Wow. You really don't know how to read do you? Do you understand the word "most"? Do you understand that this is a subset of "all"? Did SCOTUS limit it to these "most"? Np, they did not.
Obviously, it's you who doesn't know how to read. Most is on one line of the many lines I quoted. Why are you concentrating on just one word? Is it because it threatens your point and makes your statement false so you have to use slight of hand tactics?
Also, again in this case the lawyers argued that the measure had a rational basis. If it was not a limitation on fundamental rights, why argue that way? Also note how SCOTUS in this case phrases it: "the right to marry". It is not a privilege, it is a right. To all.
Why don't you read the entire ruling then get back with me. And if you notice the right to marry has to do with religious rights, procreation, the right of inheritance which is part of the legal system, obtaining government benefits when a spouse is incarcerated and so on. You will also find that the court said there was a legitimate need for the law, it's just that the law didn't do what it pretended to do.
Another quote "consequential restriction on the [constitutional] rights of those who are not prisoners". If marriage is not a constitutional right but a privilege, how come SCOTUS uses those words?
Who said it was a privilege? I said it's the same right that everyone else has and that not allowing a man to mary a man is no different then not allowing a father to marry his daughter or a brother to marry his sister. Or are you arguing that those laws are unconstitutional too? I said it's within the state's purview to regulate it as long as they do not stop someone from doing what everyone else is allowed to so. Prop 8 does not stop anyone from doing what anyone else is allowed to do.
In other words, the security objectives are not a rational basis for denying the inmates their constitutional rights.
Here is where you prove that you are a fucking idiot. It does not say that at all, it says there are other more effective measures that can be taken then limiting someone's rights. However, in all these cases, the constitutional right is not to marry anyone you want, it's to marry as the law allows. Or are you claiming that a brother should be able to marry his sister or aunt?
You should not quote documents that do not support your case.
The document doesn't work against my case. However, it does not support your and you are the one who brought it up. Perhaps you should practice what you preach.
He probably has those emailed forwarded to him by ignorant constituents who think he should see them too. Your right, it's probably 700 emails from a particular website a year, but when you consider all the forwarding that might be going on, that 700 can turn into 140,000 if just 200 of his constituents forward it. And that creates a lot larger problem then blocking a single website. And I believe that 200 people wouldn't be a very large portion of his constituency. It's probably less then one percent.
NO, as the poster said, the mujaheddin became the Northern Alliance which was one of the competing warlords in the area- not the Taliban. The Taliban is a separate group entirely that seems to be formed out of nowhere historically important to the area or the Russian Afghan war.
It's accurate to say mujaheddin became the Northern Alliance, and we armed mujaheddin. It's inaccurate to say we armed the Taliban or that the group came from any factions we actively armed..
In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.
And yes, that is in the same paragraph in which your statement of it not pertaining to reproduction is being made. However, if we look at the terms "fully consummated" we find that it has everything to do with procreation.
Now I know why you wanted to keep this case a secrete, it doesn't say what you are pretending it says. What does that tell you when your argument boils down to purposely hiding relevant facts in order to misrepresent others?
You are absolutely right, they are. The statements from SCOTUS on the concepts involved are not so limited however. If SCOTUS says that marrying someone is a fundamental right as such, it doesn't limit it to the case in question. If a SCOTUS decision was limited to the case in question there would never be any reason to look to previous SCOTUS cases, they are all, in some way, different. Precedent would have no meaning.
Actually, it does limit the ruling to what they claim the fundamental right is derived from. The castle ruling said you have a fundamental right to defend yourself and not an obligation to seek refuge first when you are confronted with an imminent threat that is armed. It doesn't mean that you can just shoot someone who is holding a gun, it means that if they are trying to kill you, you can fire back without trying to escape first.
And you are ignoring the fact that gays have exactly the same right as normal people when it comes to marriage. You still haven't shown that marrying anyone you choose to is somehow integral to that fundamental right. As the court noted, the right is for the survival of the species and as we know man on man or woman on woman will not cause procreation.
Please find the SCOTUS quote on that or admit you are just making shit up as you go.
I posted the quote, can't you read? It said the right was fundemental for the survival of our species.
I know it might not matter to you, but it actually matters to the law. You can not deny anyone a basic right without rational basis, but you can deny someone a privilege for a whole variety of reasons. Again, according to the law. No matter what you feel about it. This is why the distinction between a fundamental right and a privilege is crucial in law.
No one is currently denying anyone a right. Gays have the same rights as everyone else. And no, it's not a basic right, as you have pointed out, it's a fundamental right where the fundamental comes from procreation. And in today's times where it's common to have kids out of wedlock, I'm not sure that fundamental principle would even be relevant- therefore the same with your right.
But you see, your challenge is not about rights, it's about preference in the exercise of those rights. And your argument is the same as a challenge to a privilege. But lets change that argument just to end your distinction. Currently it's illegal for someone to be intoxicated in the public whether they are causing harm to others or not. I certainly have a right to be in public spaces, I certainly have a right to travel, does this mean that public intoxication laws are unconstitutional? How about drugs of abuse, it makes a lot of people happy to get all cranked up and walk around. How about Heroin?
If you don't understand the difference between opting out and being denied, I don't think it is possible to teach you anything more basic than chewing gum and walking at the same time. Even that would take some time.
I know the differences, however, the argument is the same, some people are getting advantages that others are not, and your pursuit of happiness which isn't in the constitution is your constitutional basis. And sure, they can marry someone of the opposite sex and get these benefits but that's not what they want to do. Listen, if the argument turns void because it's an opt in system, then it turns void when you do not want to follow the rules to participate. You are wanting your cake and eating it too. It can't be both ways. BTW, if it's opt in or opt out, then why can't a brother or sister get married? Why can't Dad and Daughter?
Are you mentally handicapped? Since when was marriage a requirement for procreation? Do you thing SCOTUS is retarded enough to think it is? Please tell me how a marriage between a man and a woman is more fundamental to our exis
Clinton has so much hate by this time in office that he completely lost control of the congress to the republicans. And no, the hate wasn';t directed at clinton as much as it was at his policies.
Also, Clinton wasn't elected with a majority populare vote. In all essence, about 3/5s of the people in the US elected Clinton as the popular vote was split between three dominant candidates (with Ross Pero in the mix.)
Also, the tea party movement existed long before a black man was in office as the president. The tea party movement is essentially the rational Ron Paul supporters who got off the Ron Paul Idol kicks and started making sense with their political ramblings.
And to your parent, if the democrats had not put Turd sandwiches up for election, some of the 89% voted for republicans, would probably have vote democrat or more likely independent.
The last three elections were literally the lesser of two evils elections on the republican/conservative outlook. Obama was able to get the "lets make history and you will be part of it so you are important" message out better though.
What this ends up with is a growing number of people dissatisfied with the government no matter how you look at it.
However, the US was arming the people who became the Taliban, the mujaheddin. They just weren't called the Taliban yet. WHen the vacuum came the guys we armed stepped up (with the arms the US gave them) and took over as the Taliban.
