Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
W.'s Constitutional Escapades.. What Next? Gay...  
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Inspired by: W Tries To Re-write The Constitution Again. (by TedTAce Jun 24 2006 in Non Aviation)
and W.'s other apprently unconstitutional orders (spying on our phone records, spying on our banking records). I have to wonder; When will he try to sign an executive order banning gay marriage, civil unions, and anything else his right wing puppeteers deem necessary for the GOP good.??

43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6622 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1828 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
When will he try to sign an executive order banning gay marriage, civil unions, and anything else his right wing puppeteers deem necessary for the GOP good.??

Why, I don't mean to be rude but I always thought you would agree with that idea?


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1806 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 1):
Why, I don't mean to be rude but I always thought you would agree with that idea?

No. I would like to say that even if I was anti-gay rights, I'd have a problem with W. continuing to trample the constitution. The problem is if I didn't believe in gay rights I'd be someone totally diferent then who I am* and who knows what I'd believe.

*I am a straight contentedly married male with children. I grew up next door to a gay man who while very imperfect, was not a bad person. He and his friends gave me insight as to what being gay was about; so I have an appreciation for what I believe to be that fact of MOST homosexuals are born gay.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12185 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
W.'s other apprently unconstitutional orders (spying on our phone records, spying on our banking records). I have to wonder; When will he try to sign an executive order banning gay marriage, civil unions, and anything else his right wing puppeteers deem necessary for the GOP good.??

First of all, there is no clause in the US Constitution for any right to privacy. Go, ahead and read the Constitution, it isn't there. Nor, is the phrase "seperation of church and state". The Constitution is only about 4500 words, it doesn't take long to read.

Second, the phone records are not yours, they belong to the phone company, so does "your" phone number. The records are not private, only the phone conversations are. Those conversations have not been listened to (unless you are a terrorist).

Third, the same goes for banking records, the bank owns them. You only have rights to your money, not the records. These transactions that are looked at only involve international wire transations. So, unless you are wiring money to someone who is doing terrorist or illegal things, you have nothing to worry about.

Fourth, the President and most Republicans could care less about gay marrages, or civil unions.

This is going to be a fun election year.


User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6678 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1788 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):

Fourth, the President and most Republicans could care less about gay marrages, or civil unions.

Its what got W elected last time around.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12185 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1781 times:

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 4):
Its what got W elected last time around.

But, it was not an issue he campained for, or against.


User currently offlineFSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1771 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Fourth, the President and most Republicans could care less about gay marrages, or civil unions.

What do you live under a rock?


User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4392 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1769 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):

Fourth, the President and most Republicans could care less about gay marrages, or civil unions.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Wake up and smell the bullshit from your own party. Honestly...go out of the country a few weeks ago?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
But, it was not an issue he campained for, or against.

Are you that naive? How many times did he come out in support of a constitutional amendment 'protecting' the 'sanctity' of marriage. WAKE UP.

And you also want a theocracy apparently? Oh boy, we've got a real winner here.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineIlikeyyc From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1373 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1740 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
First of all, there is no clause in the US Constitution for any right to privacy. Go, ahead and read the Constitution, it isn't there. Nor, is the phrase "seperation of church and state". The Constitution is only about 4500 words, it doesn't take long to read.

You are right about the right to privacy. The only thing that comes close in the Constitution is the 4th amendment which protects against unreasonable sear hes and seisures.

The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is found in the First Amendment of the Constitution and means the same thing as "seperation of church and state."



Fighting Absurdity with Absurdity!
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1729 times:

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 4):
Its what got W elected last time around.

No, he got elected in part because so many people did not understand why he got elected in 2000. It is the same reason a Republican might get elected in 2008.

Ask any liberal why GWB 'won' the election. Keep a list of their reasons. This is very important because every single one of them will be dead wrong. I mean just about 180 out! Ask some conservatives and you might get part of the reasons. Fact is, most rank-and-file Republicans don't give a damn about gay marriage OR abortion. Best you'll get out of liberals is "why do you rednecks in the flyover states think he is so wonderful? Hint: We don't. (But we might resent being categorized as rednecks and our chosen homes as 'flyover' states.)

Biggest reason: He didn't win. Kerry just lost bigger.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1723 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Those conversations have not been listened to (unless you are a terrorist).

Pollyanna folks like you are why the US ended up with a guy like Bush.



Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2661 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

You need to listen to normal American's phone calls in order to determine WHO the terrorists are, right? How many innocent Americans must be eavesdropped upon in order to find just one terrorist? 10,000? If we already KNOW they are terrorists, why not simply bust them rather than eavesdrop on their phonecalls? Makes no sense at all.

My phone and bank records are MINE, not the company's. The bank financials and SEC filings are theirs and I have no right to them. Records of my deposits and withdrawals, investments and holdings are mine and mine alone. The only response you can give (as always) is "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about"....which is complete bollocks.

