[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Seems Palin did know more about Russia than our current Clueless-in- Chief.[/quote]
yeah but Palin is inarticulate.
just watch putin back off and evacuate his position once he hears obama speak from a teleprompter.
putin should be visibly shaken having seen biden and obama “jogging.”
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Turned it into a right? What the fuck are you even talking about? I said people should not be denied certain rights simply because they do not fit in with what your precious little old book says is correct.
[/quote]
Back up this claim that marriage is a “right” for anyone. It’s surely not in the Bill of Rights. It’s not “inalienable.”
The best you can do is cite the 9th Amendment and to do so one must contend the “right” is hidden therein.
Fact of the matter is marriage is more akin to a privilege…like a driver’s license. The state is free to determine its own rules and policies regarding the granting of driver’s licenses; it can do the same thing with marriage licenses. Sorry, pal, but you don’t have the “right” to drive an automobile – you have a privilege – a privilege that can, rightfully so, be regulated by the state.
All you can really hope to do in this debate, while being intellectually honest, is to admit that you want the regulations loosened in regards to a “privilege.” You want the driving test standards changed so that more people can pass the test, so to speak.
Under our system of federalism I think this is possible on a state by state basis, but this sudden, relatively speaking, clamor to protect and codify this newly discovered “right” is based on emotionalism not facts.
If marriage was a right you wouldn’t need a blood test before marrying.
If marriage was a right you wouldn’t need a license.
If marriage was a right you wouldn’t need fill out any forms.
If marriage was a right you wouldn’t need a justice of the peace or other state sanctioned officer to administrate the proceedings.
I certainly don’t need any of the above to exercise my other inalienable rights, do I?
Bottom line? Don’t conflate rights and privileges.
But go right ahead and lobby on a state by state basis to have the privilege of marriage regulations be loosened.
And the federal government? It should have nuthin to do with it. It’s not a constitutionally enumerated power so it CAN’T (legally).
[/quote]
Picking and choosing and picking and choosing as usual. It’s getting old. Your manipulation of terms to fit your agenda is expected, but quite annoying.
It doesn’t really matter though because state by state eventually this is going to happen sooner rather than later. And then I guess people like you will just have remember the good old days when only people you approved of could get married.
What’s weird is how I never mentioned anything about the federal government and yet for the billionth time you create strawmen for me. Which again is just pretty much expected Push behavior. Sorta like how if we are going to talk about anything gay related you’ll mention cocks and ass because I guess that is important for you to point out what we are talking about? [/quote]
Push
…ask the genius (anyone including the term straw man in their debate is always a genius) what his political affiliation is, since he apparently won’t take up camp with one because they’re all “full of shit.”
he swears he isn’t liberal and he isn’t conservative so ask him to name which politicians in office are his? who makes up his third party?
lastly ask… in the long history of world civilization why THIS generation is entitled to REDEFINE marriage. (such a romantic notion to realize a liberal judge sanctions what you are doing in the bedroom)
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Seems Palin did know more about Russia than our current Clueless-in- Chief.[/quote]
Oh? Russia has invaded Ukraine then?[/quote]
I suppose 2000 uninvited Russian troops on Ukrainian soil might be considered an invasion.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Seems Palin did know more about Russia than our current Clueless-in- Chief.[/quote]
Oh? Russia has invaded Ukraine then?[/quote]
lol, I wouldn’t exactly call it them coming over for a curling match and long weekend get away.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Picking and choosing and picking and choosing as usual. It’s getting old. Your manipulation of terms to fit your agenda is expected, but quite annoying.
[/quote]
What’s annoying is your ignorance. What’s amusing is your non-response to my driver’s license comparison falling back on your lines with nothing more than: “Picking and choosing and picking and choosing as usual. It’s getting old. Your manipulation of terms to fit your agenda is expected, but quite annoying.”
Maybe. But then again I carefully explained that that’s how it should be done if it is (and not by judicial or federal fiat).
And for every Iowa that has allowed it there will likely be an Alabama that doesn’t. And you need to recognize that if Iowa allows it and Alabama doesn’t that’s just fine because that’s how federalism is supposed to work.
I didn’t say you did. You need to understand, Harold, that you are not the only one with whom I having this conversation. It’s not just you and me. You’re a pretentious, self-absorbed little boor to suggest otherwise.