No hey weren't. I suggest that you open a book or something before moving forward with incorrect information like this. While it's true that some of the mujaheddin may have became Taliban members, the mujaheddin did not turn into the Taliban.
The mujaheddin ended up as what we called the northern alliance. They essentially turned into one of the war lords causing the problems that allowed the Taliban to shine so bright in it's early days. And the Taliban had more modern versions of weapons then what we armed the mujaheddin with. The Taliban and the mujaheddin are in no way shape or form the same organization.
So yes, the Taliban was armed by the US and we did it (at the time) as a counter to Russia.
No, they simply were not and no we didn't.
I can understand your confusion though, that line of reasoning has been long thrown out there by the anti war crowd in a Micheal more style effort to misconstrue the facts and gain the support of idiots who don't know any better, people to busy or lazy to look the information up themselves, and anyone they can confuse with a logical fallacy. So it's not like you haven't been bombarded with misinformation or anything.
No, it is not. Where on earth do you get that from?
From history and the legal system as I said before.
BZZZT WRONG!
Lol.. I suppose that's just because you say so. Well, why don't you cite your references.
Since a varied set of court cases. Since, for example, since Loving v Virginia (1967) and since Zablocki v Redhail (1978).
Yawn... Those cases dealt with a fundamental problem that was denying someone a right that others were allowed, it's in no way similar to this as gays have the same rights as normal people. They are arguing a choice not a lack of rights. Please stop taking shit out of context to push your point.
Because driving is a privilege, not a right. Again - the state can regulate privileges with far less restrictions than it can regulate fundamental rights.
It doesn't matter, the essence of your argument still applies. If the state can allow osme a privilege and not others, then the same base discrimination applies as you have defined it.
No, they can not. They can not marry whomever they wish. Since marrying whomever you wish (again, please...) is a SCOTUS-defined fundamental right, it is illegal to restrict that without a rational basis. This means that restricting Jacks fundamental right to marry Joe is unconstitutional.
Wow, not only to you read into what I say that isn't there, but you read into crap that has never been said by the judges. The fundamental right as define was the right to marry someone of the opposite sex as that was the law the ruling was over. Face it, you are in a losing position and no matter how you contort the shit, it won't matter in this case.
They lose quite a lot in fact. They lose the right to hospital visitations. They lose rights around insurance. There are, in California, 1100 rights and protections that only apply to married couples. A person who chooses not marry anyone have opted out. A person who is denied by the state the right to marry the person they want to marry is deprived of those by that same state.
I see the problem not, it's not that you are an agenda driving idiot, it's that you are a complete moron. I didn't ask what harm someone would suffer under the existing law, I asked what disability as in the Americans with disability act that gays suffer from that would justify forcing the override of the will of the people in order to satisfy their personal choice. Go back and read what was wrote again and tell me how in the hell you took it the wrong way.
BTW, unmarried couples suffer the same disadvantages that you cited, why should they not get the same privileges?
BZZZT WRONG. Once SCOTUS defined marriage as a fundamental right, the equal protection clause forbids states from limiting marriages with no rational basis.
Lol.. The SCOTUS is not above the constitution. You are a fucking idiot. Lets look at a few of the key points in the rulings that you are attempting to skew in order to demonstrate it.
"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 discrimination. 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."
Why would anyone want to mode it up? I mean his premise is that because the pentagon didn't validate leaked secretes by combing though them and saying what was sensitive and what wasn't, it's now their fault?
The entire validation effort could have been an effort to gather information on which piece of information was important which this ass at Wikileaks could have used once again to his name in the paper by saying not only do we have the leaked shit, but we have what the pentagon doesn't want you to know. And for that matter, For all we know, this could be a secrete Taliban/Al Qeada sympathizer who is just attempting to narrow down what was important to the US in order to save the enemy the time it took to comb though it themselves.
So why would the pentagon want to help spread the crap that shouldn't be public at all at this stage? I mean this guy is giving the enemy information right now and blaming it on "I don't have enough time before I release this crap and get my name in the papers again" then suggesting to people who ask him to not release it until after he gets the time because it's getting people killed, that they would have to do it themselves if they wanted it done.
Someone mod him down or save your mods for something else entirely. Perhaps for something that has some merit.
Wow, I started to think you were on to something then you went and spoke about shit you obviously have no clue about.
Remember, the Taliban are the guys we armed to the teeth a while back to fight the Russians, who are now our friends
The US did not fund the Taliban to fight the Russians. The Taliban was not even around during that conflict. The Taliban didn't emerge until after the Russian afghan war was over and the collapse of the soviet union. Now would be right to say out inaction allowed them to become powerful in the region as after the Russian pulled out, the US bailed too for fear that our involvement publicly would cause Russia to either return or to attack us as a last ditch effort. This caused the area to be broken into territories controlled by war lords and made trade or transportation and travel in the area almost impossible as the feuding between the warlords interrupted anything resembling a economic stability or public safety if you weren't from their clan. Finally, the war lords formed an alliance but elements still broke away and pirated cargo from supply shipments and stuff.
With all this Chaos, along comes a group calling itself the Taliban who started out as armed security guards being hired to protect shipments but the Afghan government. They got the job done and started getting shipments through, opened trade up, and made it safe to travel . Then they ended up getting into the government and imposing their views onto the people. The Taliban was not heard of until the mid 1990's. Now it's possible that some Taliban members were the same mujaheddin members, but the organization itself did not/does not resemble anything in play when the US aided the Afghan rebels.
And we originally went there to get rid of Al Qaeda, the enemy, who were funded by Saudi Arabia, our friends, who got rich because we just couldn't bring ourselves to try to get off oil back in the '80s.
The start of the either with us or against us attitude comes from our attempts to get Al Qeada and the Taliban gave them state protection. Our only option to get Al Qaeda was to violate their sovereignty so the call was made to oust the Taliban government in the process. And no, it wasn't funded by Saudi Arabia, it was funded by elements inside Saudi Arabia. Saying that the country is responsible for the people breaking their own laws is like saying the Federal government of the US and the entire US funded my efforts to piss on Buckingham Palace when I was in England- and of course I used my own money to go over, I used my own money to get drunk, and I used my own money to take the taxi ride in which I somehow thought it would be a good idea or a funny idea. The US government had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Don't forget that the tax breaks ~make~ those things profitable. Otherwise the companies still wouldn't do them. And often 'profitable' is a relative term. Many of these things that tax breaks incent actually ARE profitable... they just aren't profitable enough, or as profitable as doing something else.
Sure they make it profitable. But the point is that they wouldn't be doing it if it weren't so losing the tax breaks would be a wash. Or in other words, no real disadvantage to the competing industry exists. And the competing industry is free to enter the same market space and take the same advantages if they so choose.
Bottom line, the breaks enable the oil companies to profit more than they'd profit without them. They wouldn't follow the carrot if it was less profitable to ignore it and just do there own thing.
Of course it does, that's because the value of time over money or the time value of money needs to be accounted for. After all, there is a cost associated with entering these lines of endeavor and it may be more profitable to simply soak the money into a mutual fund or public bonds or something. But as I mentioned before, nothing is preventing the competition from entering the same lines and getting the same benefits outside of the lack of expertise or capitol. And I don't think anyone wants to argue that we should be giving car manufacturers or battery manufacturers money so they can become as large as the oil companies.
