aceluby Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Same with Warren. We all know she's a Marxist like Obama. But the country isn't, and so she doesn't go that far in the policies she advances. A perfectly reasonable posture. Sometimes I wonder if you truly post this stuff with a straight face. Classifying Obama as a Marxist is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daskool Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 The Supreme Court denied appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, meaning same-sex marriage is now legal in all of them. Granted, by not taking up a case, the justices dodged having to rule on its legality nationwide, but it does mean that its now legal in 30 states and DC. Amazing how quickly society turned on this. Society? So the citizens of those states voted to legalize gay marriage? Oh you mean judges decided to creatively interpret state constitutions? Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Both yes and no.It did take less time to get here than we did for anti-miscegenation. But the fight for marriage equality didn't just spring up in the last 5 years. The first lawsuit filed was in Hawai'i, in 1990, Baehr v. Lewin. So, 15 years after that, we have 30 out of 50 states allowing legal same-sex marriage. Still fast, in terms of speed for social changes, but it still is 15 years and we're not at 50 states yet. I am guessing some of the states, like Texas, Utah, Kansas, etc., will require Federal strong-arming to allow their state residents to marry legally, and that will probably drag out for another 10 years. Its true that its been going on for a while, but as recently as 2004 it was Republicans using "the threat of gays marrying" as a wedge issue to drive turnout at the polls and it wasn't legal in any state. Now its legal in 30+DC, and its Democrats using "the threat of Republicans denying rights" as a wedge issue to drive turnout at the polls. That's a lot of change for 10 years. Also, its legal in Utah as of this morning. They were one of the five states that SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairBearHero Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Same with Warren. We all know she's a Marxist like Obama. . We do? I mean, socialist-leaning, sure. Definitely one of the furthest left in Congress. Marxist? Not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Society? So the citizens of those states voted to legalize gay marriage? Oh you mean judges decided to creatively interpret state constitutions? Gotcha. Rights are not something to be voted on and one of the fundamental rights of the last 100 years is that you cannot legally deny contracts to people based on sex, religion, or race. Denying individuals the ability to sign a contract because it's two females signing it, or two males signing it is clearly against that fundamental right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daskool Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/118137-us-politics-shryke-and-commodore-agree-and-other-signs-and-portents/page-9 We do? I mean, socialist-leaning, sure. Definitely one of the furthest left in Congress. Marxist? Not so much. To espouse the fundamentals of dialectical materialism exposes an individual as a delusional kook. But there's still plenty on the left who believe in all that horse crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Rights are not something to be voted on and one of the fundamental rights of the last 100 years is that you cannot legally deny contracts to people based on sex, religion, or race. Denying individuals the ability to sign a contract because it's two females signing it, or two males signing it is clearly against that fundamental right. And also gay marriage has been legalized in the 30 states through direct referendum by the citizens, votes from the state legislatures and judicial rulings. So the claim this is all coming from judges is easily refuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Society? So the citizens of those states voted to legalize gay marriage? Oh you mean judges decided to creatively interpret state constitutions? Gotcha. So, what do you think the courts are supposed to do, if not to resolve conflicts in the written law? Wisconsin State Constitution, Article 1, Section 1: [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986] All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Wisconsin State Constitution, Article 13, Section 13: [As created Nov. 2006] Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 To espouse the fundamentals of dialectical materialism exposes an individual as a delusional kook. But there's still plenty on the left who believe in all that horse crap. What, in your mind, are the fundamentals of dialectical materialism and can you give examples where Elizabeth Warren has espoused them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairBearHero Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 To espouse the fundamentals of dialectical materialism exposes an individual as a delusional kook. But there's still plenty on the left who believe in all that horse crap. Evidently you've heard much more of Elizabeth Warren than I have, because pretty much every time I've seen/heard/read her speeches (not that often, I live in Europe and so most of my US politics knowledge comes from these threads...), they seem more in line with the social democracy found across most of western Europe than the fundamentals of dlialectical materialism found in no system of government in the world. Could you give me some examples of her espousing the benefits of Marxism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Daskool,It's those damn Social Justice Warriors!. They want the the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to mean something. They're just self involved that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairBearHero Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 What, in your mind, are the fundamentals of dialectical materialism and can you give examples where Elizabeth Warren has espoused them? We even both used "espoused". Get out of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 What, in your mind, are the fundamentals of dialectical materialism and can you give examples where Elizabeth Warren has espoused them? There is where the alt usually disappears for a day or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Why do they let Biden speak off the cuff? He's not an idiot he just can't seem to control his mouth. And thank God for that. It's good to know what's going on in the White House that doesn't show in the public face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I thought that said dielectric materialism and I was interested to hear Warren's views on high-frequency capacitors. Now I'm just disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Barack Obama is practically the textbook definition of centrist. The idea that he's some far right communist radical is absolutely bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted October 6, 2014 Author Share Posted October 6, 2014 gay marriage is legal in Oklahoma and Utah--the two most conservative states in the country--the remaining twenty states, which are less extremethen these two, are probably inevitable now. It's like a go board, and now the flanking piece has been placed, the rest of the tiles will have to flip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted October 6, 2014 Author Share Posted October 6, 2014 I was wondering Friday if there would be a trend towards democrats this week. since upshot, wapo, and 538 all curve out their lines, one cannot really see a snapshot of day-to-day movement. I agree with those sites that such movement is not what you should focus on but nonetheless it's an interesting datum to keep in mind when looking at all the projections that only chart pretty curves and never jagged lines.: http://election.princeton.edu/senate-seat-history/ http://election.princeton.edu/house-polling-margin/ So yeah, maybe this week will hold better news for democrats, it could be nothing though. And here is the Obama net job approval http://election.princeton.edu/obama-job-approval/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Larry Klayman teams up with Sherrif Joe Arpaio to sue the President and try to get him deported because omg he's not really a US citizen! (Note: This article is from October 2014, and only seems like something from 2008.) Because I hate people, here are the top 3 comments on the FB page (Tea Party Nation, because freedom): Somebody needs to stop talking and act!!! [3,926 likes] How about impeachment? I'd settle for that! [1,850 likes] Excuse me... shouldn't all of his Documents been approved before he took office?? [329 likes]People are stupid idiots and this country is damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 This type of stupidity would have less fertile ground to sprout if the right-wing politicians would grow some fucking integrity and stomp on it. I think McCain (?) did some of that earliy on, commenting that it's beyond the pale to insinuate that Obama is a Muslim. But, quite the opposite, we have people like Bachmann and Ernst and a small group of other GOP who not only refuse to kill this line of inanity, but actually actively inflame it either out of genuine stupidity or opportunistic politicking. And at its root the birther crap is so fucking stupid anyway. It doesn't matter where Obama was born, at all, because his mother is a U.S. citizen. All children born to at least 1 parent who is a U.S. citizen is are considered native-born citizens regardless of the location of birth. The level of ignorance behind this birther movement is both staggering and overwhelming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.