100,000 Americans murdered since 9/11 (and not by terr'ists)
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Why not?
Chris, the thread is so large now I can't see the post you are replying to?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But, Mike's point in this case is very valid.
That is highly doubtful. All I can remember about his statements on this subject is he wanted to have that same tired argument claiming that gays never had the right to marry and therefore the new laws do not restrict their freedom. That is just not true, they can't prove it, so he doesn't have a point. He and those like him will post all sorts of word smithing to support their claim, not proof mind you, just twisted words that hide the truth, that they never had the right, but logically it does not hold up. But as I stated I have no idea if that is what you are talking about. :)
Well, it is true that they never had the right to marry under US law. So, if anything they have gained in that it is now acceptable under law. No word smithing there. That's the truth. Which truth is that covering up?
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Speak for yourself. That was pretty funny.
Really? Well I'm not white. So, I guess the jokes on you, moron.
Call me some more names. You're exposing your wonderfully creative personality with these inane attempts. I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny. It appears that you have a stick up your butt. Attempting to look smart clever by insulting other people. Interesting.
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I'm still curious what you think qualifies as such. Specific citations too please..
If you can't feel it in your soul what the hell difference does a citation make? The commander in chief asked permission to use force, the congress granted it. That is the end of all debate on the subject. Nothing else matters. After that, you win. During the American Civil War Abraham Lincoln bansihed a seating congressman (from Ohio, I beleive) from the US for saying things far less inflamatory than Bush has had to endure. He denounced "King Lincoln," calling for Abraham Lincoln's removal from the presidency. On May 5 he was arrested as a violator of General Order No. 38. Vallandigham's enraged supporters burned the offices of the Dayton Journal, the Republican rival to the Empire. Vallandigham was tried by a military court 6-7 May, denied a writ of "habeas corpus", convicted by a military tribunal of "uttering disloyal sentiments" and attempting to hinder the prosecution of the war, and sentenced to 2 years' confinement in a military prison. [^] Lincoln had this [^] to say on the subject. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensabale means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. IOW, defending the nation gave him the authority to break what ever laws he felt necessary.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Does defending the nation excuse unlawful acts? Does that trump the rule of law?
It always has - or at least it
It didn't give him authority. He took it and stood by it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.
I'll say it again. The president is not a King. He is a public servant. We have all the right in the world to criticize him. But I want to know what you define as undermining. That's the topic. You didn't answer that. Instead your reply is basically: "Lincoln did it, so its right." Whatever.
This statement was never false.
-
Well, it is true that they never had the right to marry under US law. So, if anything they have gained in that it is now acceptable under law. No word smithing there. That's the truth. Which truth is that covering up?
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
No word smithing there.
led mike wrote:
not proof mind you
Not word smithing? really? Maybe something is something wrong with my browser but your post is not displaying any citations to support your claim. That is exactly what I was talking about.
-
It didn't give him authority. He took it and stood by it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.
I'll say it again. The president is not a King. He is a public servant. We have all the right in the world to criticize him. But I want to know what you define as undermining. That's the topic. You didn't answer that. Instead your reply is basically: "Lincoln did it, so its right." Whatever.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
It didn't give him authority. He took it and stood by it.
And I never indicated otherwise. But Lincoln's actions fly in the face of the use of the freedom vs. security appeal. Clearly, Lincoln put security before freedom. Was he un-American? You simply cannot treat that question as merely an artifact of historic curiosity. It has a direct bearing on the issues we confront today. Either you are wrong or Lincoln was. Which is it?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
The president is not a King. He is a public servant.
He is a public servant who's primary consitutional responsibility is not safe quarding phone calls but safe quarding the physical security of the nation. To do the former at the expense of the latter would be the grossest possible violation of the constitution any president could possibly commit.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
We have all the right in the world to criticize him.
And I never said otherwise. But saying "I disagree with the presidents actions" is criticism. While saying "Bush is guilty of murder and profiteering and ... [add your delusional paranoia here]..." goes far beyond criticism. It challanges the very motives for the actions of the president in a way, which if not true, are, at least, bordering on treason.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But I want to know what you define as undermining. That's the topic. You didn't answer that.
I define undermining as the organized expression of sentiments which essentially make the enemies arguments for him at the expense of our president's stated goals. If Bush is, in fact, what his harshest critics say of him, than organized resistance to his actions are entirely justified. The enemy should be killing our troops in order to defend themselves against an unjust military action. In fact, the enemy should be admired for such resistance. They become the heroes, and the president the villian. Either the president is a villian or he isn't. If he isn't than he at least deserves respect and respectful criticism. And if he is, than, yes, he should at the very least be impeached.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Instead your reply is basically: "Lincoln did it, so its right."
