Another republican does it again

[Ms Tree]

What I'm saying is I love how the Demorat Libtards are ready to pounce at a moments notice, whenever an Evil GOP member hiccups, but never a peep when one of their own does the same !

And Tree, again I'll say "MARRIAGE" was a religious ceremony long before it became a government ceremony, so why would one , who does not believe in God, what anything to do with a religious ceremony? In case you didn't notice men and women are different and were made for each other or in your case, evolved for each other, making it "NATURAL", anything else, should be considered "UN-NATURAL" !

And the GOP does not pounce on any indiscretion that Dems make? You do realize we are talking about politics right? Campfield is an idiot who is presenting misinformation as fact. Cuccinelli is a bigot. No if's and or buts about it. If a dem said it it would be news as well. It's up to the public top do with it as they choose.

Marriage used to be an exchange of property to form alliances but it changed. Currently in the US marriage is a contract between people, nothing more. People may add a religious aspect to their marriage if they so choose but it has not bearing on the legal terms of of a marriage. You can go to a religious institution of your choice and get a religious marriage with out a license and it will he a religious ceremony. They are separate institutions.

Who says gays do not believe in god and what does that have anything to do with anything? I do not believe in god and I got married. Used a JP and got hitched in a B&B. No religion involved what so ever. Those who do believe in god want to have a religious ceremony from what ever religious institution will perform the ceremony.

Not sure why you keep bring nature into this discussion. Marriage is not a natural event. It is a man made event. As such, under US law all people of consenting age have a legal right to participate.

Bottom line is that nothing the state/nation is doing regarding marriage will have any effect on what religious institutions do. Religious institutions can conduct their business as they see fit. The legal aspect of marriage is a different issue. It's a matter of law. Plain and simple. If you want to deny gays equal treatment under the law, what is to stop people from giving you equal treatment under the law?

 

[delldude]

And the GOP does not pounce on any indiscretion that Dems make? You do realize we are talking about politics right? Campfield is an idiot who is presenting misinformation as fact. Cuccinelli is a bigot. No if's and or buts about it. If a dem said it it would be news as well. It's up to the public top do with it as they choose.

Marriage used to be an exchange of property to form alliances but it changed. Currently in the US marriage is a contract between people, nothing more. People may add a religious aspect to their marriage if they so choose but it has not bearing on the legal terms of of a marriage. You can go to a religious institution of your choice and get a religious marriage with out a license and it will he a religious ceremony. They are separate institutions.

Who says gays do not believe in god and what does that have anything to do with anything? I do not believe in god and I got married. Used a JP and got hitched in a B&B. No religion involved what so ever. Those who do believe in god want to have a religious ceremony from what ever religious institution will perform the ceremony.

Not sure why you keep bring nature into this discussion. Marriage is not a natural event. It is a man made event. As such, under US law all people of consenting age have a legal right to participate.

Bottom line is that nothing the state/nation is doing regarding marriage will have any effect on what religious institutions do. Religious institutions can conduct their business as they see fit. The legal aspect of marriage is a different issue. It's a matter of law. Plain and simple. If you want to deny gays equal treatment under the law, what is to stop people from giving you equal treatment under the law?

Without religion there would be no contract between Man and the God of his choosing.
I can't find ANY reference to marriage other than between a Man and a Woman....in all of recorded time, plus the last 40years...

 

[Dog Wonder]

.shouldn't you be licking something, Wonder Dog ?

Shouldn't you be picking bugs off your mate?

 

[Ms Tree]

But wait ..... There's more. As a special gust to the podium to receive her award.... Ms Ann Coulter. Please giver her a hand .... or swift boot up her butt.

Fox removes Coulter column with McCain reference.

Coulter wrote about how MSNBC's Martin Bashir suggested Republican senators wouldn't support stronger gun control legislation until a member of their family was killed. She wrote: "Let's start with Meghan McCain!"

http://news.yahoo.com/fox-removes-coulter-column-mccain-122124780.html

 

[delldude]

So we have a Constitutional right to marriage?

That's a good one.....the right to marry, shall not be infringed............

 

[signals]

Southwind lives in a glass house?

For the record my comment was for the Billary loving 700 UW! To him/her Liberals are always RIGHT 🙄

 

[signals]

And the GOP does not pounce on any indiscretion that Dems make? You do realize we are talking about politics right? Campfield is an idiot who is presenting misinformation as fact. Cuccinelli is a bigot. No if's and or buts about it. If a dem said it it would be news as well. It's up to the public top do with it as they choose.

Marriage used to be an exchange of property to form alliances but it changed. Currently in the US marriage is a contract between people, nothing more. People may add a religious aspect to their marriage if they so choose but it has not bearing on the legal terms of of a marriage. You can go to a religious institution of your choice and get a religious marriage with out a license and it will he a religious ceremony. They are separate institutions.

Who says gays do not believe in god and what does that have anything to do with anything? I do not believe in god and I got married. Used a JP and got hitched in a B&B. No religion involved what so ever. Those who do believe in god want to have a religious ceremony from what ever religious institution will perform the ceremony.