My personal records could have been looked at by the government 30 years ago, but why weren't they? Much crime could be solved before it happens by looking at people's personal records well in advance of the fact. Back then it was largely unthinkable to transgress the principles our country was founded upon. Now however (post 9-11) it seems anything goes to stop the dreaded terrorists...worse yet there are still a rather large group of cheerleaders who type their posts with one hand while flipping the channel back to FAUX news with the other.


User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1660 times:

Quoting Ilikeyyc (Reply 8):
The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is found in the First Amendment of the Constitution and means the same thing as "seperation of church and state."

I would quibble here and say that it has been interpreted to mean this - not exactly the same thing.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 9):
Biggest reason: He didn't win. Kerry just lost bigger.

So true!

Quoting SATX (Reply 10):
Pollyanna folks like you are why the US ended up with a guy like Bush.

Probably more accurate to say that the Democrats put up another really lousy candidate, i.e. previous stinkers like Dukakis and Mondale. In the interest of equal time, we'll throw in Dole as the poster boy for a bad candidate on the Republican side.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1653 times:

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 12):
Dole as the poster boy for a bad candidate on the Republican side.

Dole was a patsy.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12185 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1605 times:

Quoting SATX (Reply 10):
Pollyanna folks like you are why the US ended up with a guy like Bush.

Well, in 2000, the choices were Bush or Gore. Gore was to far out in left field for many Americans. So, he lost, in Florida, by a hanging chad. Gore did win the popular vote, but lost in the electorial college. In 2004, the choices were Bush or Kerry. Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it, did you know he served in Vietnam? Bush got the highest number of popular votes of any Presidential Candidate, ever, and 4.5M more than Kerry, including more than 135,000 more than Kerry in Ohio.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 11):
You need to listen to normal American's phone calls in order to determine WHO the terrorists are, right?

No, all you need first is the called number and the calling number, then you get your warrant to listen.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 11):
My phone and bank records are MINE, not the company's. The bank financials and SEC filings are theirs and I have no right to them. Records of my deposits and withdrawals, investments and holdings are mine and mine alone.

No, they are not YOUR records. The phone companies and banks own those records. You are correct about the SEC filings. But the IRS ruled many years ago that deposits, withdrawals, investments, and holdings records belong to the bank, you own the assets, that is how the IRS can seise your assets.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 2):
so I have an appreciation for what I believe to be that fact of MOST homosexuals are born gay.

I believe that "Gay" is a learned lifestyle, as is the "Straight" lifestyle.


User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4287 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1595 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 9):
Ask any liberal why GWB 'won' the election.

He won the election because the Democrats cannot run a candidate who has more charisma than a broken twig. Even if the Dems did have a candidate with charisma, the problem is that the campaign manager and the consultants tell the candidates to rail against Bush's policies while not offering any ideas of their own. It ends up sounding like the Dems are just a bunch of whiny sore losers who have no ideas of their own and not enough smarts to figure out how to solve anything.

What the Democrats need is someone who presents solid ideas, explains why we can do things instead of complain about how some things cannot be done, and come out with logical responses that contradict what the Republican strategists say but without sounding extreme. Words and looks often make the difference in a campaign, and so far the Republican strategists have dominated on catchphrases and, honestly, look more appealing than the recent Democratic candidates. And those two things go a long way with regular voters.

And that is what at least this liberal (not Democrat) thinks  Smile

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2661 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1589 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 11):
My phone and bank records are MINE, not the company's. The bank financials and SEC filings are theirs and I have no right to them. Records of my deposits and withdrawals, investments and holdings are mine and mine alone.

No, they are not YOUR records. The phone companies and banks own those records. You are correct about the SEC filings. But the IRS ruled many years ago that deposits, withdrawals, investments, and holdings records belong to the bank, you own the assets, that is how the IRS can seise your assets.

What then would they own if I chose not to open an account, deposit money to it or withdraw from it. Is there anything left to own?

I see your point....and it is a very bad thing that we, the people, allowed them (the unconstitutional IRS) to make these things officially "theirs" by default. That enabled them to sieze without a warrant or due process of law. Snuck that one in on us while we were sleeping.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12185 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1585 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 16):
What then would they own if I chose not to open an account, deposit money to it or withdraw from it. Is there anything left to own?

If you don't open an account, than nothing exsist to own. Well, maybe the unassigned account number is still theirs. But, if you do open an account, all you own is the money.

Quoting Texan (Reply 15):
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 9):
Ask any liberal why GWB 'won' the election.

