For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: California Supreme Court overturns same-sex marriage ban:
In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory. California's Supreme Court quashed a ban on gay marriage in a historic ruling here Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America's most populous state free to tie the knot... Thursday's ruling came after a long-running legal battle that erupted in 2000 when California voters approved a law declaring that only marriages between men and women could be legally recognized.
What's your reaction to this decision? As California often leads the country in groundbreaking judicial and legislative changes, do you envision this move sweeping the nation? Finally, which concerns you more, the decision itself, or that one jurist was able to overturn the will of the voters? Be advised that the 2000 initiative banning same-sex marriages received the support of 61 percent of those casting votes. Shouldn't we be far more concerned with this level of judicial fiat and its implications for the future than the ruling itself?














Comments Policy
Meet my meat?
May 16, 2008 - 10:14 ET by Dr_LibertyWhy is there an anti-meat advertisement sometimes popping up in the side banner of this site?
It is all good that NB is selling these... no problem there.
But why would this group be targetting NB readers? Is there some mass movement of conservative vegans that I should be told about?
<insert witty signature here>
I'm a bit bothered by the
May 16, 2008 - 10:17 ET by mister josephI'm a bit bothered by the cheapie 'get a degree without going to college' ads that pop up occasionally, to be honest. Not my website, of course, but I think such places devalue education.
More Old School Conservative Babes!
May 16, 2008 - 10:18 ET by Dr_LibertyI say!
<insert witty signature here>
Here, here! As I
May 16, 2008 - 10:21 ET by mister josephHere, here!
As I once told a friend, "I have no animosity towards the women's movement, as long as the women's movement is towards me!"
New NB Advertising Rule
May 16, 2008 - 10:25 ET by Dr_LibertyIf there are any ads that feature anti-cow eating messages or free degrees with little studying, NB will require the advertiser to feature an old school conservative babe in the ad. Period.
Indeed, any ad should feature an old school conservative babe. Exclamation point.
Fortunately, the "new" "old school conservative" movement features many college age hot babes.
<insert witty signature here>
Second. "They need to
May 16, 2008 - 10:26 ET by taterSecond.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
i move that this be applied
May 16, 2008 - 10:34 ET by mister josephi move that this be applied retroactively. i think a week's worth of nothing but conservative cuties would suffice. anyone? anyone?
Yes i concur we need to
May 16, 2008 - 12:29 ET by red_dragon311Yes i concur
we need to start with Mygan Kelly from Fox news
she is just too hot
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
I agree...only...
May 16, 2008 - 14:19 ET by Syriusred,
We need to watch what we desire, covet or lust...
The original Hebrew word of the Tenth Commandment, pronounced kaw-mad, which is translated as covet in English, literally means, in the negative sense, to lust after.
It is not wrong to want something, but it is wrong to have an unhealthy
desire for something, particularly if it belongs to someone else.
Coveting, or lust, turns people into objects, and objects into idols.
Ephesians 2:2-3 "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the
course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the
spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also
we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling
the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of
wrath, even as others."
Since I'm not a true believer, it doesn't apply...the hotter, the better! Go FoxNews!
Don't forget Dana Perino, too. She'll be plying the airwaves as soon as her stint at Dubya's house is over!
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
isn't it wrong to not give
May 16, 2008 - 15:39 ET by mister josephisn't it wrong to not give God the glory for all of his beautiful creations? :-)
As long as we "idolize" them!
May 16, 2008 - 18:26 ET by SyriusMrJ,
Right on, no worries here...I just hope this is overlooked by the self-righteous on this site!
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
on another note
May 16, 2008 - 20:16 ET by mister josephive had a long day social working, and that anti-meat ad sure is making me hungry!
I get hungry everytime I
May 16, 2008 - 20:22 ET by Clear thinkerI get hungry everytime I see that ad.
"Abstain from McCain"
meat is murder...sweet,
May 16, 2008 - 20:28 ET by mister josephmeat is murder...sweet, juicy, hickory-smoked and grilled to perfection murder...
mister jo
May 16, 2008 - 20:32 ET by BlondeAre you sure you're not R. D. in disguise?