But that what all tax breaks claim to be. Including the tax rebate on hybrids. I'm not sure you are making an argument.
The argument or point is that the subsidies doesn't put the oil companies at a real unfair advantage as many attempt to claim. If we ended them as you suggested, all that would really happen is that the government would have to find other ways to get what it wanted done. This would likely manifest as a contracted service the government pays a flat rate for which the oil companies would end up fulfilling anyways once the price became right because they have the ability to do the job.
What all this means is that there is no real market distortions happening that would disappear if the tax breaks did.
Not driving/riding in cars would have some problems as a solution to low traction tires unless you forced all cars off the road and that's not possible any time soon. Otherwise, you are still in danger of the other idiots still driving and you will be exposed to them most of the time you are traveling.
Except that in this case, the tax breaks are pretty much all to get the oil companies to do things that aren't profitable to them. Some of them aren't even tax breaks at all, it's stupid things like allowing depreciation rates to occur faster then normal or to explore, develop and produce in areas that aren't profitable as well as develop non-standard fuel sources which is why oil companies got into the solar market a long time ago.
So no, it doesn't substantially create a set of market distortions. At best, it allows the oil industry to involve itself in areas it wouldn't otherwise be involved in and do the things that the government wants them to do. And the subsidies aren't for the products directly competing with others, it's for the fringe and otherwise unprofitable ventures the oil companies are involved with like the creation of alternative fuels.
Actually, that's a misnomer. Charging the batteries while going down hill or breaking will only recover a portion of the energy it took to put it on the top of the hill in the first place. And that is limited to a portion because physics don't allow the creation of energy out of nothing nor does it allow energy converted to heat to be retained as electrical current in the accounting of the energy. However, this so called savings isn't as much as you might thing against an ICE engine because the computer on fuel injected vehicles will shut that fuel off as the throttle is released regardless of engine speed. In carburetor'd vehicles, more fuel would be used because the fuel is delivered by air moving over ports in the intake.
So all the fuel that would be needed when coasting down a hill, would be the amount necessary to keep it idling unless the accelerator peddle is depressed (as it would be on both). This difference isn't all that great but in a hybrid, it does recapture a portion of the energy used to get it to the top of the hill making it slightly more efficient.
Have you even read the study? If so, don't you find it strange that the biggest subsidy counted besides the idea of the entire military and defense budge that they fallaciously claim is around only to protect oil producing state (I guess history and the cold war means nothing to them), is the road use tax which is applied directly to the people using gas in order to maintain the roads and build new ones? I mean why are they counting something as a large as they are simply because it passes through to the government before the oil companies benefit from it? If it went straight to the oil companies and they had to build and maintain the roads, we would be paying about the same amount if not just a tad bit more.
And the idea of tacking the costs of roads onto the subsidy list is ridiculous at that. Roads were around long before oil was in the economy. In fact, it was so important, it's actually in the US constitution as something the federal government is supposed to fuck with. Roads are needed for transportation no matter what the fuel or power source is and will exist with or without oil. Should we start taking this costs onto the costs of hybrids or Plug in electric vehicles too seeing how they don't pay the same amount of tax or in some cases none of the tax that goes to maintain and build roads?
If you can read that study and make any statement with the word true in it, you are either lying or stating where the study is wrong. the little nit pick about the fallacious costs of defense spending and a tax specifically designed to maintain and build roads and be paid for by some who use them in certain ways as being a subsidy, there are all sorts of other problems with it. Most if not all the tax breaks are because the government wants the oil companies to do something they wouldn't already do. The percentage depletion allowance isn't actually a subsidy at all, it allows them to deduct a portion of their lease payments based around the decreased value of the lease as the oil is removed. This is actually a penalty because in all other businesses, the entire lease payment is deductible as a cost of business. The non-conventional fuel production is a tax break only if they produce non-conventional fuels and develop uses for them that would benefit the economy. Without the tax break, the program would simply not exist as they are typically losing ventures. The immediate expending of exploration and development costs is not a break at all, it simply allows the costs to be deducted sooner then in a normal setting. The only advantage here is an interest break on capital loans because of short payback terms. The enhanced oil recovery credit only exists to get oil companies to drill in leases that aren't readily accessible or when something makes then non-profitable to produce oil from a well. This actually benefits the government as it allows more leases to remain active generating revenue in excess of the tax breaks.
The so called study is a load of hog wash passed off as fine filters spring water. You may not know the difference, but anyone without an agenda and the ability to pay attention will.
Tell me that with as much confident when you don't see the car pulling out of their driveway or an alleyway until it's a panic stop time and you can't do it, try to steer around it, lose control and kill your passengers when you strike a telephone pole and it falls on your car.
Not all reliance or importance on traction is about screwing the fuel, it can just as well be about safety to you, your passengers, and others around you when you drive.
What is the rational basis the government can use to prevent Jack from marrying Joe? Please elaborate, and try to stay away from moronic "marry a pig", "marry a child" arguments. If you do not understand why they are moronic, look up the concept "consenting adults" somewhere, or have an adult explain it to you.
First of all, I have never said anything about marrying pigs or child or anything in the context of this discussion. I have said that it's within the purview of the state to regulate legal license just as it's within their right to regulate intoxicated persons driving down the road. As for the rational basis, there doesn't need to be one as the state doesn't need a rational bases for anything that isn't verboten in their constitution or the federal constitution. What's the rational basis for not letting someone open a catering service in their garage that resided in a strictly residential zoned neighborhood if they retrofit it to meet health codes? You see, there doesn't need to be any rationalization or any good rationalization attached. And no, your property values won't decrease if I open a catering business in my garage, the worst you can complain about in harm would be the occasional truck or two dropping off deliveries and a few extra people loading up the supplies for an event every once in a while.
So there are plenty of other laws that do not have or need rationalization. But this marriage is even older then those laws, and there are a few rationalizations. For people starting families that will have dependent offspring, it sets a legal order of behavior that must take place before dissolving it. So if Jack and Jill decide to get a divorce so Jack can get with Joe, there is an order which doesn't destroy either Jack or Jill to the point that they cannot take care of their dependent offspring and other obligations. Now this is unnecessary for people with kids who aren't married because there is also another legal structure that takes effect in which the state becomes involved in much more detail, much earlier. And if Jack was never married and wanted to enter the same legal framework with Joe, then there is yet another legal structure in which all that can be done. The only difference is the amount of difficulty involved with starting and maintaining the legal structure and how soon it becomes intrusive or not depending on how fare from you deviate from what the state allowed as a default.
Why is preventing Joe from marrying Jack (when marriage has long since been defined as a fundamental right) not an undue limitation on the pursuit of happiness that Joe is entitled to by the work of the founding fathers? Who, other than Joe, defines what makes Joe happy?