But Lincoln makes my argument for me in a so much more eloquent way.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
It didn't give him authority. He took it and stood by it.
And I never indicated otherwise. But Lincoln's actions fly in the face of the use of the freedom vs. security appeal. Clearly, Lincoln put security before freedom. Was he un-American? You simply cannot treat that question as merely an artifact of historic curiosity. It has a direct bearing on the issues we confront today. Either you are wrong or Lincoln was. Which is it?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
The president is not a King. He is a public servant.
He is a public servant who's primary consitutional responsibility is not safe quarding phone calls but safe quarding the physical security of the nation. To do the former at the expense of the latter would be the grossest possible violation of the constitution any president could possibly commit.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
We have all the right in the world to criticize him.
And I never said otherwise. But saying "I disagree with the presidents actions" is criticism. While saying "Bush is guilty of murder and profiteering and ... [add your delusional paranoia here]..." goes far beyond criticism. It challanges the very motives for the actions of the president in a way, which if not true, are, at least, bordering on treason.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But I want to know what you define as undermining. That's the topic. You didn't answer that.
I define undermining as the organized expression of sentiments which essentially make the enemies arguments for him at the expense of our president's stated goals. If Bush is, in fact, what his harshest critics say of him, than organized resistance to his actions are entirely justified. The enemy should be killing our troops in order to defend themselves against an unjust military action. In fact, the enemy should be admired for such resistance. They become the heroes, and the president the villian. Either the president is a villian or he isn't. If he isn't than he at least deserves respect and respectful criticism. And if he is, than, yes, he should at the very least be impeached.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Instead your reply is basically: "Lincoln did it, so its right."
But Lincoln makes my argument for me in a so much more eloquent way.
Sentiments can't undermine. Sentiments are in line with criticism. This is a free country. We are allowed our sentiments. Direct actions are different. But a sentiment is an opinion. Not treasonous.
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
No word smithing there.
led mike wrote:
not proof mind you
Not word smithing? really? Maybe something is something wrong with my browser but your post is not displaying any citations to support your claim. That is exactly what I was talking about.
Do you have any citations that prove your claim that Gay Marriage was a right under the law.. ever?
This statement was never false.
-
Sentiments can't undermine. Sentiments are in line with criticism. This is a free country. We are allowed our sentiments. Direct actions are different. But a sentiment is an opinion. Not treasonous.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But a sentiment is an opinion. Not treasonous.
I'm sure Clement Vallandigham felt exactly the same way. Both of you put your sentiments before the good of the country which the commander in chief is obligated to defend. Clement learned a lesson that many today badly need be educated on as well. I think banishing a few of the leaders of our modern 'copperhead' party to Iran would just about do the trick. I just wish Bush had a little more Lincoln in him (now thats respectful criticism, just in case you're taking notes).
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
This is a free country
No thanks to sentiments, but rather to presidents who understood what their oath to the constitution really meant.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But a sentiment is an opinion. Not treasonous.
I'm sure Clement Vallandigham felt exactly the same way. Both of you put your sentiments before the good of the country which the commander in chief is obligated to defend. Clement learned a lesson that many today badly need be educated on as well. I think banishing a few of the leaders of our modern 'copperhead' party to Iran would just about do the trick. I just wish Bush had a little more Lincoln in him (now thats respectful criticism, just in case you're taking notes).
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
This is a free country
No thanks to sentiments, but rather to presidents who understood what their oath to the constitution really meant.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
I keep my sentiments to myself for the most part. I've only stated that he's abused his power here in this forum. That's not undermining him. That's voicing my view. And I have that right as a citizen and it can't be considered treason. That's going overboard.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No thanks to sentiments, but rather to presidents who understood what their oath to the constitution really meant.
And not in spite of sentiments either.
This statement was never false.
-
Call me some more names. You're exposing your wonderfully creative personality with these inane attempts. I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny. It appears that you have a stick up your butt. Attempting to look smart clever by insulting other people. Interesting.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny.
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny.
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
And why would I care about that, and why would I even be offended? You're not doing to well at this insult thing. Why insult people you disagree with? Is it inversely reflective of your ability to reason?
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny.
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
And why would I care about that, and why would I even be offended? You're not doing to well at this insult thing. Why insult people you disagree with? Is it inversely reflective of your ability to reason?
I forgot what we were even talking about, to be honest. Congrats, you've bored me to tears.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny.