Seriously...I missed out on a great steak tonite, and I am CRANKY about it.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, and other fleshtarians, use Mozilla Firefox
May 16, 2008 - 22:21 ET by upcountrywaterNo banner ads just the eyeblast.tv one
I had to turn on IE to see all the adds! wow.
The meat video ad did make me want a steak, and I am very thankful for the flesh bounty at all the feed lots around the country!
How high would beef prices be if no slaughter houses were built for the last 30 years ?
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Liberals/need/help/IranianUranium/<sleep>
OK, upcountry
May 16, 2008 - 22:30 ET by BlondeYou are now on the hook for buying me a big, fat juicy....and very expensive steak when I finally show up in Hawaii (maybe later this year...on my way, OHHHHH, how I hope) to Fiji.
So there!
Of course, if you'd rather take me out for a spin on the boat....I could probably catch my own "mahi" steak (or whatever it's called out there).
What is up with these PETA fools, tho? Some idjit was on Fox earlier....decrying "700 horses a year are put down due to racing".
Racehorses live better than 90 percent of the civilized world citizens. The liberals are off their rockers. Seriously.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, Glad to see you get you didn't get run out of town.
May 16, 2008 - 22:43 ET by upcountrywaterby those earthfirsters burning down Florida.
Was wondering where you been ; missed round here; RDH been whacking those stephen king zombies.
Steaks will be ready, just drop by.
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Liberals/need/help/IranianUranium/<sleep>
Blonde, so, just how did you miss out on a great steak tonight?
May 16, 2008 - 22:36 ET by R D HelmLOL-After all, inquiring minds want to know.
Let me guess, the "chef" couldn't get the coals lit, right? Did those kitten-sized shrimp choke off the air flow?
Or even worse, the "chef" ran out of propane. (Serves him right, if you ask me).
Sorry, my friend, I just could not resist.
OH....R.D.
May 16, 2008 - 22:36 ET by BlondeIt is a tale of woe. Serially. I'd have to commit hari kari to relate it here.
BTW...I'll be in Atlanta Monday...but it's a quick trip. So I'll wave as I go by....I'll be the chick in the cab with a green glove on. LOL. :D
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, well, that just sucks. Damnit!
May 16, 2008 - 22:52 ET by R D Helm:-(
I start my new job Monday morning.
Can you say Saleen Mustang?
Sure
May 16, 2008 - 22:56 ET by BlondeSaleen Mustang...whatever that means! LOL.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Well, it's California. And
May 16, 2008 - 10:14 ET by mister josephWell, it's California. And though it had headlines yesterday and today, watch it disappear quickly from the MSM. 'out of sight, out of mind,' as they say. I just love how those who were for overturning the laws against sodomy said that doing so would not lead to gay marriage being legalized, and yet how long was it after that when the first talk of legalizing gay marriage began to be an issue?
Of course, those who are for it will liken the will of the people to the era of Jim Crow, where people voted for things that kept segregation.
I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker, when hearing a lesbian talking about gay marriage.
'of course they should marry. think of the children!'
sodomy
May 16, 2008 - 10:23 ET by shawn228Disagree with you here MP. Sodomy is something you do behind close doors that disturb nobody.
Gay marriage affects us all.
The point I was making is
May 16, 2008 - 10:27 ET by mister josephThe point I was making is that those who say "oh, this isn't going to lead to this...(insert bad thing in the name of progressive behavior)" are lying. i have no problem with a person's lifestyle choice.
Ok MP
May 16, 2008 - 10:29 ET by shawn228Thanks for clearing that up :-)
Forcing Gay Marriage
May 16, 2008 - 10:32 ET by MeanderingYep, how long will it be now before the government will force religious establishments to marry gay and lesbian couples or face a lawsuit? So much for separation from church an state.
sodomy...
May 16, 2008 - 11:05 ET by ontheright...is unatural and the perpetuation of this deviant lifestyle (homosexuality) DOES in fact affect the rest of us. Whether this perverse act is "committed" in private or not, there are measureable and adverse social side-effects.
This very court ruling is undeniable proof of this very thing.
sodomy....
May 16, 2008 - 11:14 ET by shawn228is no longer limited to homosexuals , many heteralsexual are now into the starfish action as well.
Are you condomning the gay lifestyle? Or the act of sodomy itself, or both?
