Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

Damocles said:
We are the government, either we step up and vote for other people or we'll continue to get it even if you make up stupid things to accuse allies with, like "blame the victim"...

How do you propose to "fix" it? I suggest you stop fighting with people with whom you agree because you don't like how they say something, even though it is the same thing as you say with different words.
Click to expand...

We're not the government. That's just a lie, damo.

I suggest you stop being a lying sack of crap.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The real fight here is over the statist fascist sellouts ability to redefine or ignore definitions as they see fit, and then pretend they're not doing it.

The globalists want to remove the notion of family and natural reproduction from our psyche. So they can sterilize us all and then raise new citizens in a facist laborotary.
Click to expand...
So you think that getting the government out of our business is the same thing as "globalism"?
 
AssHatZombie said:
We're not the government. That's just a lie, damo.

I suggest you stop being a lying sack of crap.
Click to expand...
If you really think we aren't, then this exercise is futile because none of us can ever change anything. I never realized you were a worthless crybaby fatalist. Go get a towel.
 
Damocles said:
If you really think we aren't, then this exercise is futile because none of us can ever change anything. I never realized you were a worthless crybaby fatalist. Go get a towel.
Click to expand...

Yep. Nothing will change. We can at least not propagate the lie that we have actual influence. Honesty is the best policy don't you think?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yep. Nothing will change. We can at least not propagate the lie that we have actual influence. Honesty is the best policy don't you think?
Click to expand...
I think fatalism is worthless. But hey, if you want to cry "woe is us!" more power to you. I'll plan on working to influence votes for people who won't continue the same policies, you can cry and say we have no influence at all... We'll both be happy.
 
Damocles said:
I think fatalism is worthless. But hey, if you want to cry "woe is us!" more power to you. I'll plan on working to influence votes for people who won't continue the same policies, you can cry and say we have no influence at all... We'll both be happy.
Click to expand...

They lie damo. they lie to your face and then do what they want in office.

I'll laugh at you on your wheel of futility.
 
Southern Man said:
During the time period that you are referring marriage was defined by the Church, which has never sanctioned queer marriage. Yet interracial marriage was common throughout history. The Norms descended from Vikings and bred with the French, Germans, English and Irish. During WWI French woman married native men from Africa. Shakespeare wrote about interracial marriage in Othello.

Stop being retarded.
Click to expand...

Again, you make up facts to support your position that are just not accurate. It was not defined by the church. The States implemented laws barring black-white marriages from the very start of the colonies and almost immediately as they became States.

It was not truly legal before the laws addressed miscegenation anymore than homosexual marriage was legal before the laws addressed that subject, because the courts would not recognize such marriages. BOTH were always a nullity in the eyes of the law.

You can find churches that will recognize homosexual marriage, just as I am sure you could find some that recognized black-white marriages before the miscegenation laws were overturned. That does not change the fact that the law did not recognize them.

English and Irish (or any of the others you mention) are not considered seperate races, dumbfuck. Racial classifications are arbitrary but nobody has ever divided it in such a way so as to consider nationality as synonymous with race.

Possibly, the French woman in WW I marrying a native African would have been considered interracial, but with your silly attempts to claim that an Irish-English marriage was interracial, that's not at all clear.

Besides that, if we are going to use what was allowed in other nations after our founding, then many nations now recognize homosexual marriage. Where does that leave you?

You guys claim that you want to protect THE traditional definition of marriage. When it is pointed out to you what that would mean in practice, you come back with, "well, not that tradition." You mean the tradition that you came up with yesterday, but not before. Then like an over worked Winston, you start shoving all facts from history that contradict your position down the memory hole and attempt to change the common meaning of other words (like "race" or "legal") to fit. It's just a bunch of newspeak bullshit, that the courts are likely to reject.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Flock of dogs. lol.

We need a troll named FlockOfDogs.

New troll please. whoever you are.
Click to expand...
Make one of your own. I say crap like that all the time, like a "grip of shoes" (how many is in a grip?) and flock of cats (herding a flock of cats), and other crap. It draws attention to your point by coining interesting phrases.
 
Damocles said:
Make one of your own. I say crap like that all the time, like a "grip of shoes" (how many is in a grip?) and flock of cats (herding a flock of cats), and other crap. It draws attention to your point by coining interesting phrases.
Click to expand...

It works as comedy because it's moronic. words mean things. sorry. they do.
 