Rarely ever mentioned it, Harold. Does it make you squirm? Why?
You were the one that tried to make the invalid comparison between blacks and gays. My mention of cocks and rectums was to starkly contrast a man with black skin and a man with a fetish to give and receive anal sex. Being black does not equate with being gay no more than being white equates with being straight. It simply is a very poor comparison and strictly appeals to emotionalism.
Yes, in one sense it is scary because it’s bad for the nation and I say that from a secular angle not the religious one that you assume. It’s just not a wise course and I’ve explained why on other occasions.
But…I’ll say it again…if one state wants to do it, fine. If another doesn’t, fine again. However, when and where it happens it needs to be understood that it’s an expanded privilege not a right.
Maybe. In fact it is likely.
But some of us don’t need the religious argument to advocate against it.
For instance, Kamui is a French atheist socialist. He sides with me, a theist capitalist, on this matter for many of the same reasons.
Having numbers on your side (which you really don’t at this point because 33 states DON’T sanction gay marriage – that’s 2/3 if you like fractions) is not intellectually solid ground. I could list a lot of examples why. Doubt me?
[/quote]
We just had an entire thread where everyone pointed out your ignorance over and over. In typical Push fashion you will believe exactly what you want and pretend to be intellectually above everyone else. I guess if one says it enough they must just start believing it? Essentially everyone called you a troll. Luckily you’ve been a bit better since. Don’t go back to your old trolling ways. You’re better than that. No matter how often you need to say things like Harold and talk about dicks.
And actually having numbers on your side is important because that is changes people are going to demand. We still have some people who would love to see segregation. Maybe you think that is intellectually solid ground. See the way our system works is we vote changes in based on how the majority of people feel. So your intellectually superior position is going the way of the dodo. It won’t be overnight, but if you live for the next 25 years you will see every state in this country legalize it.
And then you will still be allowed to talk about all the things consenting adults and how horrible they are and how it will lead to the end of times.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Seems Palin did know more about Russia than our current Clueless-in- Chief.[/quote]
Oh? Russia has invaded Ukraine then?[/quote]
I suppose 2000 uninvited Russian troops on Ukrainian soil might be considered an invasion.
[/quote]
Nah, not an invasion. If we were doing it we would call it operation Ukrainian freedom.
Maybe Russia is just trying to be the democracy delivery boys?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Watch infuriated taxpayers berate school superintendent for ABSURD $663,365 salary
Read more: Watch infuriated taxpayers berate school superintendent for ABSURD $663,365 salary [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller
[/quote]
Wow! I couldn’t help but cheer on that audience. What an absolute outrage.
Russian upper house approves use of military force in Ukraine
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Seems Palin did know more about Russia than our current Clueless-in- Chief.[/quote]
Oh? Russia has invaded Ukraine then?[/quote]
I suppose 2000 uninvited Russian troops on Ukrainian soil might be considered an invasion.
[/quote]
Nah, not an invasion. If we were doing it we would call it operation Ukrainian freedom.
Maybe Russia is just trying to be the democracy delivery boys? [/quote]
I lol’ed.
But I’ll be honest, while far from my first choice, Romney is sure looking like he knew WTF was going on in the world a whole lot more than President Empty Chair does.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
We just had an entire thread where everyone pointed out your ignorance over and over. In typical Push fashion you will believe exactly what you want and pretend to be intellectually above everyone else. I guess if one says it enough they must just start believing it? Essentially everyone called you a troll. Luckily you’ve been a bit better since. Don’t go back to your old trolling ways. You’re better than that…
[/quote]
Where is this thread of which you speak? This one “where everyone pointed out your ignorance over and over?” This thread where “essentially everyone called me a troll?”
Did you find some other boys in the schoolyard to gather around and taunt me? And that inexplicably established who was right and who was wrong?
Well, if that’s the case I have the numbers on my side in this debate. 2/3 of the states prohibit gay marriage. Even CA, one of the most liberal states in the union, had a constitutional amendment enacted by referendum (by direct vote of the people). It was overturned by a faulty court decision but nonetheless the point remains that the people – “the numbers” – even in that “progressive” state are on…my side.