Not sure why you keep bring nature into this discussion. Marriage is not a natural event. It is a man made event. As such, under US law all people of consenting age have a legal right to participate.

Bottom line is that nothing the state/nation is doing regarding marriage will have any effect on what religious institutions do. Religious institutions can conduct their business as they see fit. The legal aspect of marriage is a different issue. It's a matter of law. Plain and simple. If you want to deny gays equal treatment under the law, what is to stop people from giving you equal treatment under the law?

I find it Wonderdogful that those who have a YourA'P'-ON passport are allowed to dictate AMERICAN politics!

 

[signals]

So we have a Constitutional right to marriage?

That's a good one.....the right to marry, shall not be infringed............

A constitutional right means NAMBLA is right and those without a mate can marry their cats dogs and fish!

 

[Ms Tree]

And they keep coming.

Rand Paul spoke at the Howard University. Now this is a very prestigious university with some pretty smart kids and he was up there trying to convince the students that the the 'republicans' of the 50's and 60's who promoted the civil rights act are the same republicans of today. I am pretty sure they have read a history book or two and know that Paul is full of crap. He is even stupid enough to ask them if they know the origins of the NAACP. And the republicans wonder why Obama got 90% + of the black vote?

 

[SparrowHawk]

This is rather interesting. I know at least half a dozen people who use the expression in the original post daily if not more frequently and two of them are black.

Could it just be a rather insensitive figure of speech from a bygone age, that hasn't quite left the lexicon of our society?

 

[Ms Tree]

Do ou think it is wise for a politician who speaks front of groups of people to use such terms? Regardless of the fact that you know people who have used the term (I never heard it before) do you think it is an appropriate term to be used? Would you want your kid using it? How about a head of state?

Most people know that there are words you do not use because of what they represent.

 

[southwind]

And they keep coming.

Rand Paul spoke at the Howard University. Now this is a very prestigious university with some pretty smart kids and he was up there trying to convince the students that the the 'republicans' of the 50's and 60's who promoted the civil rights act are the same republicans of today. I am pretty sure they have read a history book or two and know that Paul is full of crap. He is even stupid enough to ask them if they know the origins of the NAACP. And the republicans wonder why Obama got 90% + of the black vote?

All these students know is what their Libtard Professors teach them !

And Tree, why is it we never talk about the country you belong to? Is it located, somewhere in Never-Neverland, by any chance ? You've got a lot of ideas about how we should run ours.................so lets hear how perfect yours is !

 

[Dog Wonder]

All these students know is what their Libtard Professors teach them !

They should get an education on AM radio.

 

[Ms Tree]

I live in the same country that you presumably do. How ever I have no idea how that matters.

Do you think Mr Paul was correct in his inference that republicans and Dems of today are the same republicans and dems of the 50's and 60's? If so do you have any supporting evidence?

The historical fact of the matter is that the southern democrats who were in favor of segregation later became the republican party of today.

Then you can look at Nixon and his Southern Policy. In a nut shell he accepted that the RNC would only get 10%-20% of the black vote and that is all they needed. He reasoned that the more blacks who registered to vote in the south, the more whites who would defect from the DNC and head over to the republicans. Ended up working like a charm.

Republicans can try to rewrite history all they want but reality is what it is. History has been documented and it is not kind to republicans in regard to race.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I live in the same country that you presumably do. How ever I have no idea how that matters.

Do you think Mr Paul was correct in his inference that republicans and Dems of today are the same republicans and dems of the 50's and 60's? If so do you have any supporting evidence?

The historical fact of the matter is that the southern democrats who were in favor of segregation later became the republican party of today.

Then you can look at Nixon and his Southern Policy. In a nut shell he accepted that the RNC would only get 10%-20% of the black vote and that is all they needed. He reasoned that the more blacks who registered to vote in the south, the more whites who would defect from the DNC and head over to the republicans. Ended up working like a charm.

Republicans can try to rewrite history all they want but reality is what it is. History has been documented and it is not kind to republicans in regard to race.

To your questions
1. I think the system is so perverted today that almost no one has principles anymore and all one need do for proof is to open a newspaper or go on line to see the evidence. No need for specifics as both parties are equal opportunity offenders.

2. I don't know if what you say is true or not. My perception is that it isn't. I think what happened is the Southern Democrats moved very far left and it creates the illusion you mentioned. Remember the last time George Wallace won an election in Alabama he garnered 88% of the black vote.

3. Many historians present a very compelling argument (one I support) that Richard Nixon was the MOST Liberal President in US History. Given that I'm not to sure his "Southern Strategy" worked as planned.

I think if you measure Republican actions in dollars of social programs specified for blacks and minorities then your argument holds water. Yet when you look at Republican Presidents and the diversity of their cabinet level positions they fare quite well. Which further proves the point that both Republicans and Democrats care little about anyone who can't afford or is unwilling to donate at least $5,000 to their campaigns regardless of color.

The so called "Black Vote" reminds me of the NFL. Football is the product, the players are merely the equipment. The black vote ever leaves the Democrats in significant numbers watch what happens. Next up to be courted by the Dems are Hispanics Blacks will be 2nd class citizens politically once again.

The black vote is merely the means to an end