Liberal Forum

Which once again imposes non-existent "rights" that have never been found in the Constitution or half the country. With huge implications for society as a whole. Just out of sheer curiousity, what might those 'huge implications for society' be if the SCOTUS rules in favor of marriage equality? And please don't go the whole 'people will want to marry animals' next route. Polygamy. Perhaps a "right" marriage to close relatives or even minors. There were leading questions asked even by liberal SCOTUS justices, and Olsen had no satisfactory answer. After all, if love leads to a "right," how can anyone oppose it? Almost certainly even more degradation to the hugely important institution of marriage. Quite possibly detrimental effect to children adopted by homosexual couples. Also, a resulting war on religion and traditional values by the full power of the federal government would be the expected and logical result. Can't have anyone being "prejudiced" against anyone expressing their "Constitutional" rights. Although judging by your approval of bestiality porn, I'm guessing you'd be in favor of that. Where did I "approve" of it? Lie much?

Just out of sheer curiousity, what might those 'huge implications for society' be if the SCOTUS rules in favor of marriage equality?Polygamy. Perhaps a "right" marriage to close relatives or even minors.So you think there's a danger that if marriage between two people of the same sex is found to be a right, then we'll head right down that old slippery slope to polygamy and people marrying members of their immediate family or even children?And you think that the laws that would make those things legal would be likely to pass any legislature, or be upheld by any court?Clem: Almost certainly even more degradation to the hugely important institution of marriage.If marriage is so hugely important then why aren't divorce and infidelity illegal?If anyone has degraded the 'hugely important institution of marriage' it's the members of your own party.People like David Vitter, John Ensign, Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, Larry Craig.....I could go on for days.Misty: Although judging by your approval of bestiality porn, I'm guessing you'd be in favor of that.Clem: Where did I "approve" of it?Lie much? When you brushed off New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino's sending out of a bestiality video to the people on his e-mail contact list as just 'one animal porno', or just a couple of short clips meant as a joke......it still infuriates me that the Tea Partiers would back a piece of filth like this guy Paladino.Because of one animal porno?Misty, on 29 Mar 2013 - 11:52, said:A couple of bestiality videos Puss.Hey moonbat, he sent a couple of short clips as a joke.You apparently thought that there was nothing wrong with a man running for governor of the state of New York e-mailing people 'woman on horse' videos. So what else am I to conclude but that you approve of that type of filth?

How do gays getting married hurt or degrade your marriage? I've never heard an answer to this. What is a real answer to my question. You guys love to spout crap and not back it up. What is the real harm? (not imagined, not felt, not dreamed up in the fairy tales, etc...) There is no evidence of detriment to children. There are some studies that say there is no impact of harm to children, in fact, they routinely say that marriage will have a beneficial effect on children living with gay couples. War on religion!!! I can't believe that even you came up with that one. LOL Almost certainly even more degradation to the hugely important institution of marriage. Quite possibly detrimental effect to children adopted by homosexual couples. Also, a resulting war on religion and traditional values by the full power of the federal government would be the expected and logical result.