Since when has marriage been defined as a fundemental right? It certainly isn't in the federal constitution, if it was at one time in the California constitution, then the California constitutional amendment that prop 8 caused (which is why this is at a federal level and not with the loons on the California State Supreme Court) would have nullified any interpretation of that outside of being between a man and a woman. If you mean fundamental right as in you think you should have it, then you might be thinking wrong, however, it's a state's right that overrules the citizens subject to their jurisdiction unless something influencing the state's jurisdiction denies the state that right.
Another thing, You keep bringing up this pursuit of happiness thing. It doesn't mean what you are attempting to make it mean. And there is nothing binding about it because it's not in any constitution. Or perhaps you would like to explain why I can get arrested, fined, and possible imprisoned along with having other liberties taken from me if I consume alcohol and drive without hurting or harming anyone else? As I mentioned before, if it's just happiness, then drinking and driving makes people happy.
And what would make you say that? Just because I support the rule of established law and don't cow-tail to your agenda doesn't mean I hate or dislike anything about you, your agenda, or anyone/anything else. There is right and wrong and right now, the established rule of law is right. If we can bend the rules in order to get your pet project through, then anyone can bend the rules to get theirs through. That's not right and no amount of saying it won't happen again will make it so.
This is a comment proving to the world that you are mentally retarded. For a wide number of reasons. Number one is that I covered it in what I wrote. Number two because it is just plain fucking stupid. If you want to argue something, don't turn on your moron mode first. If you don't understand what "consenting adults" mean, please ask an adult. In the mean time, go back to first grade and get an education.
I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that your argument falls apart very rapidly when it's sided on anything else. SO you found just one of the multiple arguments I transposed onto your premise to find problems with, well, boo hoo for you.
BZZZZT! Wrong. It stops them from marrying the person they want to. Now, before you come dragging with your moronic arguments about pigs or underage children or shoplifting or something equally asinine and infantile, try to look up the concept of "consenting adults".
Many laws stop people from doing what they want. Why is that such a big problem for you to understand? Speeding laws stop you from speeding, even on an isolated road that is a flat straight stretch with only road signs and a photo radar gun on it. Are speed limits unconstitutional? And yes, with the drinking and driving and the speeding, it all involves consenting adults and nothing more. So to sit there and pretend that it somehow makes it more important or somehow more anything is a tad bit fucking stupid. The state has the right to regular the speed limit of a road, the state has the right to regulate marriage. And nothing in the law says you can marry anyone you want, it says you can only marry someone of the opposite sex. Your argument holds water like a pasta strainer.
Grow up please.
Actually, why don't you address the point? I mean your logic as stated can be applied to anything, why do I need to grow up when you can't cope with the failings of your logic? Does the state have some inherent right to regulate how much a free person can be intoxicated while driving if that person doesn't cause any harm to anyone else but for some reason not the right to regulate marriage in which it has been regulating since it's inception? Quit avoiding the question.
It seems the legal experts disagree with you on this one, and since you can't possibly, at age thirteen, have much of a law degree, I think I'll listen to them a little more than you.
There you go showing everyone what the entire problem here is. You see, you assume things that have no basis in reality that you somehow pulled out of thin air, ignore the actual questions before you, then attempt to appear sly by making what you think are witty comments. This is what the judge did in this case too, and it's the reason why the entire thing is going to collapse on further review.
Elaborate please.
I don't have time in this post but I will report to you in a day or so with the information. But be forewarned, I'm also going to point out where he ignore established laws, rules of the court and proceedings, introduced his own evidence for one side of the argument too. And if you want to argue it, you will need to argue it all.
Yes, I remembered that and actually read the decision. Many legal scholors have read it and commented on it too. Just like this judge did, the CSC went off the rule of law and into lala land to back up most of their stance. If you read the decent on it, you would find that judges on the CSC were horrified in what the majority actually did which is why prop 8 took it out of their hands.
Now the interesting thing is, the SCOTUS is not stacked with a bunch of loons yet. Outside of this last nominee who might go against pro 8 or even recuse herself because of prior involvement just because she wants to show how fair or impartial she is being gay and all, the SCOTUS is not stacked with a bunch of loons that make shit up out of thin air and ignore existing rules of law.
But hey, watch and see, feel free to build your hopes up on a dieing and unqualified position just to see them shattered faster then a baseball moving through a closed window. I don't really care if you are disappointment, I just know the ruling as it stands will not pass further scrutiny and was a ploy to gain attention to the fight.
Okay I got stuck on the very first thing you said... sexual attraction is the very thing that makes us reproduce... I get sexually attracted to a girl, we do "stuff", and she ends up pregnant... you think that sexual attraction results in no reproduction??? In what world??
I don't believe I said sexual attraction doesn't make us reproduce, I said the built in kill switch for a "gay evolutionary principle" is the inability to reproduce when your sexual attraction limits you to same sex couples.
You do know you're talking absolute crap don't you? A conscious decision? Do you have any experience of the world and people in it??
Are you just trolling? You said
Now I certainly have met females who have gone at least bi-Q after experiencing sexual abuse especially during the early teen years, but the level of attraction is just not the same as in somebody who is "born that way".
SO are you saying that someone never ever chooses to be gay? Even after you suggest that people have turned gay after experiencing sexual abuse as a teen? I know people who are gay simply because it gets them off. They choose to be gay and admit it. This anecdotal evidence alone would probably be enough to show you are the one full of something without explaining how you failed in taking my comment out of context.
I also like the way you only quoted part of what I said, that full quote should need no explanation and you shouldn't be there scratching your head, but here it is anyways, I said:
And of course, someone who subconsciously makes the turn will probably have stronger feelings then someone who consciously makes the decision, especially if it was because of a bad situation like sexual abuse.
And if you looks at the paragraph I quoted from your post, you would specifically see that I was referring to the idea of not being born defective but being swayed into the direction of being from influences. And I acknowledge your proposition that people who purposely become gay or turn gay after traumatizing experiences do not have the same satisfaction as someone who is gay because of a subconscious underlying.
And there it is. If you believed for a second that that was true, you would be a sick human being for calling a rape victim names and telling them that it was their fault. Exactly the behavior that helped the priests to rape the victim in the first place.
Your right, constantly bashing the church by taking crap out of context and applying after the fact information to before the fact knowledge does make them tend to dismiss accusations as just another wild bullshit accusation from someone with an agenda and allows the behavior to continue. I'm glad that you are finally realizing what you are doing is wrong. However, I don't think you even know you are doing it or realizing it's wrong.
BTW, The term but boy was directed exactly at you, not the people claiming to have been molested by the priests. Second, But is spell in the extend of but they did this, not the spelling of Butt meaning the ass. But hey, I guess all fair in your world right? And of course I have never said it was their fault. But that doesn't matter to you, you will take anything you want, even if it wasn't said and use it to what you think is your own advantage. And the false allegations just gives more people the willingness not to believe you when you make an accusation. Have you ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
If you don't believe it, then you are willing to lie to try to insult me by mocking the rape victims and then saying that I was one of them.
Lol.. Once again, you are working primarily from nothing but your imagination. Nothing I said was a lie, and asking if you were one of the but boys was a question, not calling you a name. But hey, you haven't let facts get in your way so far, I guess it was too much to assume that they would be beneficial here.
