Obama-Economy Debate - Columbus, OH

Reality Speaks wrote:

<quoted text>
who defines hurting me?
hurting society?
harming me?
harming society?
do the people get to vote on it; and then have their states constitution protect the vote?

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
The courts decide. That's what they're for. If you are the victim of a crime, the courts prosecute. If it is a lesser tort, you sue civilly.

Reality Speaks wrote:

<quoted text>
you sidesteped the part about an election result.

the courts now can decide what people really meant to vote for?

courts can overturn what society as a majority voted on?

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Elections are irrelevant when it comes to peoples' rights. Nobody "voted" to make murder, rape, and theft against the law, for example.
<quoted text>
No, they can decide what people HAVE THE RIGHT to vote on. That's EXACTLY what the California ruling was. Not on whether gays marring was a right... it clearly was, since prior to that vote they did have that right in California... it was whether the people have the right to vote someone's rights away, and the court ruled that they did not.
<quoted text>
When it violates a person's rights, absolutely! They did it before in Loving vs. Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virgin... ), which struck down every law in the country preventing people of different races from marrying.

Reality Speaks wrote:

<quoted text>
I see
where does it say anywhere that gay marriage is a right?
anywhere?

PS: the leftist adgenda to ruin this country's morality, only applies to those sheep that take them up on the offer.

when final judgement day occurs, then it is going to get hot for those that choose not to be moral.

success is not an accident; and courts covering up with excuses upon excuses for failure is going to be very short lived.

who is going to pay for all the extra's that a gay marriage expects?
as an employer I refuse to.
remember I choose whom to hire & fire.

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Prior to Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court said it was a right in California. In general though, people should have the right to do whatever they want unless it harms another, and even then, the avoidance of such harm must be proven to be "superior" to the right sought to be curtailed. An example is my right to not have trespassers on my property is superior to your right to travel freely.
<quoted text>
Denying liberty to others is not solely a leftist trait. Both sides are well equipped with their own share of control freaks. That's why the courts are so important... without them the control freaks would control each other (and the rest of us, since each of "us" is someone else's "them) into having no rights at all!
<quoted text>
Thing is, you're not willing to let that "judgement" happen in its own time. In essence, you seek to usurp your own God's authority!
<quoted text>
The Loving v. Virginia decision is over 45 years old. I don't think it's going to be overturned anytime soon.
<quoted text>
They don't want "extras". They only want what others already have. Of course, the issue could have been avoided... as well as the Catholic brouhaha... as well as Cobra, if employers were disconnected from health insurance (give the employee the money the healthcare plan costs, and let them choose their own). It's another case of a solution to one supposed problem creating other problems, with those new problems then being blamed.

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Prior to Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court said it was a right in California. In general though, people should have the right to do whatever they want unless it harms another, and even then, the avoidance of such harm must be proven to be "superior" to the right sought to be curtailed. An example is my right to not have trespassers on my property is superior to your right to travel freely.
<quoted text>
Denying liberty to others is not solely a leftist trait. Both sides are well equipped with their own share of control freaks. That's why the courts are so important... without them the control freaks would control each other (and the rest of us, since each of "us" is someone else's "them) into having no rights at all!
<quoted text>
Thing is, you're not willing to let that "judgement" happen in its own time. In essence, you seek to usurp your own God's authority!
<quoted text>
The Loving v. Virginia decision is over 45 years old. I don't think it's going to be overturned anytime soon.
<quoted text>
They don't want "extras". They only want what others already have. Of course, the issue could have been avoided... as well as the Catholic brouhaha... as well as Cobra, if employers were disconnected from health insurance (give the employee the money the healthcare plan costs, and let them choose their own). It's another case of a solution to one supposed problem creating other problems, with those new problems then being blamed.

Reality Speaks wrote:

<quoted text>
would the rights of 99% of the population to have marriage be a sacred establishment between man and women before god; and recognized by law be superior to a very small minority deciding they want to re-define marriage?

I already know your answer, so skip it.

PS: giving an employee money to pay for healthcare; and they buy a boat with the money, then get hurt on boat and require hospital stay....who pays for that?

I await your excuses and spin.

Reality Speaks wrote:

<quoted text>
funny= a law 45 years old not being turned over soon;

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not a law... a United States Supreme Court ruling. Learn the difference.

Reality Speaks wrote:

<quoted text>
you my friend are the sheep
talk about talking points.....see above.
Bush spent like a drunk sailor; but Obama doubled down making Bush seem thrifty.
Healthcare passed is unconstitutional
brought the troops home, and lost control of the oil....brilliant!
having gay men serve next to straight men in battle where they need to back up each other .....brilliant!
those huge tax breaks were 5%. The top 1% pays 40% of all taxes.
47% pay zero taxes. The top 10% pay 70% of taxes.
Those unfair taxcuts to the 47% who pay nothing.
Me thinks you need to learn some real facts; and give up leftist lies.
fact check is a great source....try it.

Reality Speaks wrote:

<quoted text>
a ruling that effects law.

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
A ruling that eradicates BAD law.

tha Professor wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you still being allowed to post your propaganda and lies on this board, creep? Start checking your own facts, starting with your obvious lie that "47% pay zero taxes." That is FALSE. No one in this country "pays zero taxes." If they don't pay income taxes, they pay sales taxes, property taxes, etc.
I think that, given your level of rage and dishonesty, you are a disturbed individual. Give it up and stop flaming and trolling.

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
It would not change the definition. All of those who are married are sill married, with all the benefits and obligations still exactly the same.
<quoted text>
The answer is that your side is losing... little by little the tide is changing.
<quoted text>
How many people who can now afford safer or higher quality lifestyles won't require those hospital stays?
<quoted text>
I won't await your acknowledgement of the writing on the wall.

Reality Speaks wrote:

<quoted text>
bad for whom?

Reality Speaks wrote:

<quoted text>
100% spin above
you side already has lost

see state admendment for fact check.

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
My "side" is the one that values liberty over tyranny.
Used to be zero states allowed gay marriage. Now six do. Liberty is coming from behind and will be ultimately victorious.
<quoted text>
The tyrants in California thought their amendment was the final word too...

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Bad for society.
Is it really going to take your ox being gored (the prevention of YOU doing something that YOU think is right and reasonable) before you get it?