Yes, that may change in the future. But “my side” has the numbers right now; yours has the hopes and dreams. Your side has been unconstitutionally relying on judicial activism to effect change. My side says the good, ol’ fashioned legislative approach is the correct one.
Savvy?
Maybe. Maybe not, Harold.
By the way, are you still going to hang on to that sap covered arguing point of emotionalism that gay marriage (or marriage in general) is a “right?” You ignored that point and went straight down Ad Hominem Lane when you encountered it. That’s always the mark of a man on the losing end of an argument. It’s desperation.
I want to repeat what you said, “You’re better than that,” but don’t think I can honestly get it done.
[/quote]
Pale Blue Dot and you knew it. And you saw MANY people talk about you in ways that probably hurt your precious feelings.
I see numbers don’t matter and then they do. As usual with Push. You know it’s a losing battle. You see it coming. And you can’t stop it. The only question is when. Deny it all you want.
As for Push bringing up ANYONE in terms of Ad Hom attacks I can think the only point is hilarity. A guy who probably has more Ad Hom attacks than every other member of this forum combined for a number of years just talked about someone else using them.
I think sometimes you decide not to troll, but most of the times you do. I just hope you know how much it makes me laugh. You just keep pretending that everyone is laughing at everyone else. Reality is always a tough pill to swallow.
Now come back with something more original than Harold to attack me with. Although bringing up Ad Hom’s was pretty good.
I copy and pasted this article so no one would have to contend with a paywall.
Summary:
At this point, it is still too soon to call events in Crimea anything other than a domestically led coup with Russian support. But that could change. If Putin launches a full-scale Russian invasion, he risks provoking battle with the relatively strong Ukrainian military, ethnic Ukrainian militias, and a furious Crimean Tatar minority group.
KIMBERLY MARTEN is Ann Whitney Olin Professor of Political Science at Barnard College, Columbia University.
My previous article on what Russia was likely to do in Ukraine described the costs of a Russian attempt at territorial aggrandizement. The title and subtitle were picked by the editors; my read on the situation did not give me certainty that Russia wouldn?t invade Crimea, and indeed I argued that an invasion was likely if there was violence against ethnic Russians there (which is why I urged the Ukrainian government not to rise to the bait by permitting or encouraging anti-Russian violence in Crimea).
Yesterday, however, several thousand masked men – who were widely believed to be private military contractors paid for and transported by Russia – seized government buildings and airports in Simferopol, Crimea?s capital, and around the Russian naval base in Sevastopol. They did so in support of Sergei Aksyonov, the long-standing leader of Crimea?s Russian Unity Party. The day before, an overwhelming majority in the Crimean parliament had voted him in as the region?s acting prime minister. Soon after, he asked for Russian security support. According to the Ukrainian press, Aksyonov was born in the then-Soviet region of neighboring Moldova, graduated from a Simferopol college in 1993, and has apparently spent most of his life in Crimea.
The process that put Aksyonov in power violated the Ukrainian constitution, since Kiev is supposed to appoint the regional prime minister. But then again, so did the process through which Oleksandr Turchynov became acting president of Ukraine, because, as Daisy Sindelar, a senior correspondent for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, has pointed out, former President Viktor Yanukovych?s ouster did not follow constitutional protocol. One can argue that the cases are somewhat equivalent: In both, parliamentary majorities supported a new leader.
At this point, it is too soon to call events in Crimea anything other than a domestically led coup with Russian support. But that could change. If Russian President Vladimir Putin now takes the opportunity to launch a full-scale Russian invasion, which his handpicked upper house of parliament authorized him to do by unanimous vote today, he risks unleashing hell. He will face a furious Crimean Tatar minority group, which has already started forming its own self-defense forces. He will risk provoking battle with the relatively strong Ukrainian military, as armed ethnic Ukrainian militias pour into Crimea from the rest of the country. He might also unleash violence between ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians throughout the country, with demands from ethnic Russians for further Russian involvement in what will by then be a Ukrainian civil war.
Predicting human behavior is always a matter of probabilities. Up until now, Putin has consistently shown shrewd political judgment – but that doesn’t mean he always will. State leaders can make terrible errors, and Putin may be on the verge of making the worst mistake of his career by waltzing across the Ukrainian border.