Also how natural is fellatio? Can it not also have some side effects?
Wow...I never thought when
May 16, 2008 - 11:16 ET by balboaWow...I never thought when I woke up today that I'd read the words "starfish action" on this site.
Starfish action?
May 16, 2008 - 14:28 ET by SyriusI always thought we were only supposed to copulate when we wanted to add to our flock. Procreation and that's all, correct? I'm going to ask my wife if we can practice again. I love practicing...
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
we red staters went into a
May 16, 2008 - 23:12 ET by mister josephwe red staters went into a bit of a blue state there, dinnit?
bal
May 17, 2008 - 22:24 ET by shawn228The only clean metaphor I could think of for sodomy.
Both
May 16, 2008 - 11:18 ET by ontherightI am not now, nor have I ever lived my life with the stranglehold of the PC leash around my neck. I don't care if the deviants dis-like, or even hate me. They (insert deviant of choice) are the problem, not the rest of us God fearing, tax paying, law-abiding citizens. It will be they who will be mercilessly scrutinized when the time comes.
Homosexuality, and any other deviant (read: against the laws of God and man) lifestyle/behavior is a choice and is not recognized in the whole of nature.
Add me to the God fearing
May 16, 2008 - 11:52 ET by taterAdd me to the God fearing list...
Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, sensual lust, enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world. Yet the world and its enticement are passing away. But whoever does the will of God remains forever. 1 John 2: 15-17
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
Joyous Out for Obama garden party
May 16, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Tim GrahamThe decision by the judicial legislators on California's Supreme Court will no doubt energize this weekend's "Out for Obama" garden party in Washington, DC this weekend at the home of lesbian activist/party organizer Sheila Alexander-Reid.
Its a bunch of bs
May 16, 2008 - 10:15 ET by shawn228The court should not overrule something the voters clearing overwhelmingly wanted.
You mean like banning
May 16, 2008 - 11:49 ET by Dan The Man 2You mean like banning abortions?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Or allowing
May 16, 2008 - 11:54 ET by sarcasmoSick people to smoke pot instead of using my tax dollars to attack them in contravention of the 9th & 10th amendments? (Another losing issue for Republicans, if my bet is right, even though IMO Obama isn't sincere!)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Hmmm...
May 16, 2008 - 14:42 ET by SyriusThere's a number of landmark cases which helped in turning the tide...
As for the authority of the courts...
http://writ.news.fin...
Marbury
v. Madison (1803)
Brown
v. Board of Education (1954)
—Chief
Justice Earl Warren
For those who enjoy constitutional law and strict interpretations of the Constitution, rejoice in the ruling.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
For those who enjoy law
May 16, 2008 - 17:33 ET by NL207For those who enjoy law ....
"`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'."
How do you suppose the Court should interpret this law?
Unconstitutional?
May 16, 2008 - 18:42 ET by SyriusNL207,
Loving v. Virginia:
The law stated "If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored
person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony
and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not lass
than one nor more than five years."
The trial judge had ruled and said,"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red,
and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference
with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The
fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the
races to mix."
The Supreme Court overturned the trial judge and Va. law and stated- "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as
the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications
so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the
Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of
liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires
that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious
racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry,
or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and
cannot be infringed by the State."
Although a right to marry is not listed in the Constitution, the Court has
held such a right is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment
because such decisions are fundamental to our survival and our
consciences. As such, they must necessarily reside with the individual
rather than with the state.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
1. The litigants in
May 17, 2008 - 11:23 ET by NL2071. The litigants in Loving v. Virginia were a Man-Woman couple. Hence they met the test of the definition of a Marriage. That definition is also not provided in the Constitution. The Founders, when they framed the Constitution saw no reason to define it there because for their purposes, it had already been defined by God and was so obvious as to not require explicit language. The Framers would roll over in their collective graves if they could see what you and others of like mind to you are doing today.
2. "freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race"
Where does this mention another person of the same gender? You and these other knuckleheads are demanding a Judicial extension of law to redefine what the word "marriage" actually means. Congress found it necessary to explain to these errant Judges what the word "marriage" meant with respect to Faith and Credit, a power the Constitution clearly conferred upon the Congress in Article IV, section 1: "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof" It appears these Judges cannot understand the English language.
