What Is Wrong With Liberals??

[M14 Shooter]

The star spangled banner is, on several levels, the perfect song for our national anthem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm happy to let liberals live out their version of the American dream....

Me too - now if only they'd move to Canada to do it.

 

[saveliberty]

The Supreme Court does not interpret the Constitution, it applies it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Do you think it has anything to do with Jedi?

It's not about feeling good about everyone. It's about the govt sticking it's nose out of people's business.

Did the govt tell you who you should marry?

NO, but it told me who I could not marry. Not that I ever wanted to marry anyone but the woman I married.

What you want is the worst kind of government intervention. You want the government to dictate what people are allowed to consider normal and acceptable.

how does allowing two gay people to get married FORCE you to consider being gay normal and acceptable? Are you "special?"

No, I am not "special" except maybe to my grandkids.

Do you want a government that sets YOUR standards of right and wrong for you, and then punishes you if you disagree?

Typical authoritarian. Either we have complete anarchy or totalitarianism, you can't fathom something in between can you?

I do not want a government that mandates that minority groups do not have the same liberties as do the groups in the majority. That is called TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. I do not want that for my children.

Do you or do you not understand the difference between government keeping the rule of law for issues such as MURDER and OTHER FORMS OF VIOLENCE; and government mandating that because the majority of the people are heterosexual that homosexuals will be PUNISHED? This is a yes or no question.

Do you or do you not understand that homosexual marriages are not VIOLENT ACTS AGAINST heterosexuals? Again, this is a yes or no question.

so you favor the tyranny of the minority, you would be happy in the england of the 1700s.

yes, homosexual marriages are not violent acts, no one said they were.

Why does society ban incest and beastiality? Why does society ban bigamy and polygamy? Why does society set a minimum age for marriage? Because society has told the govenment that a majority of us do not think those things are RIGHT.

A majority of the people on planet earth think that gay marriage is wrong, but we are to ignore that majority view and force the majority to accept the minority view---------can you see the error in that or not?

NO NO NO NO NO Liberty is not tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minorities ganging up on your bigoted ass.

Incest and bestiality are not homosexuality. The victims of incest and bestiality are harmed that's why they are banned. Duh!

Society set a minimum age for marriage because children are not CONSENTING ADULTS. Duh!

Society bans plural marriage for the same reason it bans homosexual marriage. Because society is filled with bigots. You are correct, bigots discriminate against people they don't like. That's why we call them bigots. Duh!

NO NO NO NO NO

Letting gays do their thing is not the same as BEING FORCED TO PERFORM GAY ACTS. NO ONE IS GOING TO FORCE YOU TO PERFORM GAY ACTS. They just want to be left alone.

 

[frigidweirdo]

there is a big difference between interpreting and reinterpreting. The constitution is clear, many SCOTUS decsions are not.

Many Supreme Court decisions in the past have needed to be changed. The Supreme Court at times is extremely biased. Not hard to see why, they're appointed by politicians, they needed to catch the eye of politicians to get their big job, why change now?
The constitution is far from clear, many people can't even get anywhere close to an interpretation that is valid.

One clear example of this is the right to bear arms from the Second Amendment. People seem to think it means a right to carry arms around wherever they like, others think it is the right to self defence. Neither is the case, and any evidence that proves it is not the case is dismissed because people want it to mean what they want it to mean.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Supreme Court does not interpret the Constitution, it applies it.

It clearly interprets it.

Why was there one day segregation, the next day there wasn't? Because the Supreme Court interpreted parts of the constitution differently.

 

[frigidweirdo]

your example makes no sense. just because not all citizens decide to vote does not mean that a majority of those who do should not prevail. Those who do not vote forfeit their right to have their voices heard and thereby agree to accept the will of the majority of those who do vote.

Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority. The problem is that today you on the left refuse to accept the majority view because you don't like it. All I can say to that is--------tough shit.