He won the election because the Democrats cannot run a candidate who has more charisma than a broken twig. Even if the Dems did have a candidate with charisma, the problem is that the campaign manager and the consultants tell the candidates to rail against Bush's policies while not offering any ideas of their own. It ends up sounding like the Dems are just a bunch of whiny sore losers who have no ideas of their own and not enough smarts to figure out how to solve anything.

What the Democrats need is someone who presents solid ideas, explains why we can do things instead of complain about how some things cannot be done, and come out with logical responses that contradict what the Republican strategists say but without sounding extreme. Words and looks often make the difference in a campaign, and so far the Republican strategists have dominated on catchphrases and, honestly, look more appealing than the recent Democratic candidates. And those two things go a long way with regular voters.

And that is what at least this liberal (not Democrat) thinks

Very well said.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1577 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
Inspired by: W Tries To Re-write The Constitution Again. (by TedTAce Jun 24 2006 in Non Aviation)
and W.'s other apprently unconstitutional orders

Glossing over the fact that your characterization in the referenced thread about Bush violating the Constitution with the Kelo order was completely inaccurate, he will no doubt do exactly what his predecessors have done during the waning months of their administrations - enact as many EO's as they possibly can, in order to tie the hands of their successor.

No big deal. If he enacts an EO that is clearly unconstitutional, it will be overruled.


User currently offlineAdam T. From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 957 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Quoting TedTAce (Reply 2):
so I have an appreciation for what I believe to be that fact of MOST homosexuals are born gay.

I believe that "Gay" is a learned lifestyle, as is the "Straight" lifestyle

Could you elaborate further? I'd like to hear your reasoning on why you came to this conclusion.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13210 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 1568 times:

Yea, well this week's Republican/Bush cause to bash Democrats and make the Republicans look good and cover up their diseased state is to try again with a Constitutional Amendment to ban 'USA Flag Burning'. All Democrats will have to vote for this bit of foolishness as if they don't vote for it, they will be beaten at the next election.

User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4287 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 1557 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 20):
Yea, well this week's Republican/Bush cause to bash Democrats and make the Republicans look good and cover up their diseased state is to try again with a Constitutional Amendment to ban 'USA Flag Burning'. All Democrats will have to vote for this bit of foolishness as if they don't vote for it, they will be beaten at the next election.

Yep. It is brilliant political strategy by the Republicans. I absolutely hate it and wish they would not do it as it cheapens the society and further infringes on our freedom of speech, but the Republicans do pick good, divisive causes that rile up a base of voters who oftentimes in the past would not bother to get off their asses to cast a vote. There will be protest votes for Democrats of course, but not as many as will be gained by this utterly despicable maneuver.

The Dems actually used to be pretty good at this as well until someone came along and cut out the party's balls. Now they do not stand FOR anything, they merely stand AGAINST whatever the Republicans are for. It is very hard to win an election when you are on the defensive and cannot be for anything.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 1549 times:

Quoting Texan (Reply 21):
The Dems actually used to be pretty good at this as well until someone came along and cut out the party's balls. Now they do not stand FOR anything, they merely stand AGAINST whatever the Republicans are for. It is very hard to win an election when you are on the defensive and cannot be for anything.

two weeks ago I voted in the Virginia Democratic primary. In Virgina, you can cross over party lines during a primary election, and since I'm an independent, I usually vote where the race is most interesting.

Anyway, upon leaving, I was given a card by the Prince William democrats urging me to become active in the party. It had 10 "core values" of the democratic party. At the bottom of the list was "maintaining a strong national defense", and in the middle of the list, the lame call for "ensuring economic justice for all."

And they wonder why people like me left the party....


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1541 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
I believe that "Gay" is a learned lifestyle, as is the "Straight" lifestyle.



Quoting Adam T. (Reply 19):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Quoting TedTAce (Reply 2):
so I have an appreciation for what I believe to be that fact of MOST homosexuals are born gay.

I believe that "Gay" is a learned lifestyle, as is the "Straight" lifestyle

Could you elaborate further? I'd like to hear your reasoning on why you came to this conclusion.

KC135, I have a lot of respect for most of your other opinions, but here is were we diverge greatly. I'm guessing that most of your life was spent with homophobic military types who's only real experience with gay people is what they read in their pornography late at night with a flashlight. Now you might countner with 'oh you have met with gay people', and you still have that opinion.

The problem here is that casual business type relationships give you NO insight into the homosexual mindset. Especially if your experience is with flaming queens who slap their homosexuality in your face. Here is what I suggest you do: Spend a solid day with a gay person who understands you are hetero and want to understand gay people so social liberals like me don't call you a homophobic relic. I garantee that if you spend 24 hours just hanging out with a gay person you'll have a much better understandng of what's going on upstairs in most gay people's minds.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1537 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 23):
KC135, I have a lot of respect for most of your other opinions, but here is were we diverge greatly. I'm guessing that most of your life was spent with homophobic military types who's only real experience with gay people is what they read in their pornography late at night with a flashlight. Now you might countner with 'oh you have met with gay people', and you still have that opinion.