3. "fundamental to our very existence and survival"
There are some people who would take these words by that judge to mean a reference to procreation. The vast majority of marriages at the time of Loving produced progeny. Today, the majority of marriages still produce progeny. The production of children by functional parents within functional family units is widely held to be fundamental to the survival of society. However, many Homosexuals nevertheless contemptuously refer to heterosexual couples as "Breeders" while at the same time indulging their own perverse fantasies without contributing a thing to the future of society except competition for scarce resources to those trying to bring tomorrow's citizens into the world.
In order to compel public acceptance of their liasons, these same Homosexuals wish to redefine the legal covenants of marriage to include their sordid affairs. If they succeed, what will be next? Will we then redifine 'marriage' a second time to allow Beastilators to marry their sheep? Will NAMBLA be the next "civil rights" movement?
I hope for your sake that you are not this easy in the bedroom.
Not so, it's the other way around...
May 17, 2008 - 16:54 ET by SyriusNL207,
The Framers would roll over in their collective graves if they could
see what you and others of like mind too, are doing today.
Actually, the founding fathers of the Constitution would be shocked to find this country still using the same document they penned! Plus, they were believed in a secular form of government instead of a religious one. Some believed each generation to rethink the constitution...as Jefferson stated,"Let us not weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as
another of taking care of itself.... The dead have no rights." You can even go back in history to the puritans who believed marriage as a civil affair and not a religious one. The continued references to religion and marriage will continue to unravel as you research history. Just a fair warning you may not like what you see...
As for the three branches of government being equal...So, far so good. It may not be perfect and to your liking nothing ever will be...Just wait and see, there's hope of "change" in the air. Breathe in!
You wrote (by the way-I'm blown away by this statement!)...However, many Homosexuals nevertheless contemptuously refer to
heterosexual couples as "Breeders" while at the same time indulging
their own perverse fantasies without contributing a thing to the future
of society except competition for scarce resources to those trying to
bring tomorrow's citizens into the world.
We call ourselves "straight" as if they are bent? As for contributions to society?!? Do you need a list? It would fill up too much space...here's the link, though you'll never read it.
http://en.wikipedia....
Since you won't here's a few...
Beastilators? NAMBLA?
May 17, 2008 - 16:58 ET by SyriusNL207,
Do you hang out with Santorum? Projecting something? Repression leads to depression without a true confession...
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius, you really should
May 17, 2008 - 20:34 ET by Roger the ShrubberSyrius, you really should put a little more effort when you have been verbally beaten down. You give yourself away when you throw out your predictable "projecting" line. You need some new material.
Looks to me like the debate
May 18, 2008 - 15:49 ET by NL207Looks to me like the debate is over and you lose.
Thank you for playing. Come again anytime.
The problem must be
May 16, 2008 - 10:15 ET by sarcasmoAll those Democrat appointee judges. Oops.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
ha ha ha ha
May 16, 2008 - 10:21 ET by candanceWait, you means RINOs appoint lousy judges as bad as the Democrats do?
That sound you hear is McCain dropping one of his trump cards.
I'll bet the statists still resent
May 16, 2008 - 10:24 ET by sarcasmoThe small-government side's tiny victory in the Harriet Myers fiasco. And they're about to have their revenge on us.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
It's just another step in
May 16, 2008 - 10:18 ET by taterIt's just another step in the moral corruption started in the 60s with the sexual revolution. Contraception was the first step, then abortion, gay marriage is next, then we go on to remove what beastility, pedophilia, something else I've never even heard of?
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
By the People? Nope, Judges.
May 16, 2008 - 10:20 ET by MeanderingI remember when the average American had a say in things this country did. Now its left up to judges. Why then do we vote on things (referendums or whatever) if the judges are just going to over turn it anyway? How many more states will follow thanks to this ruling? This isn't a sexual orientation thing this is a democracy thing. If our opinions as a whole don't count anymore, what's next, Socialism? Wait that's what the liberals want anyway.
homos learned to use the judges
May 16, 2008 - 12:33 ET by SouthJersey1953When the homos learned they couldn't convince the public to accept their deviant lifestyle, they learned that there are judges that can "make" the laws for them, with a lot less hassle than trying to get a law passed.
