prepare for the anticipated elections. Publicly opposed to the elections, Diem called for a referendum only in the South, and in October 1955 he declared himself president of the Republic of Vietnam. The North, not ready to start a new war and unable to induce its Chinese or Russian allies to act, could do little.

Vietnam War 1954-75 -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Sending advisors and arms is not the same as sending 500,000 combat troops, of which 58,000 for nothing.
The deaths in viet nam are on Kennedy and Johnson. I lived through that crap, I know what happened.

 

[Redfish]

says it all in one picture. a liberal getting what she says she wants.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Many believe that gay marriage harms society and would lead to all forms of multiple marriage. I am one of those.

If you think otherwise, fine. Is it to be a crime to disagree with some mandated government societal policy?

Thats the real danger here------------thought control and punishment for illegal thoughts and beliefs.

So the govt making laws is punishing people for illegal thoughts and beliefs? I don't get the massive jump over a massive canyon you've just made.

Some people might have thought that allowing black people to marry would lead to polygamy. Does this mean that black people shouldn't have been able to marry?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sending advisors and arms is not the same as sending 500,000 combat troops, of which 58,000 for nothing.
The deaths in viet nam are on Kennedy and Johnson. I lived through that crap, I know what happened.

No, it's not the same. However, we all know had Eisenhower been Democrat and the Kennedy and Johnson been Republican you'd have been blaming it all on Eisenhower.

Fact is, no president started the war. The war was going on from 1945 onwards before US intervention happened.

 

[Redfish]

Many believe that gay marriage harms society and would lead to all forms of multiple marriage. I am one of those.

If you think otherwise, fine. Is it to be a crime to disagree with some mandated government societal policy?

Thats the real danger here------------thought control and punishment for illegal thoughts and beliefs.

So the govt making laws is punishing people for illegal thoughts and beliefs? I don't get the massive jump over a massive canyon you've just made.

Some people might have thought that allowing black people to marry would lead to polygamy. Does this mean that black people shouldn't have been able to marry?

hate crime legislation is punishment for thoughts. its already with us.

your second sentence is too stupid to merit a response.