Polygamy. Perhaps a "right" marriage to close relatives or even minors. So you think there's a danger that if marriage between two people of the same sex is found to be a right, then we'll head right down that old slippery slope to polygamy and people marrying members of their immediate family or even children? And you think that the laws that would make those things legal would be likely to pass any legislature, or be upheld by any court? Of course. Once a moral and Constitutional compass has been lost, it will spin in unpredictable and disastrous directions. Olsen is arguing that there is a "right" to homosexual marriage simply because of "equality" and love. Well heck, why not polygamy? Why not marriage between a mother and her son? And no one has the slightest idea what the effect will be on children adopted or "had" by homosexual couples, but the liberal-left hasn't expressed any concern; just empty assurances. Almost certainly even more degradation to the hugely important institution of marriage. If marriage is so hugely important then why aren't divorce and infidelity illegal? If anyone has degraded the 'hugely important institution of marriage' it's the members of your own party. People like David Vitter, John Ensign, Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, Larry Craig.....I could go on for days. Examples of bad behavior aren't nearly as destructive as the broad values espoused by the liberal left for decades; marriage is like slavery. Divorce is good for children. A woman shouldn't respect and stay with a man when things get a little tough, simply because she married him! Oh no, dump the guy and fulfill yourself by being single! All these values were pushed or at the very least given very serious consideration by your side when I was younger. Not to mention the laws passed at your side's demand. One-party divorce. Holy cow, what a disaster, especially for women. Where did I "approve" of it? Lie much? When you brushed off New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino's sending out of a bestiality video to the people on his e-mail contact list as just 'one animal porno', or just a couple of short clips meant as a joke. You apparently thought that there was nothing wrong with a man running for governor of the state of New York e-mailing people 'woman on horse' videos. So what else am I to conclude but that you approve of that type of filth? That doesn't mean I "approve" at all; I don't want anyone pushed out of a serious job or possible job because of something sent in bad taste in what he thought was a private situation. That's something your side excels at; destroying opponents for relatively frivolous reasons while defending rapists, felons and other truly despicable miscreants. Oh gosh, you've done that, haven't you. And given that I did note it was in very poor taste, you're smearing me by claiming I "approved" of bestiality. How surprising.

Cuccinelli wants the court to revive the prohibition on consensual anal and oral sex, for both gay and straight people. Oh gosh, looks like you're wrong again, at least on one aspect of this case. the case has nothing to do with sex between consenting adults of the same sex or opposite sex, but whether prosecutors will retain a useful tool to prosecute child predators. http://www.weeklysta...ase_714528.html I'm absolutely, positively sure that you'll immediately make a correction. Not!

That doesn't mean I "approve" at all; I don't want anyone pushed out of a serious job or possible job because of something sent in bad taste in what he thought was a private situation.Something sent in bad taste?That's how you describe a video of a woman having sex with a horse?Most people think stuff like that is sick and perverted.The fact that you continue to brush it off, as no big deal is exactly why I said that you approve of it.Whynot marriage between a mother and her son?So you think that there are a bunch of mothers who are just waiting for the right to marry their sons?ROFLMAO

That doesn't mean I "approve" at all; I don't want anyone pushed out of a serious job or possible job because of something sent in bad taste in what he thought was a private situation. Something sent in bad taste? That's how you describe a video of a woman having sex with a horse? Most people think stuff like that is sick and perverted. Oh wow, now let's argue about semantics. Pretty pathetic coming from someone who dishonestly defended a rapist/ serial felon.' And smeared his victim. Who are you kidding. The fact that you continue to brush it off, as no big deal is exactly why I said that you approve of it. Translated into honest English: you'll lie to smear and discredit your opponents. So you think that there are a bunch of mothers who are just waiting for the right to marry their sons? ROFLMAO Early supporters of abortion assured everyone that the right was severely limited, almost certainly to relatively few, early term abortions. Now, not only are there grotesque late term abortions, but some liberal-left moonbats are advocating infanticide. So don't bleat with empty sarcasm. I've never seen you condemn that. And great job at ignoring almost everything I wrote. Examples of bad behavior aren't nearly as destructive as the broad values espoused by the liberal left for decades; marriage is like slavery. Divorce is good for children. A woman shouldn't respect and stay with a man when things get a little tough, simply because she married him! Oh no, dump the guy and fulfill yourself by being single! All these values were pushed or at the very least given very serious consideration by your side when I was younger. Not to mention the laws passed at your side's demand. One-party divorce. Holy cow, what a disaster, especially for women.

Oh gosh, looks like you're wrong again, at least on one aspect of this case.http://www.weeklysta...ase_714528.htmlI'm absolutely, positively sure that you'll immediately make a correction.Not! The Weekly Standard Blog? What a shock!I'm not wrong and I will correct nothing.Cuccinelli used an unconstitutional law to prosecute the 47 year old man, and as a result the case and the law have been thrown out.He could have amended the law in 2004 to exclude consenting adults, and bring it in line with Lawrence v Texas, but he refused, because he wanted to keep sodomy illegal for homosexuals.You need to do a little research on your AG and the man you will be voting for, for your next governor.He has made no secret of how he feels about legislating the behavior of homosexuals.The reason he refused to change the Crimes Against Nature law is that it would have made sodomy between consenting adults legal, and that would include homosexuals.Instead he decided to keep the law on the books as is, when it was clearly deemed unconstitutional by the Lawrence v Texas decision.Not a very good lawyer is he?I guess his hatred of gays overrides his common sense.The big lie from Cuccinelli and right wing blogs like the one you quoted is that "This case is not about sexual orientation, but using current law to protect a 17 year-old girl from a 47 year-old sexual predator."Had he not killed the bill that would have amended the Crimes Against Nature law in 2004, the law would have been constitutional and could still have been used to prosecute sexual predators.