CONGRESS needs to stand up and demand that the judicial branch stop doing their job for them.
I refuse to call the homosexuals "gay" because "gay" means happy/lighthearted and has nothing to do with sexual preferances.
The Judicial Branch has
May 16, 2008 - 12:36 ET by MeanderingThe Judicial Branch has been doing that now for as long as I can remember. Why should they stop now, because the majority of American says so? I don't think so, they are going to need more than that. When I applied for my job there were a list of duties I was going to perform, I think judges need to have something similar especially stating they don't make the laws, they interpret the laws!
Problem is, they will argue
May 16, 2008 - 15:37 ET by ThermistoclesProblem is, they will argue that they are doing just that, interpreting the law. The problem is that they are egocentric and relativistic, which translates to "The lay means what I say it means, at this particular point in time."
Unfortunately, this is pretty ingrained in our culture, to the point where the phrase "living constitution" does not even raise an eyebrow.
It is getting to the point
May 16, 2008 - 10:33 ET by motherbeltIt is getting to the point where the will of the people doesn't matter; things are routinely decided by 4 (in this case) or 5 (SCOTUS) judges.
Even though it has legal implications, marriage is basically a social construct; it it not a legal "right."
This goes back to my theory of no right and wrong anymore, only what is or isn't "legal." Can anyone make a cogent argument why polygamy is wrong, in light of this? How about marrying a 12 year-old? Or one's sister? The only thing stopping them now is that they are illegal. Will these things be the next battleground for "legality"?
And once things are "legal" that's the end of the argument. It's legal. Shut up.
Social constructs
May 16, 2008 - 15:29 ET by KC MulvilleThat's why this ruling is so off-base.
Marriage is a social institution. It isn't just that two people are "declaring their love" and that "they want to live together." As a social institution, it also means that they're seeking society's approval of their relationship. If they don't want society's recognition, well, it's a free country ... they can go live together without interference these days. But when they decide to get married, they're specifically asking society to approve that relationship.
The reason polygamy and incest are illegal is the simple fact that society doesn't approve of them. We don't approve of same-sex marriage either, but these judges have ignored that. What's short-sighted about this court decision is that for the sake of "equality," this one-vote majority has threatened a deeper principle: namely, that social institutions depend on social approval. If you remove "social approval" as the basis of social institutions, the institutions have no authority, and therefore no meaning.
But these judges aren't that deep. They're like kids playing with legal matches.
Imposing this ruling on the
May 16, 2008 - 15:43 ET by ThermistoclesImposing this ruling on the rest of us will only be a matter of time also. School books ( or anything else out there ) that don't portray homosexual "marriage" as being on equal footing will soon be sued into submission. It's already in the works.
Don't like it? BHO and his ilk are anxious to expand "hate crimes". It sounds paranoid and crazy, until you realize where we are today and where we were 30 years ago.
Change a word, change society
May 16, 2008 - 17:23 ET by nkviking75One of the many troubling aspects of this case and others like it is that judges can legalize "gay marriage" by literally changing the meaning of the word "marriage". No government felt the need to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman because it was a given. It was as true as saying 2+2=4. If judges had to consider original intent, there'd be no room for these rulings.
We have to cut back the power of the judiciary, and not just by a little bit.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Interesting twist for November
May 16, 2008 - 10:35 ET by bbeemanIt appears that an initiative to amend the California constitution will be on the November ballot, which would overturn this decision if passed.
If so, this has interesting implications in turns of getting out more of the conservative vote than normal. Probably a long shot to say that that would be enough to tip the state for McCain, but you do have to remember that we aren't all leftist out here, despite the way the media pitches it.
I also wonder if this will touch off another attempt to reform the Court...we did get rid of Rose Bird and some of her ilk...just not all of them.
slight difference bbee
May 16, 2008 - 10:55 ET by candanceBush was so successful with that in 2004 because he was seen as the champion of conservative values who would work to stop these things. If McCain really wanted to use that strategy he'd come out right now condemning the court, promoting the amendment, and including such values in his rhetoric - but you don't see him doing that.