You're missing the point entirely.
Your claim was that the majority decides. Yet what I have shown is that the weighting of votes for each of the Congressmen and women is not equal compared with the weighting when they vote in Congress. Therefore how can you be sure this is the will of the majority?
I didn't say the will of the majority did or didn't prevail, I'm saying that you haven't proven it.

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55

As for the majority view, there you're just making stuff up. You have no idea what the majority thinks.

"Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%"

Do you accept the will of the people? For the last 2 years this has consistently been the view of the people. One poll could be wrong, one company could, I suppose, be wrong, Gallup is a pretty common pollster though, so let's see more.

Overall do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally - The Washington Post

Washington Post and ABC News poll.

"Q: Overall, do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?"

59% support, 34% don't. 39% Support strongly, 24% against strongly.

70% of democrats support, 40% of Republicans support. 61% of independents support.

82% of liberals support, 64% of moderates support, 39% of conservatives support.

60% of white people support, 54% of blacks and hispanics support.

54% of males support, 63% of women support.

72% of 18-39 year olds support, 54% of 40-64 year olds support, 47% of 65+ support.

71% of post grads support, 63% of college grads support, 62% of some college support, 52% of High School or less support.

71% of $100,000 a year support, 57% of $50,000 to $100,000 support, 59% of below $50,000 a year support.

68% of people in the Northeast support, 66% of people in the midwest support, 50% of people in the south support, 59% of people in the west support.

So, let me guess, you're a republican, earn between $50,000 and $100,000, over 65 years old, conservative, from the South, only high school education, male and either black or hispanic.

Okay, probably not all of these, but probably about half.

But you said it. If the majority supports gay marriage YOU WILL TOO. Better start supporting right now then.

 

[RKMBrown]

there is a big difference between interpreting and reinterpreting. The constitution is clear, many SCOTUS decsions are not.

Many Supreme Court decisions in the past have needed to be changed. The Supreme Court at times is extremely biased. Not hard to see why, they're appointed by politicians, they needed to catch the eye of politicians to get their big job, why change now?
The constitution is far from clear, many people can't even get anywhere close to an interpretation that is valid.

One clear example of this is the right to bear arms from the Second Amendment. People seem to think it means a right to carry arms around wherever they like, others think it is the right to self defence. Neither is the case, and any evidence that proves it is not the case is dismissed because people want it to mean what they want it to mean.

The constitution is very clear. Yes, a great many people can't read properly. Yes, a great many of these english challenged people have incorrect understandings of what the Amendments say or don't say. For example, you have incorrectly stated that the 2nd amendment includes a right to bear arms. Yet that's not what it says.

The poorly named bill of rights is stated in the bill of rights to be "declaratory and restrictive clauses." The restrictions are on the federal government, "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is meaningless because it does not contain a restrictive clause. Therefore it is merely declaratory.

The second clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" carries the restriction shall not be infringed. Originally this restriction only applied to the federal government. However, through inclusion brought on by the 14th amendment, this restriction also applies to state governments.

The wording is quite clear, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Keep means own, and carry or possess and to serve as a soldier.

Apparently you don't understand the phrase "shall not."

 

[Justin Davis]

What is wrong with liberals?

Everything.

 

[saveliberty]

The Supreme Court does not interpret the Constitution, it applies it.

It clearly interprets it.

Why was there one day segregation, the next day there wasn't? Because the Supreme Court interpreted parts of the constitution differently.

Nope, a different Supreme Court applied the Constitution. Remember the Constitution has amendments too. Those have changed over time. The Supreme Court is never to interpret the Constitution. That is judical activism to interpret, which is wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The wording is quite clear, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Keep means own, and carry or possess and to serve as a soldier.

Unsupportable statement.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The constitution is very clear. Yes, a great many people can't read properly. Yes, a great many of these english challenged people have incorrect understandings of what the Amendments say or don't say. For example, you have incorrectly stated that the 2nd amendment includes a right to bear arms. Yet that's not what it says.