Either way, your attitude is still evidence of how the problem was allowed to go on for so long. No doubt attitudes like yours were even more common prior to the 70s when the Catholic church had much more influence in the US.
You see, you such an ignorant fuck that you won't get it if it was handed to you. What allowed it to happen for so long was that no one was reporting it until way later after it happened. As the report said, and my numbers back up, two thirds of the people this happened to kept quiet about it until 1993 when a lawsuit was brought against the catholic church in Boston and made it all very public. After the lawsuit happened, then another third of the reported abuses that happened between 1950 and 2001 started pouring in. This raised the alarm and cause it to be in the public's mind while also summoning the courage for another ~3500 people, or one third to come forward in the last 3 years after they saw the 1993 lawsuit being won and the guy getting a large sum of money.
So what allowed it to happen was people being embarrassed to say anything and delaying their accusations until years or decades later, the thought that they wouldn't have been believed because wild and out of context accusations like yours were being thrown around and dismissed with all real evidence at the time saying the contrary, and a willingness or ability to underestimate the scope of the problem because no one was really reporting it until way later or well after it happened.
Now my attitude is to realize that the failure in stopping this was in the lack of reporting and the attitude towards the victims from the church and society in general which caused the failures to report to be extremely high. You can sit there and ignore all that and say someone should have known and lie about it being common knowledge when it wasn't even reported, but in order to stop it from happening, you need to find why it failed, stop making wild and out of context accusation like you are, and encourage a change in perception to the victims so that they report the abuses without fear of reprisal
You are either wrong or lieing. You are trying to cherry pick numbers and then perform bad math to get a lower number than what really happened. Directly from the report:
There is nothing wrong or false about what I said. and you can quote the report all you want, you simply have to also quote the part about when the complaints were filed which would give the church cause to know something was happening.
As I stated before and the report also states, "one-third of the accusations were made in the years 2002 and 2003. Another third of the allegations were reported between 1993 and 2001". This means that for the bulk of the time, regardless of what was happening, the church only knew about 1/3 of the accusations from 1950 until 1993 This completely fits with my numbers that were also explained. At that time (1993), the accusations increased another third of the total until 2001, so between 1950 and 2001 the church could have only knew about 2/3rds of the accusations. And as the report states, another one third came in between 2002 and 2003*-4 when they started the investigation. So it wasn't until 2003-4 that they knew of the entire scope of the matter.
The fact that even today, there are people like you who will throw insults and lie about what has been done is clear evidence that these numbers are low. As the very report that you keep quoting says that not only are sexual assaults under reported, but that these are just the cases that the Catholic Church admits to. It does not include any of the cases where the church swept the issue under the rug, or the priest completely got away with it.
Lol.. Ok, if I have lied about it, then show me what I have said that isn't supported by the report or facts. And FYI, I'm not claiming the abuses never happened, I'm claiming that your unsupported accusations that the church condoned the behavior is unsupported because they didn't know of the full scope and magnitude until the final years of before the report. And to that end, you just supported my claim by stating where the report says that not only are sexual assaults under reported, but that these are just the cases that the Catholic Church admits to. Except I believe the correct wording "admits to knowing about". and you are claiming I'm cherry picking data.
And yes, if the parishes swept something under the rug or the priest got completely away with it, then how in the hell is the pope and the church leadership supposed to know about it in order to be so called supporting it as you claim? Do you even understand the concept of accountability at all? You have to know of something in order to be accountable to it. It the church didn't know, then how can they have covered it up, how can they have endorsed it, how can it be common knowledge when it simple wasn't reported? Like I said before, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. But that fails the very elementary wacko conspiracy test in which something doesn't sound logical enough to even be plausible.
And no, you attempting to insult me or wave your hands in the air yelling it isn't so because I closed my eyes and wished really hard while ignoring the facts, does nothing to strengthen your case.
You are a sick puppy. Claiming that it is the laws problem because Catholic priests are rapists? Yes, the law not going in a making huge numbers of arrest of Catholic priests when it is common knowledge that they are rapists is bad. That does not take the blame away from the church. Your attempt to claim that the law gets involved in every crime that is well known to be happening is absurd.
Well, I see once again that any effort of intellectual debate is lost on you. The law didn't go in because it's not true that it was common knowledge. It's that simple. The amount of shear audacity you have to purposely maintain in order to believe that ever state in the country with every country, city and tow
At least in Germany, if there are two people claiming opposite things with nothing else in supporting evidence either way, and unless either side is too likely to be lying, the old in dubio pro reo works. You might be right about those pesky non-caucasian white males that have the nerve to annoy a jury with testimony, though.
I'm not entirely sure why you brought race and gender up. In dubio pro reo works in the US too, however, there is generally circumstantial evidence which accompanies the accusations so there would practically never be someone on trial at the single accusation of someone else with nothing else in supporting evidence. For instance, someone was shot by a 6 foot tall person as calculated from a picture that only had a shadow of the figure, he was shot with a 9 mil handgun as evidence of the bullet and bullet wound indicate. Now suppose you are 6 foot tall and own a 9 mil that you can't seem to find for ballistics testing, you claiming you were across town at the time of the shooting so it couldn't be you apposed by someone claiming they saw you arguing with the murdered victim minutes before being found dead would get you convicted of some sort of murder related crime. And that would generally be true if you were Caucasian or not, male or female.
That's the thing. I don't have to take the word of anyone for anything. I am free to apply my own logic, reasoning, moral framework and mood of the day to any and all information I receive. I am free to re-evaluate this information based on other information and turn around 180 degrees the second I realize that I have been wrong. What you might have meant was "if you are inclined to believe someone (for whatever reasons) and want to believe in a particular story told by said person (for whatever reasons), sometimes you can only base this on faith".
If you tell me you like tofu, I will prolly believe you even though I disagree with your sentiment. If you tell me you can burp the alphabet, I might ask for proof. If you tell me you met a holy spirit that told you it's OK to get out of debt by stealing from the local church (this has happened!), I might not believe you.
Listen, I'm not telling you that you have to believe someone, I telling you that just because there is no empirical evidence left for you to inspect or that you can test, does not mean that something did not happen. I have personally known people who have survived crap that no one would have thought possible and walked away with a few scratches but otherwise fine. I saw a guy climb onto the roof of a car and attempt to surf like in the movie teen wolf, get hit in the head by a tree branch hanging over the road while going 40 mph down a country road, get thrown off and ended up being ran over by the truck behind us, and walk away with nothing more then scratches on his arm and face. and let me tell you, when the truck behind us hit him, it looked like it was going to flip the truck as both tires on the drivers side hopped about 20 inches off the ground on when they went over him. You can believe me or not, but just because I don't have pictures or video or the ability to recreate it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Knocking down the strawman with a red herring. The fact that a particular faith incorporates certain facts into their stories does not prove the faith. The facts in faith are facts (though some people tend to be confused about what defines fact). The faith in faith are faith.
Lol.. I said nothing about it proving anything. I said that your assumption of it religion being pure faith is inaccurate.