A lot of Republicans are already saying they'll show up to vote for local issues but will write in a name for POTUS. This will probably not change anything for McCain's benefit.
candance, have either Obama
May 16, 2008 - 12:38 ET by motherbeltcandance, have either Obama or Clinton commented yet?
My thinking is that all three are going to try to avoid having to say anything about it.
motherbelt
May 16, 2008 - 12:42 ET by candanceNot really sure. Was watching CNN Headline last night (during Glenn Beck) and they said that Hillary supported a marriage ban if the public really wanted it, but they didn't mention her saying anything about this. If Obama said anything it was too quiet to make the news.
Good luck on the amendment.
May 16, 2008 - 15:48 ET by ThermistoclesGood luck on the amendment. Don't be suprised if the judges rule the amendment unconstituional.
Fifteen years ago, there was a similar amendment passed in Colorado and it was ruled unconstituional by their supreme court. When I heard this I thought it was a joke. I'm still not sure how they could do that but they did.
Today's Peggy Noonan-A MUST READ
May 16, 2008 - 10:46 ET by Caringwhiteguyhttp://online.wsj.co...
I've had my differences with her over the years. She writes a lot better than she comes off on TV (smug & arrogant). But today's column is absolutely outstanding. It lays out the huge challenge we face. We've talked a lot here recently about LEADERSHIP or the lack thereof. Noonan provides re-enforcement.
thx
May 16, 2008 - 23:56 ET by WesenThanks for the link. Sorry to say I didn' think much of it... it looks lke Peggy is forgetting to take her Soy. She was a bright spot after 9-11 but her bulb is getting dimmer.
I know I'm gonna take heat
May 16, 2008 - 10:58 ET by BruzillaI know I'm gonna take heat for this one, but I wanted to mention how Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) seems to be running rampant through Republican ranks and turning lots of folks into the same mindless zombies we've accused Democrats of being for decades. For example:
1. Rev. Wright. The action line here is that Obama has been hearing racist sermons for 20 years but never left the church so he must share those racist views. The only facts in this discussion are that Obama has been a member of the church for 20 years, Wright was the pastor when he was a member, and there are two DVDs of sermons from 2007 that show Wright making racist comments. Every one of Wright's sermons was taped and available for sale, so why is it after all this time, no one seems to be able to find recordings of any racist sermons aside from those two? Wright also made some anti-US statements after 9/11, but they were of the same type that many religious folks were saying, so I don't hold that against him. There is absolutely zero proof that Wright has been making racist sermons for 20 years. None, zip, nada... and yet many Republicans have bought into the echo chamber effect and believe with 100% certainty that this is true! This is no different than when the Tin Hatters claim with 100% certainty that Bush was behind 9/11. We keep asking "where's the evidence?" and when they can produce none we write them off... and now here we are doing the same damn thing.
2. Speaking of Wright, there are lots of Conservative pundits making statements like Obama should renounce his church, his pastor, etc., because the church and pastor said things they don't like. Many are also saying that Obama shouldn't be President because of his church. For as long as I've been a Republican, we have always held religious freedom very highly, and never attacked it. We have attacked national religious figures like Jackson, Sharpton, and Farrakhan, and the Left has attacked Falwell, Robertson, and Graham, but going after a specific candidate's personal minister was never done... and now we're doing it.
Also, our candidates have often been members of churches that made statements derogatory of gays, divoricees, women who had abortions, Jews, Christians, etc., and we have always held that the views of the church are not necessarily the views of the candidate. We told Gays they should vote for a Christian candidate despite the fact his Church hates gays because they are electing the man and not the church. And what are we doing now... because a minister said something that offends us for a change? We start acting exactly like Democrats.
3. Negotiations with our enemies is another issue. It's true that opening negotiations with Syria or Iran is no guarantee that anything useful will happen, but the truth is there's no guarantee that nothing will happen. The Norwegians succeeded in getting a peace agreement where we totally failed in the early 1990s, so in my opinion the only way to guarantee a diplomatic solution will fail is to never try one. And yet here we are, after seven years of berating Democrats for their refusal to accept options and just wanting to cut and run, acting just like Democrats. Many of us are lockstepped to the idea that negotiations should never be done as they are guaranteed to fail! Guaranteed by who? Why do so many of us rush to agree with the party line, despite years of faulting Democrats of doing that very thing?