The poorly named bill of rights is stated in the bill of rights to be "declaratory and restrictive clauses." The restrictions are on the federal government, "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is meaningless because it does not contain a restrictive clause. Therefore it is merely declaratory.

The second clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" carries the restriction shall not be infringed. Originally this restriction only applied to the federal government. However, through inclusion brought on by the 14th amendment, this restriction also applies to state governments.

The wording is quite clear, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Keep means own, and carry or possess and to serve as a soldier.

Apparently you don't understand the phrase "shall not."

I'm lost. Why have you said all of this? I said there is a right to bear arms. There is a right to bear arms.

If you want, I can show you where the right to bear arms means, the right to be in the militia, but not on this threat, there is a thread or two even, where I have laid this out quite clearly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nope, a different Supreme Court applied the Constitution. Remember the Constitution has amendments too. Those have changed over time. The Supreme Court is never to interpret the Constitution. That is judical activism to interpret, which is wrong.

A different Supreme Court huh? Like the Supreme Court of Mexico perhaps?

If I remember rightly the 14th Amendment said the same thing before Brown and after Brown, unless of course you can show me where the amendment was changed between those two days.

But this was not, and clearly so, a case of the US Constitution changing. The amendment had been in since 1865 or so, and this was 90 years later or so. So what changed?

Was it A) The amendment or B) the interpretation of the amendment?

 

[saveliberty]

They applied the Constitution more broadly. The Supreme Court did not contain the same people did it? That is what I meant by a different court.

Clearly amendments can alter other parts of the Constitution. The Constitution must never be subject to interpretation. Once that happens, the public can never fully know what it means, unless the Court say was it means. This transfers power from the People to the Supreme Court.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They applied the Constitution more broadly. The Supreme Court did not contain the same people did it? That is what I meant by a different court.

Clearly amendments can alter other parts of the Constitution. The Constitution must never be subject to interpretation. Once that happens, the public can never fully know what it means, unless the Court say was it means. This transfers power from the People to the Supreme Court.

It doesn't matter whether it contained the same people or not. The fact is, if the court says one thing one year, then the complete opposite the next year and nothing has has changed with the constitution, then they're interpreting the constitution differently, aren't they?

 

[RKMBrown]

They applied the Constitution more broadly. The Supreme Court did not contain the same people did it? That is what I meant by a different court.

Clearly amendments can alter other parts of the Constitution. The Constitution must never be subject to interpretation. Once that happens, the public can never fully know what it means, unless the Court say was it means. This transfers power from the People to the Supreme Court.

It doesn't matter whether it contained the same people or not. The fact is, if the court says one thing one year, then the complete opposite the next year and nothing has has changed with the constitution, then they're interpreting the constitution differently, aren't they?

Rarely does it say the opposite. However, when the vote is not unanimous the dissenting opinion often looses that year but may win in a different year when more judges side with the dissenting opinion, if that's what you mean. Many times the change is based on a change in the laws that they are ruling on or possibly because they are looking at a completely different case.

That said, as far as I can tell libtard justices could give a crap about the Constitution, they appear to vote way too many times based on what is good for the democrat party, not based on Constitutionality. Going so far as to make it clear that libtard justices are really just liberal activists looking to rewrite the Constitution by fiat.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Rarely does it say the opposite. However, when the vote is not unanimous the dissenting opinion often looses that year but may win in a different year when more judges side with the dissenting opinion, if that's what you mean. Many times the change is based on a change in the laws that they are ruling on or possibly because they are looking at a completely different case.

That said, as far as I can tell libtard justices could give a crap about the Constitution, they appear to vote way too many times based on what is good for the democrat party, not based on Constitutionality. Going so far as to make it clear that libtard justices are really just liberal activists looking to rewrite the Constitution by fiat.

I thought you might actually be going to say something of worth, then you had to make a comment which shows that you're just another lacky who is part of the big political team game. "Libtards" huh? What are you, primary school or what?

Give me a break.

