Althea
Althea told me...........
but you're including Blue Dogs who jumped republican ship in order to get elected as a democrat.
Paul/Palin 2016... Possible GOP Ticket?
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
maineman
Banned
no re-hashing is necessary. The fact of the matter is clear: Bush lied when he said there was absolute certainty about the existence of WMD's... and that lie, along with the clear suggestion that Saddam's boys were in on 9/11 before the fact, was all he needed to scare the sheeple into a war that did not need to be fought. This issue certainly does not "consume" me... I have much more pressing issues on my plate, like making sure the chemical balance is just right in my pool... but I love to see righties like you deny the obvious lie because of your unwillingness to accept any degree of responsibility for the worst military blunder since Vietnam.
maineman
Banned
of course it was... and to assert absolute certainty about the veracity of old and discredited intel was a LIE... tap dancing does not change that fact. I will readily admit that it is an academic distinction at this point, but to say that they did NOT LIE is clearly dishonest in and of itself. The fact that righties TO THIS DAY cannot bring themselves to just admit that their leader lied to us is so telling.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Then you will continue to be politically irrelevant.
Doesn't matter, you're politically irrelevant.
Not missing that point at all. That's exactly the point left wing ideologues wanted you to take away, that's why they politicized it.
Then you should have no problem citing some examples of religious laws Sarah Palin wants to implement? *crickets*
Tell ya what, why don't you work on not calling people "Goober" who are smarter than you? You've not backed up your arguments with anything, except your simple-minded view of the Constitution.
Yes, I think you are a left wing looney liberal who is too chicken shit to admit he is liberal, so you try to hide behind libertarianism. Again, you are politically irrelevant, so I don't worry much about what you think.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Rehashing is exactly what we are doing. The fact of the matter is clear, numerous investigations and hearings turned up ZERO evidence the administration "lied" about any goddamn thing! There was NEVER any suggestion regarding Saddam and 9/11, other than the fact that we knew he was involved with the first WTC attack. Now you can lay in the floor and kick and scream, but those are the facts recorded in the history books.
Meanwhile, the people of Iraq have not spiraled into civil war, as you predicted. They continue to govern themselves freely with the first democracy in the Arab world. In both Libya and Egypt, we followed the course your side said we should have followed in Iraq, and the Muslim Brotherhood took over. Eventually, US troops will have to go in and liberate these people, probably after years of oppression and genocide.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Not according to every independent investigation after the fact.
Robo
Verified User
“Irrelevant” to who Goober? You and your cohort minions that elect the crooked bastards in Washington? If that’s the case, “irrelevance” is no punishment, it’s a worthy goal.
How about federal & State law similar to proposition 8 in the “progressive” State of California, for starters which violates amendment 9 of the Bill Of Rights and violates amendment 14 also.
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment 9, United States Constitution)
“…….No State shall make or enforce any law………….or deny to any person the equal protection of the law.” (Amendment 14, United States Constitution)
Sara Palin promotes BIG progressive State and federal government force to define a prohibitive legal definition of “marriage” contracts, based in Sara Palin’s ”religious” concept of what Sara Palin wants marriage contracts to be. Sara is an American Talaban!
Tell ya what Goober, I’ll stop calling you Goober the day you prove you’re smarter than me and you haven’t even come close yet. First you’ll need to rebuke, (with sanity and logic which you seem incapable of), what you call my “simple minded” views of the Constitution.
And that’s why ”CLASSIC LIBERAL” is my identifying label here, huh Goober?
Since I’ve nicely connected your Sara with “neo-con religion-ism,” I reckon Goober it’s your turn to now connect me with left-wing looney-ism, huh? Of course you don’t know a true “liberal” in the classical sense from a fucking leftist, so I shall imagine that your task is far above your abilities.
Like I said Goober, being irrelevant to you is no punishment it’s a worthy goal!!!!
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I just want a marriage contract which unites a husband and wife. A contract which fails to do this may be perfectly legal and proper, but it is not a marriage contract.
maineman
Banned
stating absolute certainty when no such absolute certainty existed was a lie.... it was a lie because they KNEW that members of the intelligence community HAD varying degrees of doubt, but they stated there was NO doubt even though they knew otherwise. You don't need "numerous investigations" to figure that out. All you need is a rudimentary knowledge of the english language and a smattering of ethics training. Whenever you say something you know to be false, it is a lie. They knew that doubt existed. They stated, nonetheless, that THERE WAS NO DOUBT. Prima facie, A lie. I realize it is difficult to just admit that fact, but it really is clearly the case.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Good, you are achieving your goals!
Prop 8 is a measure which was voted on and passed by the people of California, of which, Sarah Palin has never been a resident of or held public office in. I asked you for some examples of "religious law" Sarah wants to implement, which is what you claimed. Can you not produce?