So because the scientific process did not exist, I should take the old stuff at face value? Thanks, but no thanks.
Are you trying to troll now? I said nothing of the sorts, I said the reporting of miracles have declined as science and technology has adva
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, it's you who doesn't know how to read. Most is on one line of the many lines I quoted. Why are you concentrating on just one word? Is it because it threatens your point and makes your statement false so you have to use slight of hand tactics?
Why don't you read the entire ruling then get back with me. And if you notice the right to marry has to do with religious rights, procreation, the right of inheritance which is part of the legal system, obtaining government benefits when a spouse is incarcerated and so on. You will also find that the court said there was a legitimate need for the law, it's just that the law didn't do what it pretended to do.
Who said it was a privilege? I said it's the same right that everyone else has and that not allowing a man to mary a man is no different then not allowing a father to marry his daughter or a brother to marry his sister. Or are you arguing that those laws are unconstitutional too? I said it's within the state's purview to regulate it as long as they do not stop someone from doing what everyone else is allowed to so. Prop 8 does not stop anyone from doing what anyone else is allowed to do.
Here is where you prove that you are a fucking idiot. It does not say that at all, it says there are other more effective measures that can be taken then limiting someone's rights. However, in all these cases, the constitutional right is not to marry anyone you want, it's to marry as the law allows. Or are you claiming that a brother should be able to marry his sister or aunt?
The document doesn't work against my case. However, it does not support your and you are the one who brought it up. Perhaps you should practice what you preach.
There, fixed that for you. You see, this is slashdot and car analogies are everything.
He probably has those emailed forwarded to him by ignorant constituents who think he should see them too. Your right, it's probably 700 emails from a particular website a year, but when you consider all the forwarding that might be going on, that 700 can turn into 140,000 if just 200 of his constituents forward it. And that creates a lot larger problem then blocking a single website. And I believe that 200 people wouldn't be a very large portion of his constituency. It's probably less then one percent.
NO, as the poster said, the mujaheddin became the Northern Alliance which was one of the competing warlords in the area- not the Taliban. The Taliban is a separate group entirely that seems to be formed out of nowhere historically important to the area or the Russian Afghan war.
It's accurate to say mujaheddin became the Northern Alliance, and we armed mujaheddin. It's inaccurate to say we armed the Taliban or that the group came from any factions we actively armed..
Like I said before, cite the case so we can all join in on the fun.
As near as I can tell, the case you are talking about is 82 U.S. 78 (1987).
And if you actually read the case, you will find that procreation is directly involved in the ruling.
Here is a quote directly from it.
And yes, that is in the same paragraph in which your statement of it not pertaining to reproduction is being made. However, if we look at the terms "fully consummated" we find that it has everything to do with procreation.
Now I know why you wanted to keep this case a secrete, it doesn't say what you are pretending it says. What does that tell you when your argument boils down to purposely hiding relevant facts in order to misrepresent others?
Actually, it does limit the ruling to what they claim the fundamental right is derived from. The castle ruling said you have a fundamental right to defend yourself and not an obligation to seek refuge first when you are confronted with an imminent threat that is armed. It doesn't mean that you can just shoot someone who is holding a gun, it means that if they are trying to kill you, you can fire back without trying to escape first.
And you are ignoring the fact that gays have exactly the same right as normal people when it comes to marriage. You still haven't shown that marrying anyone you choose to is somehow integral to that fundamental right. As the court noted, the right is for the survival of the species and as we know man on man or woman on woman will not cause procreation.
I posted the quote, can't you read? It said the right was fundemental for the survival of our species.
No one is currently denying anyone a right. Gays have the same rights as everyone else. And no, it's not a basic right, as you have pointed out, it's a fundamental right where the fundamental comes from procreation. And in today's times where it's common to have kids out of wedlock, I'm not sure that fundamental principle would even be relevant- therefore the same with your right.
But you see, your challenge is not about rights, it's about preference in the exercise of those rights. And your argument is the same as a challenge to a privilege. But lets change that argument just to end your distinction. Currently it's illegal for someone to be intoxicated in the public whether they are causing harm to others or not. I certainly have a right to be in public spaces, I certainly have a right to travel, does this mean that public intoxication laws are unconstitutional? How about drugs of abuse, it makes a lot of people happy to get all cranked up and walk around. How about Heroin?
I know the differences, however, the argument is the same, some people are getting advantages that others are not, and your pursuit of happiness which isn't in the constitution is your constitutional basis. And sure, they can marry someone of the opposite sex and get these benefits but that's not what they want to do. Listen, if the argument turns void because it's an opt in system, then it turns void when you do not want to follow the rules to participate. You are wanting your cake and eating it too. It can't be both ways. BTW, if it's opt in or opt out, then why can't a brother or sister get married? Why can't Dad and Daughter?
Wow, look at the ignorance shine.
Clinton has so much hate by this time in office that he completely lost control of the congress to the republicans. And no, the hate wasn';t directed at clinton as much as it was at his policies.
Also, Clinton wasn't elected with a majority populare vote. In all essence, about 3/5s of the people in the US elected Clinton as the popular vote was split between three dominant candidates (with Ross Pero in the mix.)
Also, the tea party movement existed long before a black man was in office as the president. The tea party movement is essentially the rational Ron Paul supporters who got off the Ron Paul Idol kicks and started making sense with their political ramblings.
And to your parent, if the democrats had not put Turd sandwiches up for election, some of the 89% voted for republicans, would probably have vote democrat or more likely independent.
The last three elections were literally the lesser of two evils elections on the republican/conservative outlook. Obama was able to get the "lets make history and you will be part of it so you are important" message out better though.
What this ends up with is a growing number of people dissatisfied with the government no matter how you look at it.
No hey weren't. I suggest that you open a book or something before moving forward with incorrect information like this. While it's true that some of the mujaheddin may have became Taliban members, the mujaheddin did not turn into the Taliban.
The mujaheddin ended up as what we called the northern alliance. They essentially turned into one of the war lords causing the problems that allowed the Taliban to shine so bright in it's early days. And the Taliban had more modern versions of weapons then what we armed the mujaheddin with. The Taliban and the mujaheddin are in no way shape or form the same organization.
No, they simply were not and no we didn't.
I can understand your confusion though, that line of reasoning has been long thrown out there by the anti war crowd in a Micheal more style effort to misconstrue the facts and gain the support of idiots who don't know any better, people to busy or lazy to look the information up themselves, and anyone they can confuse with a logical fallacy. So it's not like you haven't been bombarded with misinformation or anything.
From history and the legal system as I said before.
Lol.. I suppose that's just because you say so. Well, why don't you cite your references.
Yawn... Those cases dealt with a fundamental problem that was denying someone a right that others were allowed, it's in no way similar to this as gays have the same rights as normal people. They are arguing a choice not a lack of rights. Please stop taking shit out of context to push your point.
It doesn't matter, the essence of your argument still applies. If the state can allow osme a privilege and not others, then the same base discrimination applies as you have defined it.
Wow, not only to you read into what I say that isn't there, but you read into crap that has never been said by the judges. The fundamental right as define was the right to marry someone of the opposite sex as that was the law the ruling was over. Face it, you are in a losing position and no matter how you contort the shit, it won't matter in this case.
