2004 Presidential Election. - Page 10

Azselendor · #91 November 17th, 2004, 02:01 AM

The irony with that comment is that hitler operated under the assumption he was the second coming...

As for bush, I can assure you that a lot of his supporters are gonna jump party lines if his social security plan gets passed.

Atrocities · #92 November 17th, 2004, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Klvino [ORB] said:
The irony with that comment is that hitler operated under the assumption he was the second coming...

As for bush, I can assure you that a lot of his supporters are gonna jump party lines if his social security plan gets passed.

I don't really know at this point what people will do given what other people do.

Will · #93 November 17th, 2004, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Atrocities said:
Comparing the tradition of marrage to racisim is IMHO like comparing Jesus to Hitler.

Godwin's Law: As an Online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

I don't think Instar was comparing marriage to racism, per se, but more to the parallel between largely ignorant masses imposing their will on an entire segment of the population based on shakey, dubious, and sometimes outright false "facts". Such as the widely held belief in previous centuries that whites were superior to other races. When really, it was probably largely a result of European cultures happening upon a sustained technological advance useful for conquering other cultures. I would say it's pretty much a fluke that say, the Chinese never considered gunpowder as a weapon, and then went on to conquer the world. Yet people, especially white ones, believed that because of their expansion, whites were superior. And some still do.

The solution of the State using only the term "civil union", and ditching the idea of marriage entirely as a State-recognized relationship would probably be the best idea, if it could be implemented. There's hundreds of years of both legislation and common law on multiple levels of government that will need to be modified for that to happen. But if it did, the biggest argument against gay marriage (the so-called religious connection) would vaporize. Unfortunately, I think there will still be a large portion of the population opposed to "gay civil unions". And a lot of people probably having a big hissy fit because government did what they "wanted" and didn't use the term marriage for homosexuals... but then went "too far" and eliminated it from the law books entirely.

Azselendor · #94 November 18th, 2004, 03:32 AM

Well, you know it's a telling sign that it most likely doesn't hold water when thier first option is to amend the federal constitution. To me, this says that not only will it not hold up to judicial review, but they already know that attempting to restrict the word 'Marriage' to become the eclusive trademark of hetrosexual relationships, is a lost cause.

Take the states that amended thier state constitutions to ban gay marriage. Honestly, how long will those amendments Last? Under federal Constitutional Law, EVERY state must give full faith and credit to the legal documents of each other. Under the law, the Judge has to rule that the state constitution is in conflict with Federal Constitution and must have the amendment on the state level stricken.

There is practically no grounds by which an anti-marriage law for gays will hold any ground without amending the federal constitution.

And Atrocities, if people read the fine print about Bush's Social Security plan, they will see something sneaking in the door with it. It's a nasty three-letter word.

Atrocities · #95 November 18th, 2004, 04:40 PM

I have read that they also want to amend the constitution so that foriegners can run for the Office of the President. OH HELL NO.................. HELLLLLLLL NOOOOOOO.

Azselendor · #96 November 18th, 2004, 11:09 PM

I absolutely agree on that. No foreigners as president.

Well, I would make an exception for those admitted into the united states as citizens under the age of 10 and remained in the US for, say, 7/8th's or 11/12th's of the time since then.

tesco samoa · #97 November 19th, 2004, 01:53 PM

perhaps open to anyone with a us citizenship. That seems fair.

You already allow people with criminal records to run...

Azselendor · #98 November 20th, 2004, 02:22 PM

It is open to anyone with US citizenship - so long as you are born into that citizenship.

naturalized citizens cannot run, that's why I suggested that naturalized citizens under the age of ten and remained in the country for a significant majority of thier life should also have that right.

Atrocities · #99 November 21st, 2004, 07:48 PM

No, the constitutional law was establish to ensure that no foriegn power ever gained control of our nations higest office. I am not a bit sorry to say that Arnold can kiss my big bare butt if he things for a instant that the US population would ever change the constitution so that he or any other foriegn citizan of the US could become the President.

JMO

Colonel · #**100** November 21st, 2004, 08:54 PM

Atrocites, the problem with that is there are people who would vote to change the constution to allow him to become President. Also the law wasnt established to protect us from a Foriegn power gaining control of the highest office, it was established because the Founders felt that a person who moved here could not understand the political and economic needs of the populus aswell the cultrue difference between the Forigner and the natural citizens.