It's been proven in this very thread. I don't need to rebuke your simple minded views of the Constitution, I just need to point out that you have them. To you, the Constitution can only be interpreted the way you have interpreted it, and anyone else, including the SCOTUS is just plain wrong, if they disagree with your interpretations.
No, it's your attempt at hiding like a coward from your liberalism, and trying to pretend you are a libertarian instead.
But you didn't. You threw out Prop 8 in California, which Sarah Palin had absolutely nothing to do with. We're still waiting for the examples of Sarah Palin's "religious law" she advocates, and you've not presented anything. Perhaps that task is above your abilities, but then, your abilities seem to be confined to running your mouth with nonsense you can't support.
And you continue to meet this goal daily! Keep up the good work!
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Yeah, not too many people have such rudimentary knowledge anymore. Hence my above post about marriage contracts, and how they might differ from other contracts...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, it really is NOT the case, or it would have been found to be the case in one of the several investigations. You keep harping on "absolute certainty" with regard to military intelligence, and I don't know that the two things have ever existed together in this universe of reality. Military intelligence, in all the history of the world and everyone who has used it, has never been considered "absolutely certain" on anything. The purpose of intelligence gathering is never intended to be, to provide an absolute certainty. This is a criteria you continue to try and place on intelligence, which it has never had, and never can be expected to meet. In order to even imply such a standard should exist for intelligence gathering, requires you to be a moron of the highest order. To fully expect other people to accept this naive notion, confirms you are a moron of the highest order.
Bush's mistake was launching a full-scale military attack on Iraq. He should have just done like Clinton and Obama, and bombed the living shit out of them with drones and cruise missiles, but his "compassionate conservatism" made him think the "better" way to go, was to liberate the country and help the people forge a stable democracy. This would have been okay, if the people had been behind him, but they weren't. Americans didn't really give two shits about Iraqi freedom, or whether they had a democratic government, or anything other than who was going to win American Idol and Survivor. So the left took full political advantage of this, and turned the war into another Vietnam, and Bush into Johnson.
Now, regardless of what you want to say about Bush and Iraq today, and regardless of how much history rewriting you'd like to do, the fact remains, Iraq is a functioning Arab democracy, the first in history. The people of Iraq are free to self-govern, and although they have faced challenges and bumps in the road, they are still managing to maintain a free democratic government, controlled by the people of Iraq, and not some tyrant dictator. Of course, they'll probably be attacked by one of the Muslim strongholds Obama and Hillary have allowed to emerge over there, but if they can prevail for 50 years, the Bush War in Iraq will be praised as the most important military accomplishment of our generation.
Robo
Verified User
Sara Palin has promoted the idea that a “marriage” contract should be reserved by law for a male and female without regard for FREE agreeable contract between other agreeable adults in violation of the very liberal guarantees of the Constitution. Your willful bias and Ignorance of that fact only proves your Nanny State “progressive” authoritarianism. It also explains why you live in a state of denial and voted for the neo-con Bush twice, Sara Palin, John McCain and Flipper Mitt Romney.
Define the 9th & 14th amendments for us Goober. I defined them for you, but you reply with NO interpretation otherwise of your own. Put the fuck up Goober or stick your head back up your ass!!!
And that’s why I’m plainly identifying myself here as Classic LIBERAL right Goober? My courage is perfectly evident where’s yours? Why don’t you identify yourself accurately as the ”Fucking Neo-Con” you truly are instead of some fucking ice-cream cup?
No “nonsense” and well supported Goober!!! Remain in denial and keep your neo-con head UP YOUR NEO-CON ASS!!!
Proving your fucking stupidity is oh sooooo easy Goober!!!!
Robo
Verified User
The “SCOTUS?” You mean that fucking mob of rightist & leftist ideologues that sanctified Obama-Care? You mean that fucking mob of rightist & leftist that couldn’t care less about the Constitution but surely do care ardently about their own particular corrupt rightist & leftist authoritarian ideologies? You mean that corrupt gang of ideological life-time appointees appointed and confirmed by other fucking corrupt political ideologues? Every generation of them has been a corrupted gang of ideological wonks and not the incorruptible constitutionalist the founders had hoped for.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Gay Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Gay Marriage is a term used by homosexuals for the homosexual monogamous relationships they are having with same-sex partners. The Constitution simply doesn't grant anyone the "right" to change what things mean to fit their actions. Sarah Palin's repeated position on this issue, is that it should be a matter determined at the state level, by the people, and not by federal decree. Can you show us something to the contrary, or not? This is the third time I've asked.
Your definition is correct, but your interpretation of Gay Marriage is incorrect. There is nothing in the 9th or 14th that allows you to arbitrarily change the definition of things to fit your actions. That is what you are trying to do, and the Constitution simply doesn't support you, unless the people of America cast a ballot on it and ratify a Constitutional amendment. Not likely.
