|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/05/2008 : 12:25:52 [Permalink]
|
And now, let the gloating begin. It's come to well past time that were able to piss in the faces of the Religious Right and their stooges in the Republican party. Fuck this bi-partisan bullshit with people who will very soon be trying to wreak Obama's presidency. No more forgiving; no forgetting. When you reach "across the aisle" to them, do it with a cudule. They are down; put the boots, the size 13s, to them and keep kicking & stomping until nothing is left but a slimy puddle of bloody, shit-streaked viscera that not even the flys would want to scavenge from.
"I'm watching THE VIEW, and Joy Behar was talking about how last night McCain "finally came back to who he was." I.e., he's been kind of an ass for the past several months, and finally started to find his honor again. The token Republican countered with the following:
"I think it's hard because campaigns... really bring out the ugly in everyone on both sides. It's when you see them in their pure moments, Barack's speech last night, and John McCain's speech lsat night, that you see these moments of hope that they really have given us."
Horse shit.
After eight years of having Republicans call me an un-American troop-hating fag-loving socialist, after months of John McCain embracing the hate to a level where his own supporters were calling out for Barack Obama to be assassinated, no one is going to be permitted to tell me with a straight face that "oh you know, both sides do it."
Your side was abominable. Your side was hateful. Your side race-baited. Your side gay-baited. Your side lied like we've never seen in recent presidential campaign history. Your side used a tax-cheat who would do better under Obama's tax proposal to be your everyman on the issue of taxes. Your side, in a veiled effort at race-baiting, said Obama doesn't put his country first. Your side had the audacity to call Obama a socialist. Your side suggested he was a Muslim. Your side suggested he was a terrorist. Your side suggested he was Osama bin Laden.
Spare me the crap about how both sides do it. You people are a disgrace, you've been a disgrace for eight long years, and all your hate and lying and venom and vitriol finally bit you in your collective fat ass.
Democrats don't do nasty, and they certainly don't do it well. Lord knows I wish they did, but they don't. Republicans elevate it to a religion. You are the party of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. Angry, bitchy, bitter and elitist. What do we have to compare? Jesse Jackson, I often hear from my Republican friends. Um, maybe in 1980 when he was relevant. It's been 28 years, got any other examples? Michael Moore, you say? What has Michael Moore said - name one thing - that's comparable to the filth that regularly issues forth from Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter and, of late, McCain and Palin?
Democrats, when they skewer (which isn't often enough), do it with biting truth. Republicans skewer, early and often, with vicious lies. It goes back to a more general philosophy that liberals have: If we just tell them the truth, the people will agree with us. Republicans are far less sanguine. They know that a good lie beats the truth any day of the week.
Except on a Tuesday in November."
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 11/05/2008 : 12:35:15 [Permalink]
|
Some bad news. I and everyone else who looked at the polls guessed wrong. Prop 8 won in California. I still can't figure out how that happened, unless it was all the misleading advertising, mostly funded by the Mormons, out of Utah, who supported it.
I deeply resent religious based rather than rationally based laws being enacted. It's one reason I hate the initiative process. I'm sure the proposition will be challenged in court as a violation of both church and state and on civil rights grounds.
You know what's really funny? One of the ads said that peoples religious rights were in jeopardy if the law isn't passed. What? So the solution for what they find distasteful is to impose their faith based morality on everyone, and in so doing really and truly force the people who don't agree with their bible based bigoted views to adhere to them by law? But they are theocrats who will never see their own hypocrisy, or, if they do, they wont care. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/05/2008 : 12:42:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I'm sure the proposition will be challenged in court as a violation of both church and state and on civil rights grounds. |
Or you'll get another proposition in two or four years to repeal Prop 8.
'Cause it'd be really strange to see the Federal courts ruling that a state Constitution is unconstitutional. I'd lay odds that if it got that far, SCOTUS would decline to hear the case at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2008 : 13:20:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
I'm sure the proposition will be challenged in court as a violation of both church and state and on civil rights grounds. |
Or you'll get another proposition in two or four years to repeal Prop 8.
'Cause it'd be really strange to see the Federal courts ruling that a state Constitution is unconstitutional. I'd lay odds that if it got that far, SCOTUS would decline to hear the case at all.
|
Our supreme court already ruled on it and upheld the right to gay marriage. I wonder if they have the power to strike down this law?
Dave, I can almost guarantee that this will wind up in SCOTUS. It's just a matter of time. It may take a few years, and a few new judges, but it will get there eventually. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2008 : 13:33:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Our supreme court already ruled on it and upheld the right to gay marriage. I wonder if they have the power to strike down this law? |
Nope. Prop 8 actually amended the California Constitution. The California Supreme Court is sworn to rule on the basis of that Constitution, so they must now rule that gay marriage is illegal.| Dave, I can almost guarantee that this will wind up in SCOTUS. It's just a matter of time. It may take a few years, and a few new judges, but it will get there eventually. |
I'm just thinking that in a few years, before it winds up in SCOTUS, the citizens of California will repeal Prop 8. I don't remember the number of the proposition, but that sort of thing has happened before in California. I have a hard time imagining that there will not be propositions to repeal Prop 8 every two years until it's done. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2008 : 13:51:31 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
I'm just thinking that in a few years, before it winds up in SCOTUS, the citizens of California will repeal Prop 8. I don't remember the number of the proposition, but that sort of thing has happened before in California. I have a hard time imagining that there will not be propositions to repeal Prop 8 every two years until it's done. |
True, but this is becoming a national issue. Eventually SCOTUS will have to take it on, whether the suit comes out of California or another state.