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
Hahahahaha.... thanks. I needed to laugh.
This statement was never false.
-
Do you have any citations that prove your claim that Gay Marriage was a right under the law.. ever?
This statement was never false.
Geez dude, didn't I already explain this is rehash of the same old boring argument. We all have the right to "Life, Liberty (Freedom), and the pursuit of happiness". Since we "all" have those rights you obviously can't infringe on my rights or you are violating the spirit of freedom. So if you are not impinging on someone else's unalienable rights, or there isn't a "written" law you are violating then you are "free" to do what makes you happy. So do you have any written laws to quote or are you just going to trot out the same old boring illogical nonsense about how if they had the right they would have been doing it a long time ago. If you think that passes for logic I certainly hope you are not a software developer.
-
Geez dude, didn't I already explain this is rehash of the same old boring argument. We all have the right to "Life, Liberty (Freedom), and the pursuit of happiness". Since we "all" have those rights you obviously can't infringe on my rights or you are violating the spirit of freedom. So if you are not impinging on someone else's unalienable rights, or there isn't a "written" law you are violating then you are "free" to do what makes you happy. So do you have any written laws to quote or are you just going to trot out the same old boring illogical nonsense about how if they had the right they would have been doing it a long time ago. If you think that passes for logic I certainly hope you are not a software developer.
We're talking about a marriage recognized by the Federal branch for tax purposes. That's it. Has the government ever recognized Gay Marriage for tax purposes?
led mike wrote:
If you think that passes for logic I certainly hope you are not a software developer.
Now you've sunk to ad hominid attacks huh? Sounds like you're the one word smithing. And I hope you're not a software developer as your logic is suspect. You're too close to the problem.
This statement was never false.
-
We're talking about a marriage recognized by the Federal branch for tax purposes. That's it. Has the government ever recognized Gay Marriage for tax purposes?
led mike wrote:
If you think that passes for logic I certainly hope you are not a software developer.
Now you've sunk to ad hominid attacks huh? Sounds like you're the one word smithing. And I hope you're not a software developer as your logic is suspect. You're too close to the problem.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
for tax purposes?
When did "taxes" become a part of this question? Oh right, when you decided to go off topic thinking I wouldn't notice *rolleyes*
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Now you've sunk to ad hominid attacks huh?
My bad, sorry.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
your logic is suspect. You're too close to the problem.
You have still not provided any evidence that shows any original federal or natural law that prohibited same sex marriage. Unless you do your claim that they never had the right is unfounded. That logic is inescapable. If the evidence exists then it exists and that would be inescapable. So you either have it or you don't, it has nothing to do with taxes. The tax argument might be a good one in favor of an amendment that limits marriage to opposite sexes but has no bearing on whether or not they ever were limited by federal or natural law.
-
We're talking about a marriage recognized by the Federal branch for tax purposes. That's it. Has the government ever recognized Gay Marriage for tax purposes?
led mike wrote:
If you think that passes for logic I certainly hope you are not a software developer.
Now you've sunk to ad hominid attacks huh? Sounds like you're the one word smithing. And I hope you're not a software developer as your logic is suspect. You're too close to the problem.
This statement was never false.
led mike wrote:
when you decided to go off topic thinking I wouldn't notice *rolleyes*
Now you're pulling a Red speaking for another. Welcome to the led logic prism. The whole issue of legality centers around benefits received from being married. Which, the leading benefit is a tax break. Twist it some more. I can see that you and Red are indeed two sides of the same coin.
led mike wrote:
You have still not provided any evidence that shows any original federal or natural law that prohibited same sex marriage. Unless you do your claim that they never had the right is unfounded. That logic is inescapable. If the evidence exists then it exists and that would be inescapable. So you either have it or you don't, it has nothing to do with taxes. The tax argument might be a good one in favor of an amendment that limits marriage to opposite sexes but has no bearing on whether or not they ever were limited by federal or natural law.
And you still haven't shown that they ever had that right UNDER LAW. And you're avoiding the logic by putting a burden of proof on my statement. I'd have to display all laws, and then show that that law never existed. Quite the task really and isn't even possible with the amount of time I have. You only have to cite one law that says they had the right under law. My position is that a law never existed which gave the right. You contend the right is invisible with the others as, if it isn't stated then its a given. Yet, there isn't any recorded same sex marriages. It wasn't even socially acceptable. I'd accept the gains you've received and quit whining about splitting these hairs of legality. Like I said, you're too close to the problem. Hopefully the day comes when your marriage is recognized as equal and valid.
This statement was never false.