Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Social Issues > Bullying

Bullying Until recently, Bullying has been identified as a major concern in our Society.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 27th, 2012, 04:58 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332895761' post='392195

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332893014' post='392149']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332891208' post='392140']

When I say something on here it is not an attempt to intimidate, it is an attempt to share my opinion (and more importantly) the reason behind my opinion.



My reasons are based on logic not dogma, the Constitution not opinion and reason not emotion.



It's why you always end up trying to twist my words becuase you have no logic, the Constitution does not support you (and your lack of knowledge of it and our legal system is pretty well known) and you resort to emotion over reason.



This is not bullying, I'm not attempting to intimidate you or humiliate you.



I'm just out debating you.




When you say your opinions are based on the Constitution does that include your opinion that I am like Baghdad Bob? I don't recall seeing his name in there




No, that opinion is based on logic and reason....the Constitution has nothing to do with it



Well, other than the fact that it is obvious that you don't understand the Constitution but keep trying to make arguments based on it



It's that inability to face reality (that you don't understand the Constitution) and you continual efforts to ignore reality (you keep trying to argue about the Constitution) that has earned you the nickname Baghdad Gary.



Just like the orignal Baghdad Bob, who continued to talk about how Saddam was winning the war while American tanks ran through the streets of Baghdad behind him, you continue to fight against the truth while the truth is making itself plain to everyone else.

[/quote]



If the truth is so plain why does it create so many disagreements?



It would be more accurate to say that YOUR truth is plain to YOU

[/quote]



No, it would be more accurate to say that the truth is plain to at least a dozen courts around the country.....as opposed to ONE court that you keep referring to.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 05:02 PM   #42
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
You keep referring to ONE Court in NY



I refer to courts in Hawaii, Mass, Connecticut, Iowa, California, Alaska, Baltimore and Federal Courts in California and a panel of the 9th Circuit Court. Furthermore other courts have ruled that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is also unconstitutional.



So I define VAST majority as about 12 to 1




What about all these:





State law and/or constitutional provision limits marriage to relationships between a man and a woman:


Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming




Many of these states had ballot decisions challenged in the courts but none were overturned.
garysher is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 05:09 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332896233' post='392201

You keep referring to ONE Court in NY



I refer to courts in Hawaii, Mass, Connecticut, Iowa, California, Alaska, Baltimore and Federal Courts in California and a panel of the 9th Circuit Court. Furthermore other courts have ruled that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is also unconstitutional.



So I define VAST majority as about 12 to 1




What about all these:











State law and/or constitutional provision limits marriage to relationships between a man and a woman:



Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming





Many of these states had ballot decisions challenged in the courts but none were overturned.




There is a difference between declaring the vote unconstitutional and declaring the law it produced unconstitutional.



Much like the Prop 8 decision in California. The State Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting same sex marriage was unconstitutional. A vote was held to change the state Constitution and that vote was challenged.



The same Court that had originally ruled that the prohibition violated the State Constitution ruled that the vote to change the Constitution was legal and valid.



In some ways that second decision takes the wind out of your arguments completely. If the California Supreme Court had made the original ruling based on their personal views and NOT on the State Constitution...then why didn't they just rule that the vote to change the Constitution was unconstitutional as well? The answer is obvious....they WEREN'T basing their rulings on personal bias, but on a strict interpertation of the law.



Just as a side note, I agreed with BOTH rulings from the CA Supreme Court. The first ruling that the laws prohibiting same sex marriage violated the state Constittuion was correct...and so was the ruling that upheld the Prop 8 vote.



But again B.G., you display your lack of knowledge on how our legal system works by even trying to compare the two issues.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 06:11 PM   #44
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1332896540' post='392203

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332896233' post='392201']

You keep referring to ONE Court in NY



I refer to courts in Hawaii, Mass, Connecticut, Iowa, California, Alaska, Baltimore and Federal Courts in California and a panel of the 9th Circuit Court. Furthermore other courts have ruled that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is also unconstitutional.



So I define VAST majority as about 12 to 1




What about all these:











State law and/or constitutional provision limits marriage to relationships between a man and a woman:



Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming





Many of these states had ballot decisions challenged in the courts but none were overturned.




There is a difference between declaring the vote unconstitutional and declaring the law it produced unconstitutional.



Much like the Prop 8 decision in California. The State Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting same sex marriage was unconstitutional. A vote was held to change the state Constitution and that vote was challenged.



The same Court that had originally ruled that the prohibition violated the State Constitution ruled that the vote to change the Constitution was legal and valid.



In some ways that second decision takes the wind out of your arguments completely. If the California Supreme Court had made the original ruling based on their personal views and NOT on the State Constitution...then why didn't they just rule that the vote to change the Constitution was unconstitutional as well? The answer is obvious....they WEREN'T basing their rulings on personal bias, but on a strict interpertation of the law.



Just as a side note, I agreed with BOTH rulings from the CA Supreme Court. The first ruling that the laws prohibiting same sex marriage violated the state Constittuion was correct...and so was the ruling that upheld the Prop 8 vote.



But again B.G., you display your lack of knowledge on how our legal system works by even trying to compare the two issues.

[/quote]





If Prop 8 was unconstitutional why was it's constitutionality not challenged BEFORE the ballot was taken?