I see the problem not, it's not that you are an agenda driving idiot, it's that you are a complete moron. I didn't ask what harm someone would suffer under the existing law, I asked what disability as in the Americans with disability act that gays suffer from that would justify forcing the override of the will of the people in order to satisfy their personal choice. Go back and read what was wrote again and tell me how in the hell you took it the wrong way.
BTW, unmarried couples suffer the same disadvantages that you cited, why should they not get the same privileges?
Lol.. The SCOTUS is not above the constitution. You are a fucking idiot. Lets look at a few of the key points in the rulings that you are attempting to skew in order to demonstrate it.
So how is a man marrying a man fundame
Why would anyone want to mode it up? I mean his premise is that because the pentagon didn't validate leaked secretes by combing though them and saying what was sensitive and what wasn't, it's now their fault?
The entire validation effort could have been an effort to gather information on which piece of information was important which this ass at Wikileaks could have used once again to his name in the paper by saying not only do we have the leaked shit, but we have what the pentagon doesn't want you to know. And for that matter, For all we know, this could be a secrete Taliban/Al Qeada sympathizer who is just attempting to narrow down what was important to the US in order to save the enemy the time it took to comb though it themselves.
So why would the pentagon want to help spread the crap that shouldn't be public at all at this stage? I mean this guy is giving the enemy information right now and blaming it on "I don't have enough time before I release this crap and get my name in the papers again" then suggesting to people who ask him to not release it until after he gets the time because it's getting people killed, that they would have to do it themselves if they wanted it done.
Someone mod him down or save your mods for something else entirely. Perhaps for something that has some merit.
Wow, I started to think you were on to something then you went and spoke about shit you obviously have no clue about.
The US did not fund the Taliban to fight the Russians. The Taliban was not even around during that conflict. The Taliban didn't emerge until after the Russian afghan war was over and the collapse of the soviet union. Now would be right to say out inaction allowed them to become powerful in the region as after the Russian pulled out, the US bailed too for fear that our involvement publicly would cause Russia to either return or to attack us as a last ditch effort. This caused the area to be broken into territories controlled by war lords and made trade or transportation and travel in the area almost impossible as the feuding between the warlords interrupted anything resembling a economic stability or public safety if you weren't from their clan. Finally, the war lords formed an alliance but elements still broke away and pirated cargo from supply shipments and stuff.
With all this Chaos, along comes a group calling itself the Taliban who started out as armed security guards being hired to protect shipments but the Afghan government. They got the job done and started getting shipments through, opened trade up, and made it safe to travel . Then they ended up getting into the government and imposing their views onto the people. The Taliban was not heard of until the mid 1990's. Now it's possible that some Taliban members were the same mujaheddin members, but the organization itself did not/does not resemble anything in play when the US aided the Afghan rebels.
The start of the either with us or against us attitude comes from our attempts to get Al Qeada and the Taliban gave them state protection. Our only option to get Al Qaeda was to violate their sovereignty so the call was made to oust the Taliban government in the process. And no, it wasn't funded by Saudi Arabia, it was funded by elements inside Saudi Arabia. Saying that the country is responsible for the people breaking their own laws is like saying the Federal government of the US and the entire US funded my efforts to piss on Buckingham Palace when I was in England- and of course I used my own money to go over, I used my own money to get drunk, and I used my own money to take the taxi ride in which I somehow thought it would be a good idea or a funny idea. The US government had absolutely nothing to do with it.
So lets get back to reality here, mkay?
Sure they make it profitable. But the point is that they wouldn't be doing it if it weren't so losing the tax breaks would be a wash. Or in other words, no real disadvantage to the competing industry exists. And the competing industry is free to enter the same market space and take the same advantages if they so choose.
Of course it does, that's because the value of time over money or the time value of money needs to be accounted for. After all, there is a cost associated with entering these lines of endeavor and it may be more profitable to simply soak the money into a mutual fund or public bonds or something. But as I mentioned before, nothing is preventing the competition from entering the same lines and getting the same benefits outside of the lack of expertise or capitol. And I don't think anyone wants to argue that we should be giving car manufacturers or battery manufacturers money so they can become as large as the oil companies.
The argument or point is that the subsidies doesn't put the oil companies at a real unfair advantage as many attempt to claim. If we ended them as you suggested, all that would really happen is that the government would have to find other ways to get what it wanted done. This would likely manifest as a contracted service the government pays a flat rate for which the oil companies would end up fulfilling anyways once the price became right because they have the ability to do the job.
What all this means is that there is no real market distortions happening that would disappear if the tax breaks did.
Not driving/riding in cars would have some problems as a solution to low traction tires unless you forced all cars off the road and that's not possible any time soon. Otherwise, you are still in danger of the other idiots still driving and you will be exposed to them most of the time you are traveling.
Except that in this case, the tax breaks are pretty much all to get the oil companies to do things that aren't profitable to them. Some of them aren't even tax breaks at all, it's stupid things like allowing depreciation rates to occur faster then normal or to explore, develop and produce in areas that aren't profitable as well as develop non-standard fuel sources which is why oil companies got into the solar market a long time ago.
So no, it doesn't substantially create a set of market distortions. At best, it allows the oil industry to involve itself in areas it wouldn't otherwise be involved in and do the things that the government wants them to do. And the subsidies aren't for the products directly competing with others, it's for the fringe and otherwise unprofitable ventures the oil companies are involved with like the creation of alternative fuels.
Actually, that's a misnomer. Charging the batteries while going down hill or breaking will only recover a portion of the energy it took to put it on the top of the hill in the first place. And that is limited to a portion because physics don't allow the creation of energy out of nothing nor does it allow energy converted to heat to be retained as electrical current in the accounting of the energy. However, this so called savings isn't as much as you might thing against an ICE engine because the computer on fuel injected vehicles will shut that fuel off as the throttle is released regardless of engine speed. In carburetor'd vehicles, more fuel would be used because the fuel is delivered by air moving over ports in the intake.
So all the fuel that would be needed when coasting down a hill, would be the amount necessary to keep it idling unless the accelerator peddle is depressed (as it would be on both). This difference isn't all that great but in a hybrid, it does recapture a portion of the energy used to get it to the top of the hill making it slightly more efficient.
Have you even read the study? If so, don't you find it strange that the biggest subsidy counted besides the idea of the entire military and defense budge that they fallaciously claim is around only to protect oil producing state (I guess history and the cold war means nothing to them), is the road use tax which is applied directly to the people using gas in order to maintain the roads and build new ones? I mean why are they counting something as a large as they are simply because it passes through to the government before the oil companies benefit from it? If it went straight to the oil companies and they had to build and maintain the roads, we would be paying about the same amount if not just a tad bit more.
And the idea of tacking the costs of roads onto the subsidy list is ridiculous at that. Roads were around long before oil was in the economy. In fact, it was so important, it's actually in the US constitution as something the federal government is supposed to fuck with. Roads are needed for transportation no matter what the fuel or power source is and will exist with or without oil. Should we start taking this costs onto the costs of hybrids or Plug in electric vehicles too seeing how they don't pay the same amount of tax or in some cases none of the tax that goes to maintain and build roads?