That doesn't mean I "approve" at all; I don't want anyone pushed out of a serious job or possible job because of something sent in bad taste in what he thought was a private situation. The fact that you continue to brush it off, as no big deal is exactly why I said that you approve of it. Okay, great, let's apply your, snicker, high standard to your dishonest defense of Bill Clinton. The fact that you continue to brush it off as no big deal is why I can claim that you approve of rape. As long as it's committed by a powerful Democrat. You set the standard. Why shouldn't I abide by it?

Okay, great, let's apply your, snicker, high standard to your dishonest defense of Bill Clinton.The fact that you continue to brush it off as no big deal is why I can claim that you approve of rape.As long as it's committed by a powerful Democrat.You set the standard. Why shouldn't I abide by it? Bill Clinton again?This obsession of yours is really getting tired.I refuse to feed into it anymore.You have hijacked my thread with this **** ever since you returned.I have wasted way too much time on you.I'm done.If I were you, I wouldn't expect any more replies from me.

Bill Clinton again? This obsession of yours is really getting tired. I refuse to feed into it anymore. You have hijacked my thread with this **** ever since you returned. I have wasted way too much time on you. I'm done. If I were you, I wouldn't expect any more replies from me. It's a lot less about Clinton than it is about you. By your own standards you tried to pin on me, you approve of rape. Typical that you'd stalk off in a huff.

Kansas Women's Clinic Opens In Building Where Slain Dr. George Tiller PracticedWICHITA, Kan. A new clinic offering abortions and other women's medical services saw its first patient Thursday in the Wichita building where a slain Kansas abortion provider had practiced.The South Wind Women's Clinic opened nearly four years after Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation's few doctors performing late-term abortions, was gunned down in his church by an abortion opponent in May 2009.The shuttered facility was bought by an abortion-rights group, Trust Women Foundation, which reopened it as a family and women's health center offering abortions and other health care services."We have been working a long time, really hard to get this open to provide services to women in Wichita," said Kerry Townsend Jacob, the group's spokeswoman.Townsend Jacob cited privacy rights in declining to say whether the first patient, a Wichita woman, had an abortion or some other medical service. She also refused to say how many appointments have been scheduled so far.Tiller was one of the few remaining physicians in the nation who did late-term abortions, but South Wind Women's Clinic does not plan to do abortions beyond the 14th week of pregnancy.The Trust Women Foundation is a nonprofit organization founded in 2010 by Julie Burkhart, who worked with Tiller for seven years. The foundation bought the property from Tiller's wife in August.Troy Newman, president of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, called the Wichita clinic's opening "symbolic" for abortion rights advocates."For me, we are winning across the board," Newman said, a reference to scores of laws seeking to restrict access to abortion passed by Republican-controlled legislatures during the last few years.In Kansas, legislators on Thursday were preparing for final votes on a sweeping anti-abortion measure that would block tax breaks for abortion providers and outlaw abortions performed solely because of the baby's gender.Defying threats by extremists, the head of The Trust Women Foundation, Julie Burkhart appeared on Rachel Maddow's show last night along with the whole staff of the clinic.These women have a lot of courage.Operation Rescue has moved its headquarters to Wichita to focus on the clinic.