RStringfield said:
Again, you make up facts to support your position that are just not accurate. It was not defined by the church. The States implemented laws barring black-white marriages from the very start of the colonies and almost immediately as they became States.

It was not truly legal before the laws addressed miscegenation anymore than homosexual marriage was legal before the laws addressed that subject, because the courts would not recognize such marriages. BOTH were always a nullity in the eyes of the law.

You can find churches that will recognize homosexual marriage, just as I am sure you could find some that recognized black-white marriages before the miscegenation laws were overturned. That does not change the fact that the law did not recognize them.

English and Irish (or any of the others you mention) are not considered seperate races, dumbfuck. Racial classifications are arbitrary but nobody has ever divided it in such a way so as to consider nationality as synonymous with race.

Possibly, the French woman in WW I marrying a native African would have been considered interracial, but with your silly attempts to claim that an Irish-English marriage was interracial, that's not at all clear.

Besides that, if we are going to use what was allowed in other nations after our founding, then many nations now recognize homosexual marriage. Where does that leave you?

You guys claim that you want to protect THE traditional definition of marriage. When it is pointed out to you what that would mean in practice, you come back with, "well, not that tradition." You mean the tradition that you came up with yesterday, but not before. Then like an over worked Winston, you start shoving all facts from history that contradict your position down the memory hole and attempt to change the common meaning of other words (like "race" or "legal") to fit. It's just a bunch of newspeak bullshit, that the courts are likely to reject.
Click to expand...
Before governments were involved in marriage the sole definer was The Church. Not new-age pissant churches but The Church. They never sanctioned queer marriage.

English, Irish, Germans and the Norms certainly are mixed races dumbfuck. Just because you're government now defines race in huge blocks doesn't eliminate the truth. Again, the Church, as sole definer of marriage, celebrated and encouraged these unions.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Flock of dogs. lol.

We need a troll named FlockOfDogs.

New troll please. whoever you are.
Click to expand...

You are given the definition and shown that "flock" and "pack" are synonymous yet you still can't get your head around it. I acknowledged that it would be awkward, as it is commonly used to refer to birds.

But the simple fact is that these "group" words for various animals are not distinct. They are just based on common usage. Flock can be used for people, and we all understand it. Flock is often used to refer to a group of animals that it would seem should be referred to as a herd and they are used interchangably, e.g., sheep.

You did another fucking face plant, dumbfuck, and now you are attempting to pretend I have used "flock of dogs." You could call it that if you liked, most people would understand that you meant "group of dogs" (because flock and pack just mean group), though they would certainly find your word choice awkward.

You are just an idiot that is getting confused by the many color words in the English language. Sorry, but we are not switching to newspeak because you happen to be a moron.
 
Southern Man said:
Before governments were involved in marriage the sole definer was The Church. Not new-age pissant churches but The Church. They never sanctioned queer marriage.

English, Irish, Germans and the Norms certainly are mixed races dumbfuck. Just because you're government now defines race in huge blocks doesn't eliminate the truth. Again, the Church, as sole definer of marriage, celebrated and encouraged these unions.
Click to expand...

Then let the church define them however they choose. And that freedom will include those "new-age pissant churches", because the gov't is prohibited from selecting one church over another.

Gays are not fighting for church benefits. They are fighting for the same benefits every redneck straight couple gets for going to the courthouse and getting married, without any involvement of any religion.

The alternative that has been offered numerous times can fix this all. Let the gov't give the benefits to all civil unions, and let only the churches (again, including those "new-age pissant churches") conduct marriages as they see fit. If you want the 1,400+ benefits, you get the civil union. If you want to me "married" you get both.
 
RStringfield said:
You are given the definition and shown that "flock" and "pack" are synonymous yet you still can't get your head around it. I acknowledged that it would be awkward, as it is commonly used to refer to birds.

But the simple fact is that these "group" words for various animals are not distinct. They are just based on common usage. Flock can be used for people, and we all understand it. Flock is often used to refer to a group of animals that it would seem should be referred to as a herd and they are used interchangably, e.g., sheep.

You did another fucking face plant, dumbfuck, and now you are attempting to pretend I have used "flock of dogs." You could call it that if you liked, most people would understand that you meant "group of dogs" (because flock and pack just mean group), though they would certainly find your word choice awkward.

You are just an idiot that is getting confused by the many color words in the English language. Sorry, but we are not switching to newspeak because you happen to be a moron.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the dictionary doesn't get everything right. It's always playing catchup to reality. NOBODY says flock of dogs, you moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top