Why was it signed off by the State AG, albeit with bigoted changes to the wording by loony Jerry Brown?



Back to the question - sadly for you dozens of state courts have upheld judgments and/or ballots to oppose the vile spectre of homosexual marriage.



Which means your bizarre notion - that it's obviously unConstitutional - is hogwash
garysher is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 06:23 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
If Prop 8 was unconstitutional why was it's constitutionality not challenged BEFORE the ballot was taken?


Because no one had legal standing to make that challenge, duh.
skrekk is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 06:30 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332896950' post='392206

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332896540' post='392203']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332896233' post='392201']

You keep referring to ONE Court in NY



I refer to courts in Hawaii, Mass, Connecticut, Iowa, California, Alaska, Baltimore and Federal Courts in California and a panel of the 9th Circuit Court. Furthermore other courts have ruled that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is also unconstitutional.



So I define VAST majority as about 12 to 1




What about all these:

















State law and/or constitutional provision limits marriage to relationships between a man and a woman:



Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming





Many of these states had ballot decisions challenged in the courts but none were overturned.




There is a difference between declaring the vote unconstitutional and declaring the law it produced unconstitutional.



Much like the Prop 8 decision in California. The State Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting same sex marriage was unconstitutional. A vote was held to change the state Constitution and that vote was challenged.



The same Court that had originally ruled that the prohibition violated the State Constitution ruled that the vote to change the Constitution was legal and valid.



In some ways that second decision takes the wind out of your arguments completely. If the California Supreme Court had made the original ruling based on their personal views and NOT on the State Constitution...then why didn't they just rule that the vote to change the Constitution was unconstitutional as well? The answer is obvious....they WEREN'T basing their rulings on personal bias, but on a strict interpertation of the law.



Just as a side note, I agreed with BOTH rulings from the CA Supreme Court. The first ruling that the laws prohibiting same sex marriage violated the state Constittuion was correct...and so was the ruling that upheld the Prop 8 vote.



But again B.G., you display your lack of knowledge on how our legal system works by even trying to compare the two issues.

[/quote]





If Prop 8 was unconstitutional why was it's constitutionality not challenged BEFORE the ballot was taken?



Why was it signed off by the State AG, albeit with bigoted changes to the wording by loony Jerry Brown?



Back to the question - sadly for you dozens of state courts have upheld judgments and/or ballots to oppose the vile spectre of homosexual marriage.



Which means your bizarre notion - that it's obviously unConstitutional - is hogwash

[/quote]



Again your lack of knowledge of how our legal system works is incredible.



You cannot challenge the Constitutionality of a law (or in this case an amendment to a state constitution) until AFTER it has been enacted. Prior to that it is merely potentially unconstitutional. A court can only rule on the actual constitutioanlity of someting, not on it's potential constitutionality.



The current Supreme Court fight over Obama's healthcare law is an example. Prior to it being passed the Republicans argued that it would be unconstitutional, but they couldn't actually challenge it in court until it was enacted.



And again, you continually point to ONE court decision that says prohibitions on same sex marriage are not unconstitutional....while I point to a dozen or more that say it IS unconstitutonal.



Rulings on whether ballot initiatives that create laws/amendments are constitutional is NOT the same as rulings on whether the laws/amendments themselves is unconstitutional.



So I challenge you, other than the NY Supreme Court...where has a court ruled that the actual laws/amendments that prohibit same sex marriage are constitutional....NOT whether the process to enact those laws/amendments is constitutional...but whether the law itself is constitutional.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 06:59 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
So I challenge you, other than the NY Supreme Court...where has a court ruled that the actual laws/amendments that prohibit same sex marriage are constitutional....NOT whether the process to enact those laws/amendments is constitutional...but whether the law itself is constitutional.


Washington state is the other one, although both the WA and NY decisions were clearly flawed (even hilariously wrong if you get a chance to read them). In WA the chief justice was in the dissent, and the NY court itself eventually ordered the recognition of out of state SSM.......an action which is now directly leading to the demise of DOMA in the Windsor v US case.
skrekk is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 07:19 PM   #48
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Yet another thread that has been pulled off topic (bullying) and on to homosexual marriage..........
garysher is offline  
Old March 28th, 2012, 03:55 AM   #49
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Yet another thread that has been pulled off topic (bullying) and on to homosexual marriage..........


Funny how you were fully engaged in the debate and only started complaining when you had your intellectual a** handed to you.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old March 28th, 2012, 10:12 AM   #50
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1332904794' post='392241

Yet another thread that has been pulled off topic (bullying) and on to homosexual marriage..........


Funny how you were fully engaged in the debate and only started complaining when you had your intellectual a** handed to you.


That's where your brain is located but not mine
garysher is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Social Issues > Bullying

Tags
1990, bullying, evolution



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jonah Mowry - Bullying RidinHighSpeeds Bullying 49 December 6th, 2011 07:05 PM
Who's Bullying Who? Ray Kaye Gay and Lesbian Rights 78 September 6th, 2011 08:44 AM
Aug 2 1990 intangible child Warfare 3 August 3rd, 2009 09:33 PM
George Bush Sr Called for a "New World Order" on September 11, 1990 CB_Brooklyn Political Talk 4 June 1st, 2008 07:01 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.