The problem here is that casual business type relationships give you NO insight into the homosexual mindset. Especially if your experience is with flaming queens who slap their homosexuality in your face. Here is what I suggest you do: Spend a solid day with a gay person who understands you are hetero and want to understand gay people so social liberals like me don't call you a homophobic relic. I garantee that if you spend 24 hours just hanging out with a gay person you'll have a much better understandng of what's going on upstairs in most gay people's minds.

the gay "lifestyle" isn't learned. You are born that way, period. Just like most of are born heterosexual.

I come from a family where I am one of about 30 cousins. We all grew up within 10 miles of each other - most closer - and were together at numerous family gatherings, almost every month, it seemed. One of my male cousins is gay, as is one of my female cousins. We knew both of them were "different" even befpre we know what "gay" and "homo" stood for. Both of them have straight brothers and sisters, and were in no way "coached" by anyone to become gay.

The whole idea is absurd.


25 TedTAce : Brilliant point!
26 Halls120 : Thanks, but it's just common sense, IMHO. What I don't understand is why people get their panties in a wad about it. As long as your gay next door ne
27 KC135TopBoom : I have no problems with the Gay lifestyle, as long as they don't put it in my face. Nor, would I ever put my Straight lifestyle in their face. I have
28 Halls120 : Care to provide any scientific support for this assertion? I'd be interested in reading it, because everything I've read suggests otherwise. Until sh
29 Post contains links Mt99 : You didnt read todays papers did you? "Sexual orientation of men determined before birth" http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...ENTATION-MEN-DETERMI
30 JpetekYXMD80 : If you believe in such things as the 'gay lifestyle' and 'straight lifestyle', that is your first problem. Just people with totally different lifesty
31 KC135TopBoom : I will not make any attempt to explain your cousins choices. You may live close to her, but you didn't spent every minute of every day with her, so y
32 Mt99 : What does the number of poeple have to do with it? (ever taken an statictics course?) What does time have to do with it? I dont understand your conce
33 JpetekYXMD80 : Wow, here we go again. You just dont get it. What the hell is the 'gay lifestyle' !?!?!? No, you're wrong. I'll tell you when it loses value. It lose
34 Halls120 : You are right - I didn't spend every minute of every day with her. But I know that while she was in her 20's, she was absolutely miserable being a le
35 PA110 : Oh for F*$& sake TOPBOOM, You go to great lengths in each of your posts to refer to "lifestyle" and "choice". As a gay man, I can tell you I had absol
36 JpetekYXMD80 : Yeah but even though you're gay and can talk about your own experiences, I know better. Signed, KC135TopBoom
37 Adh214 : Actually straight people put their "Lifestyle" in our faces all of the time. They are constantly talking about their girlfriends and children. If you
38 KC135TopBoom : I do not read releigious or Gay group material. One side is just as slanted as the other. But, I have read the APA material, and it says (in part usi
39 JpetekYXMD80 : No really? It's called a 'signed-by post', and I don't know how you could walk a step around non-av without seeing loads of them.
40 KC135TopBoom : I know what it is, and why it is there. But, just to make things clear, to even an 18 year old ,like you, I was talking about the post script signatu
41 Post contains links Texan : From today's (Sunday July 9) Non Sequitur. Thought it was relevant. Enjoy! Non Sequitur Texan
42 Post contains images Nitrohelper : I don't know either, but GWB said that he heard it was "a pain in the ass" ?
43 L-188 : ROTFLMAO!!!! Ensuring Economic Justice? WTF???? Nice spin on the democrat/communist mantra of taxing people who are willing to work and giving it to
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Next For Gay Civil Rights Movement In Canada? posted Fri Jul 29 2005 19:53:50 by KLMA330
It Appears My Car's Paint Is Ruined, What Next? posted Mon Sep 25 2006 13:53:09 by UTA_flyinghigh
What's Next With Google? posted Sat Feb 4 2006 23:28:56 by Aseem
I Just Got In A Car Wreck! What Next? posted Fri Dec 23 2005 20:13:02 by Cadet57
For The Survivors: What's Next? posted Sat Sep 3 2005 04:30:21 by TedTAce
What Next After Rover Bankruptcy? posted Mon Apr 18 2005 09:34:59 by UTA_flyinghigh
Iraq, What Next? posted Wed Apr 7 2004 15:00:19 by Zak
Joe Millionaire....what Next? posted Wed Nov 12 2003 05:01:26 by TheGov
What If Gay People Had Their Own Country? posted Tue Feb 4 2003 15:25:36 by Airmale
What's Next? Concentration Camps? posted Tue May 22 2001 21:01:32 by Cfalk