4. Experience vs. Liberalism is another case of ODS. We have lots of Republican voices rushing about saying how Obama has no record... we don't know about him... he has never done anything... then we hear that he's extremely Liberal and has always voted for Liberal causes! Well, wait a minute... if we don't know anything about him, why do we know he's a Liberal? If he's never accomplished anything, how do we know so much about how he has voted? These are the types of contradictory attacks that the Democrats have made for years and that we've agained condemned them for. And what are we doing now? Again... the same damn thing! Why can't we say that Obama has a solid record in the Illlinois State and US Senates of writing and voting for Liberal issues and attack him on that? Why must we lower ourselves to the Dem level by saying something stupid like "this guy has never done anything, and based on all the things he has done we think he's the most liberal Senator there is!"
5. Yesterday we had someone trying hard to equate someone's personal investments with the investments of fundraisers. Your personal investments are under your control, the investments of fundraisers are under their control, and yet ODS enables some of us to make the same inane conclusions that the Dems have tried for years to make about Cheney and Halliburton (Cheney was once accociated with Halliburton = He's still calling the shots for them!) We've denounced these rediculous conclusions for years, and now ODS is leading some to try to make the case that Obama should be as aware of what investments some campaign donor has in a mutual fund as Cindi McCain is aware of investments that are in her personal fund. If the reverse allegation were made, we would be howling like crazy at Democrats for making such a rediculous charge.
6. This is the biggest one... ODS is leading many Republicans to start thinging that Hillary Clinton, one of the biggest lying, deceitful, disreputable, egotitstic, and slimy politicians in our history is being upfront and honest! Almost everly attempted smear that the Clintonites offer up gets eagerly accepted as fact by ODS sufferers quicker that an anti-Bush allegation gets swallowed by Rosie O'Donnell. Flagpins, his middle name, is he a muslim, wa she a dope dealer, is he crooked, etc., time and time again, when we should be attacking him on Lib issues like universal healthcare and increased taxes, we're all playing in HRC's echo chamber and denouncing a guy for not wearing a lapel pin.
Remember back to the days when attacks like this on Republicans used to bring our ire to the Democrats? And what are we doing now... the same damn thing as we used to attack them for doing.
I think if the rank & file of Newsbusters wants to retain their reputation as always seeking the truth in the media, many of us need to get some ODS innoculations as I'm seeing more and more cases of Republicans blindly accepting stories that are based on supposition and innuendo and not facts, accepting contentions without really thinking about both sides and applying a degree of onjectivity and fairness, and basically doing all the same crap we've rebelled against for decades. Acting this way will bring about the end of the Republican party far faster than any war.
Praise the Lord, and pass
May 16, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Jack BauerPraise the Lord, and pass the Obama ammo!
Sorry Bruz -- but this is way too hand-wringing for me. But if it's for you, go for it.
Also you seem to be placing way to much emphasis on what Newsbuster should or should not be.
It was my understanding
May 16, 2008 - 17:47 ET by BruzillaIt was my understanding that the purpose of Newsbusters was to expose bias in the media. I just am seeing a lot of folks on here turning a blind eye to blatant bias just because they don't think much of the person it is directed at.
All I'm asking is for people to stop making knee-jerk reactions to stories in the media. That is what Democrats do! Think through the story, apply some reason, and then make a comment. If you find you are writing "It's about time Obama took heat for...", or "Liberals are just crying because...", or "Liberals deserve all the ...", most of the time, you might be suffering from ODS and in need of a quick fix of Republicanism.
Not an attack...just a footnote.
May 16, 2008 - 18:54 ET by SyriusJack,
"Obama ammo"? A little too close to MLK's killing, don't you think? Just a thought...
Syrius
Not really. Just a lame
May 17, 2008 - 05:39 ET by Jack BauerNot really. Just a lame paraody by me of the old quote, can't remember were it came from, a movie I think. Joesy Wales?
I'd like to reassure everyone I'm not advocating some nut to shoot the Senator.
I think it's a stretch to read that into it. Besides... Barack is managing to shoot himself in the foot, thank you very much.
Such as: he makes a silly fluff in a YouTube debate -- but instead of correcting, he makes it into an untenable policy that he now has to defend like grim death. More fool him!