 

[RKMBrown]

Rarely does it say the opposite. However, when the vote is not unanimous the dissenting opinion often looses that year but may win in a different year when more judges side with the dissenting opinion, if that's what you mean. Many times the change is based on a change in the laws that they are ruling on or possibly because they are looking at a completely different case.

That said, as far as I can tell libtard justices could give a crap about the Constitution, they appear to vote way too many times based on what is good for the democrat party, not based on Constitutionality. Going so far as to make it clear that libtard justices are really just liberal activists looking to rewrite the Constitution by fiat.

I thought you might actually be going to say something of worth, then you had to make a comment which shows that you're just another lacky who is part of the big political team game. "Libtards" huh? What are you, primary school or what?

Give me a break.

You have a better name for the extreme left justices? Would you prefer marxists? Perhaps pinkos? What do you call a judge that rules based on feelings instead of logic? If not a form of mental retardation what is it? I thought I was being nice to excuse their blatant views as a libtardation. But, hey if you have a better name for it I'm all ears. I libertarian. As for whether I'm primary school or not, no I'm not a primary school.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You have a better name for the extreme left justices? Would you prefer marxists? Perhaps pinkos? What do you call a judge that rules based on feelings instead of logic? If not a form of mental retardation what is it? I thought I was being nice to excuse their blatant views as a libtardation. But, hey if you have a better name for it I'm all ears. I libertarian. As for whether I'm primary school or not, no I'm not a primary school.

Yes, probably a lot of better names. But then I don't know of any "extreme left justices" in the US Supreme Court.

You're making a lot of claims, and nothing to back yourself up. It's all "blah blah communists blah blah i'm really childish blah blah" that i'm getting right now.

You're a libertarian huh? Does it matter if you don't have the ability to come up with anything other than "libtard"?

You're not primary school (as opposed to A primary school, i didn't say you were A primary school at all) huh? Well stop bloody acting like it.

 

[RKMBrown]

You have a better name for the extreme left justices? Would you prefer marxists? Perhaps pinkos? What do you call a judge that rules based on feelings instead of logic? If not a form of mental retardation what is it? I thought I was being nice to excuse their blatant views as a libtardation. But, hey if you have a better name for it I'm all ears. I libertarian. As for whether I'm primary school or not, no I'm not a primary school.

Yes, probably a lot of better names. But then I don't know of any "extreme left justices" in the US Supreme Court.

You're making a lot of claims, and nothing to back yourself up. It's all "blah blah communists blah blah i'm really childish blah blah" that i'm getting right now.

You're a libertarian huh? Does it matter if you don't have the ability to come up with anything other than "libtard"?

You're not primary school (as opposed to A primary school, i didn't say you were A primary school at all) huh? Well stop bloody acting like it.

Ah well, if your gonna bloody violent about it....

Let's talk about Ginsgberg for one.

In her dissent re Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg wrote (bolded for your convenience):

In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.

Translation: To hell with the first amendment in the constitution. To hell with religious beliefs of owners of for-profit corporations. Ginsburg's "radical purpose" is to force for people who profit from investments and labor through ownership of a corporation, into accommodating legislation who's "radical purpose" is to force people, said owners, to go against their religious beliefs even to the point of funding actions that are in direct conflict with their religion, for example, funding abortions.

If you can find any logic whatsoever in her statement. ANY I'll stop calling people like this BITCH, a libtard.

But she continues:

The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.

Here the bitch is stating that the other judges are blind to her desire to and I quote, "embrace persons of diverse beliefs." So no only is this bitch admitting her radical purpose, she's begging the other judges to forgo the Constitution and "embrace persons of diverse beliefs" even if that means establishing as constitutional laws that restrict religious beliefs by forcing those with religious beliefs to embrace, monetarily, persons of diverse beliefs. She is saying public accommodation should extend to the spending patterns of the people, not just limited as they are to not refusing to serve people of diverse beliefs. She wants to force people to fund abortions. This is brutally clear. As if people who abort children are a special class of people that we have to accommodate.