Well, because I'm not a neocon. We've been over this already, neocons talk about new world orders and international monetary funds, and I seldom ever mention them. I am a small-government conservative, who realizes the importance of both libertarian and social conservative values in the overarching message of conservatism. You are a liberal, hell-bent on advocating and spewing absolute liberalism, disguised as libertarianism. The truth is, me and Sarah Palin are far more 'libertarian' than you.
maineman
Banned
You and I can agree that military intelligence is never a sure bet. That is precisely why, when Team Bush repeatedly claimed that THERE WAS NO DOUBT about the existence of Saddam's stockpiles, that was a lie. There ALWAYS was doubt, THEY knew there was doubt, and, nonetheless, claimed that there was NO doubt. If they had said, "I personally have no doubt" that would not have been a lie... or, "there is very little doubt" that would not have been a lie. Instead, they said, "THERE IS NO DOUBT" that WAS a lie. It was not true, and they knew of the existence of doubt which made the statement untrue as they were saying it... that's a lie. Why is that simple concept so hard for you to come to grips with?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
My goodness, talk about a blast from the past!
Robo
Verified User
Neither is “marriage” period, but “individual rights and equal protection of the law” is mentioned and gay marriage is well covered by it.
Nobody’s attempting to “change what things mean.” Marriage is simply a contract between agreeable adults. The signatures of said adults affixed to said contracts are all that is necessary to make them legal because contracts between agreeing adults violates nobody’s rights and therefore are nobody’s business but the said agreeing adults, not governments at any level, not yours and not Sweet Sara’s. It’s called FREEDOM Goober!!!
The States and the majority authoritarian mob therein have NO constitutional authority to violate the National Constitution Goober. America is not a mob rule “democracy,” America is a “CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC” Goober!!!
Marriage is simply a legal contract between agreeable adults Goober. If it’s something more, prove it!!! Gay marriages are NOT I say again NOT my action. I have a free agreeable contract with a woman. I don’t give a flying fuck who gays want to marry because it effects my rights by a factor of ZERO. I simply defend the right of every agreeing adult to make agreeable contracts with whoever the fuck they want Goober.
You & Sweet Sara are fucking authoritarian neo-cons of the first order Goober!!!!!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
But gay people are given the same individual rights as straight people, there is no discrimination against gays who want to marry, but marriage is defined as a union of a man and woman, and has nothing to do with gay or straight. So, no... gay marriage is certainly NOT covered, nor is there a provision which allows you to alter what things mean, in order to make something a right. If this is what you wish to do, you need to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.
YES YOU ARE!
NO IT'S NOT! This is what you WANT it to be, but it's the matrimonial joining of a male and female, regardless of sexuality.
But the constitution does not give us the freedom to enter into (or create) ANY contract, as long as we consent. We are confined by the laws and what is legally allowed. This is everybody's business, because we establish the laws. There is no such thing as unfettered freedom, we don't live in that world. We are a nation of laws, we have limits on what individuals can and can't do.
I've already shown you there is no violation of the Constitution in denying gay marriage. Last I checked, the 10th Amendment is still part of the Constitution, perhaps you should read it again? The States and People, respectively, have the ULTIMATE power to decide, on ANYTHING!
Marriage is simply NOT, Goober!
But that isn't what marriage is. You can't redefine marriage to make it include something that isn't marriage, just because that's what you want, or because you don't give a fuck what people do. What if someone wants to change the meaning of "free speech" to include walking around naked, masturbating in public? Hell, strike down all laws against public indecency, they are unconstitutional! I don't give a fuck, it's not bothering me, they should be free to do as they please!
Now, "free speech" is a broad and diverse freedom which covers a lot of things, including pornography, and in some cases, even including public nudity, if the community has agreed on these standards. But it doesn't change the fact that most people don't consider public nudity and masturbation to be what is meant by "freedom of speech." The Constitution simply doesn't give you the authority to decide what is or isn't appropriate for everyone else, or change the definition of things to fit your actions.
I am the only person on this board to have offered a solution to this issue, which basically gives every side exactly what they claim to want, and ends the entire debate forever. It is continually rejected by people who would rather keep the issue as a political bludgeoning device. Ironically, it is very much a Libertarian idea, and one that any respectful Libertarian would support.
We begin with the Libertarian philosophy of limited government, and we remove the government from recognizing ANY domestic partnership. What is the purpose of this? Why does government need to know who is living as a domestic partner with someone else? What makes this information of relevance to the government? Taxes, insurance, property? Let's resolve those entanglements, and either divorce government from having to sanction any kind of partnership, or in such rare cases where that may be needed, adopt a generic civil union contract, available to any two consenting adults, regardless of sexuality or anything else. The word "marriage" simply disappears from the lexicon, there is no more government recognition made on this basis. This ends the debate, it protects religious sanctity of traditional marriage, it gives homosexual couples every advantage of married couples, and dis-involves government from sanctioning religion or sexual behaviors.