Interpretation of the US Constitution trumps state constitutions.
I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow, though I think a suit will be brought against the new law in California within days. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2008 : 16:33:20 [Permalink]
|
| I for one hope that the shift to left will put this issue into US law. It is entirely odd that these few states have a right (or not) that is not national. Did you know I am married in Canada? Fuck all it does for me, as neither country I am part of recognizes it as a legal marriage. Though they do readily recognize a Canadian certificate for any heterosexual couple. It would be even more bizarre to have a California Gay Marriage and have ti not recognized at the federal level. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2008 : 18:49:55 [Permalink]
|
chef:
It would be even more bizarre to have a California Gay Marriage and have ti not recognized at the federal level. |
Massachusetts has it. California has it until 8 becomes the law. So that's exactly what we have now. And yes, it's completely ridiculous. Eventually this will have to be taken up at the federal level. And eventually, laws against gay marriage will be ruled as discriminatory and therefor unconstitutional. Right now, the anti gay marriage people argue that domestic partnership laws afford gay couples with all the same rights as any married couple. But they don't. One big problem is that those laws are not federal either so they don't cover federal privileges afforded to married couples and do not carry outside of the states that have enacted them.
Anyhow, it's just a matter of time before the problem is addressed by the SCOTUS. How long it will take for that to happen, I don't know...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2008 : 19:21:56 [Permalink]
|
Well, unless the gay marriage opponents manage to pass an amendment to the US Constitution. I don't think that will happen, but then again I didn't think it would happen in Cali either.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2008 : 20:59:54 [Permalink]
|
What's the political composition of SCOTUS these days?
I read somewhere that there are two seats coming "fairly soon" for new nominations. How would that change the situation?
I'm not too familiar with the workings of the Supreme Court, other than that I understand positions are offered "for life". So what will make these two seats available?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2008 : 23:00:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
What's the political composition of SCOTUS these days?
I read somewhere that there are two seats coming "fairly soon" for new nominations. How would that change the situation?
I'm not too familiar with the workings of the Supreme Court, other than that I understand positions are offered "for life". So what will make these two seats available?
|
Justices decide for themselves when to step down. There's no requirement that they step down at a certain age or for ill health, etc. At this point, a number of them could very reasonably decide they are old enough to want to retire soon.
John Paul Stevens, who is 88, has (bless his heart) hung on all these years, presumably waiting for a less right-wing president, & will likely now feel he can step down. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75 & Steven Breyer is 70. They have been the "liberals" (along with David Souter, age 69). Anthony Kennedy is 72 & has been the swing vote on many cases since Sandra Day O'Connor finally retired in 2005, at age 75 & with a husband with Alzheimers, having apparently hung on until then in the hopes that Bush would be unseated. Scalia is also 72, but I haven't heard any rumors that he is planning on retiring, & now he has a reason to try to hang in there another 4-8 years...
Edited to add: Non sequitur here - everytime I see "SCOTUS" my brain substitutes "SCROTUM" for some reason. Freud would have loved it. |
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
| Edited by - Zebra on 11/05/2008 23:02:37 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 02:35:58 [Permalink]
|
The out patients are beginning to come out in force: Barack Obama has not even been sworn in yet as the 44th president of the United States but groups are springing up online calling for his impeachment.
On Facebook, an "Impeach Barack Obama" group has attracted more than 700 members and a lively debate about the Democrat's election victory on Tuesday over Republican John McCain.
Another Facebook group of the same name has 160 members and urges others to join because "we might as well get a head start on the impeachment of Obama."
|
Predictable, I suppose, but no less stupid.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 05:42:02 [Permalink]
|
| Well, they impeached Clinton for lying about diddling behind his wife's back. But Bush starts a war on false pretenses, openly sets aside laws he doesn't like, spies on American citizens, kidnaps and tortures people, politicizes the department of justice, and who knows what else, and he's still there. Go figure. They have good reason to try and impeach Obama - based on what I've seen it should work. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
WarfRat
New Member
49 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 07:19:57 [Permalink]
|
Let me get this straight, there is a movement already to impeach Obama even before he takes office. ??? They are doing this to get a head start for what-ever "socialistic" or "communistic" thing he might do???
To quote Vizzini from the "Princess Bride" ------ Morons. |
"I believe...that one benefits the workers...so much more by forcing through reforms which alleviate and strengthen their position, than by saying that only a revolution can help them." |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 07:49:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
He "came to the center" on everything. The center is just about as far right as you can reasonably get in an atmosphere of the government being used to transfer the wealth from everyone else to the extremely wealthy.
|
How did the government transfer my money to the wealthy? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Official SFN US Elections Thread