Maryland Lawmaker Calls For Armed MilitiaAs the House of Delegates debated Gov. Martin OMalleys gun control initiative Wednesday afternoon, Del. Don Dwyer was using social media to call for the creation of a volunteer militia around the state.In a Facebook post at 4 p.m., Dwyer, R-Pasadena, issued a call for help from Maryland patriots.Dwyer urged volunteers to contact him for information on how they can serve in the militia.(Misty: But not on a public forum like Facebook, where he warned that they could get raided.)Dwyer has since changed the name of his militia group for reasons he would apparently only disclose to people on his e-mail list.On a side note, while researching Del. Dwyer I found out that in August 2012, a motorboat he was operating collided with another boat resulting in the injuries of nine people, six of them serious.Dwyer admitted he was drinking at the time, and his blood alcohol level was well over the legal limit.Maybe he was drunk when he posted that crap on Facebook.

So you think there's a danger that if marriage between two people of the same sex is found to be a right, then we'll head right down that old slippery slope to polygamy and people marrying members of their immediate family or even children? So what is wrong with Polygamy? It should have had wheels before gays.

Dwyer admitted he was drinking at the time, and his blood alcohol level was well over the legal limit. Maybe he was drunk when he posted that crap on Facebook. Little Miss Marxist nibbles viciously on another micro-issue. But hey, maybe Obama was drunk when he signed the failed "Stimulus" bill. Because the real unemployment rate is at least 11% and still rising. All hail The Chosen One! Payrolls grew by 88,000 workers... http://www.bloomberg...rate-falls.html663,000 Drop Out... http://cnsnews.com/n...-drop-out-march

Little Miss Marxist nibbles viciously on another micro-issue.Oh, My Clemmy, you know the only thing I like to nibble on viciously is you. And please don't call your magic wand a 'micro-issue'. I have seen some that were smaller, albeit usually on young children. Speaking of which, why do you have so much kiddy porn on your computer? Are you doing some sort of research?

Bill Clinton again? This obsession of yours is really getting tired. I refuse to feed into it anymore. You have hijacked my thread with this **** ever since you returned. Well gosh, if I change the subject to something more timely like the roaring Obama Economy, I'm absolutely sure you'll respond. Not! As economy flails, debtors' prisons thriveThousands of Americans are sent to jail not for committing a crime, but because they can't afford to pay for traffic tickets, medical bills and court fees. If that sounds like a debtors' prison, a legal relic which was abolished in this country in the 1830s, that's because it is. And courts and judges in states across the land are violating the Constitution by incarcerating people for being unable to pay such debts. http://www.cbsnews.c...prisons-thrive/ All hail The Chosen One!

Maybe I should be able to bribe the cops. I'm just exercising my right of speech. Well if you follow Clem's logic, I guess you should. How is making and distributing a documentary movie "bribing the cops?" How is publishing a book "bribing the cops?" How is buying political advertising criticizing Beltway politicians of either party "bribing the cops?" If you couldn't tell blatant lies, would you even exist? Get some professional help, moonbat.

How is making and distributing a documentary movie "bribing the cops?" How is publishing a book "bribing the cops?" How is buying political advertising criticizing Beltway politicians of either party "bribing the cops?" If you couldn't tell blatant lies, would you even exist? Get some professional help, moonbat. We were talking about Citizen's United moonbat. Money is speech, was the phrase to come out of the Supreme Court. Misty asked you repeatedly to defend that phrase, but like a kid, you keep changing the subject or answering around the issue. How is corporation's ability to practically buy themselves a president at whatever rate in billions of dollars any different from bribing a cop? Hey, you're doing a great job officer, here's a twenty!

Misty, on 05 Apr 2013 - 11:28, said:Bill Clinton again?Well gosh, if I change the subject to something more timely like the roaring Obama Economy, I'm absolutely sure you'll respond.Here's the thing you obviously don't understand Puss.You don't get to set the subject in this thread or any other thread that you don't start.So.....if you want to talk about Clinton or the 'roaring' Obama economy, either start your own damn thread, or drag up one of your many old ones on those subjects.This is my thread. I decide what the subject is, not you.You don't get to dismiss my posts as unimportant or non issues and change the subject.Especially since you seem to have such a limited amount of subjects you wish to discuss.I started this thread so I could post the stuff I am interested in.I'm rarely start any other threads anymore, and that is specifically because you derail every single one of them.If you don't want to be called a Nazi, then stop acting like a **** dictator.