If you can read that study and make any statement with the word true in it, you are either lying or stating where the study is wrong. the little nit pick about the fallacious costs of defense spending and a tax specifically designed to maintain and build roads and be paid for by some who use them in certain ways as being a subsidy, there are all sorts of other problems with it. Most if not all the tax breaks are because the government wants the oil companies to do something they wouldn't already do. The percentage depletion allowance isn't actually a subsidy at all, it allows them to deduct a portion of their lease payments based around the decreased value of the lease as the oil is removed. This is actually a penalty because in all other businesses, the entire lease payment is deductible as a cost of business. The non-conventional fuel production is a tax break only if they produce non-conventional fuels and develop uses for them that would benefit the economy. Without the tax break, the program would simply not exist as they are typically losing ventures. The immediate expending of exploration and development costs is not a break at all, it simply allows the costs to be deducted sooner then in a normal setting. The only advantage here is an interest break on capital loans because of short payback terms. The enhanced oil recovery credit only exists to get oil companies to drill in leases that aren't readily accessible or when something makes then non-profitable to produce oil from a well. This actually benefits the government as it allows more leases to remain active generating revenue in excess of the tax breaks.
The so called study is a load of hog wash passed off as fine filters spring water. You may not know the difference, but anyone without an agenda and the ability to pay attention will.
Tell me that with as much confident when you don't see the car pulling out of their driveway or an alleyway until it's a panic stop time and you can't do it, try to steer around it, lose control and kill your passengers when you strike a telephone pole and it falls on your car.
Not all reliance or importance on traction is about screwing the fuel, it can just as well be about safety to you, your passengers, and others around you when you drive.
First of all, I have never said anything about marrying pigs or child or anything in the context of this discussion. I have said that it's within the purview of the state to regulate legal license just as it's within their right to regulate intoxicated persons driving down the road. As for the rational basis, there doesn't need to be one as the state doesn't need a rational bases for anything that isn't verboten in their constitution or the federal constitution. What's the rational basis for not letting someone open a catering service in their garage that resided in a strictly residential zoned neighborhood if they retrofit it to meet health codes? You see, there doesn't need to be any rationalization or any good rationalization attached. And no, your property values won't decrease if I open a catering business in my garage, the worst you can complain about in harm would be the occasional truck or two dropping off deliveries and a few extra people loading up the supplies for an event every once in a while.
So there are plenty of other laws that do not have or need rationalization. But this marriage is even older then those laws, and there are a few rationalizations. For people starting families that will have dependent offspring, it sets a legal order of behavior that must take place before dissolving it. So if Jack and Jill decide to get a divorce so Jack can get with Joe, there is an order which doesn't destroy either Jack or Jill to the point that they cannot take care of their dependent offspring and other obligations. Now this is unnecessary for people with kids who aren't married because there is also another legal structure that takes effect in which the state becomes involved in much more detail, much earlier. And if Jack was never married and wanted to enter the same legal framework with Joe, then there is yet another legal structure in which all that can be done. The only difference is the amount of difficulty involved with starting and maintaining the legal structure and how soon it becomes intrusive or not depending on how fare from you deviate from what the state allowed as a default.
Since when has marriage been defined as a fundemental right? It certainly isn't in the federal constitution, if it was at one time in the California constitution, then the California constitutional amendment that prop 8 caused (which is why this is at a federal level and not with the loons on the California State Supreme Court) would have nullified any interpretation of that outside of being between a man and a woman. If you mean fundamental right as in you think you should have it, then you might be thinking wrong, however, it's a state's right that overrules the citizens subject to their jurisdiction unless something influencing the state's jurisdiction denies the state that right.
Another thing, You keep bringing up this pursuit of happiness thing. It doesn't mean what you are attempting to make it mean. And there is nothing binding about it because it's not in any constitution. Or perhaps you would like to explain why I can get arrested, fined, and possible imprisoned along with having other liberties taken from me if I consume alcohol and drive without hurting or harming anyone else? As I mentioned before, if it's just happiness, then drinking and driving makes people happy.
Maybe you should look up the term "pursuit of h
And what would make you say that? Just because I support the rule of established law and don't cow-tail to your agenda doesn't mean I hate or dislike anything about you, your agenda, or anyone/anything else. There is right and wrong and right now, the established rule of law is right. If we can bend the rules in order to get your pet project through, then anyone can bend the rules to get theirs through. That's not right and no amount of saying it won't happen again will make it so.
I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that your argument falls apart very rapidly when it's sided on anything else. SO you found just one of the multiple arguments I transposed onto your premise to find problems with, well, boo hoo for you.
Many laws stop people from doing what they want. Why is that such a big problem for you to understand? Speeding laws stop you from speeding, even on an isolated road that is a flat straight stretch with only road signs and a photo radar gun on it. Are speed limits unconstitutional? And yes, with the drinking and driving and the speeding, it all involves consenting adults and nothing more. So to sit there and pretend that it somehow makes it more important or somehow more anything is a tad bit fucking stupid. The state has the right to regular the speed limit of a road, the state has the right to regulate marriage. And nothing in the law says you can marry anyone you want, it says you can only marry someone of the opposite sex. Your argument holds water like a pasta strainer.
Actually, why don't you address the point? I mean your logic as stated can be applied to anything, why do I need to grow up when you can't cope with the failings of your logic? Does the state have some inherent right to regulate how much a free person can be intoxicated while driving if that person doesn't cause any harm to anyone else but for some reason not the right to regulate marriage in which it has been regulating since it's inception? Quit avoiding the question.
There you go showing everyone what the entire problem here is. You see, you assume things that have no basis in reality that you somehow pulled out of thin air, ignore the actual questions before you, then attempt to appear sly by making what you think are witty comments. This is what the judge did in this case too, and it's the reason why the entire thing is going to collapse on further review.
I don't have time in this post but I will report to you in a day or so with the information. But be forewarned, I'm also going to point out where he ignore established laws, rules of the court and proceedings, introduced his own evidence for one side of the argument too. And if you want to argue it, you will need to argue it all.
Yes, I remembered that and actually read the decision. Many legal scholors have read it and commented on it too. Just like this judge did, the CSC went off the rule of law and into lala land to back up most of their stance. If you read the decent on it, you would find that judges on the CSC were horrified in what the majority actually did which is why prop 8 took it out of their hands.
Now the interesting thing is, the SCOTUS is not stacked with a bunch of loons yet. Outside of this last nominee who might go against pro 8 or even recuse herself because of prior involvement just because she wants to show how fair or impartial she is being gay and all, the SCOTUS is not stacked with a bunch of loons that make shit up out of thin air and ignore existing rules of law.
But hey, watch and see, feel free to build your hopes up on a dieing and unqualified position just to see them shattered faster then a baseball moving through a closed window. I don't really care if you are disappointment, I just know the ruling as it stands will not pass further scrutiny and was a ploy to gain attention to the fight.
I don't believe I said sexual attraction doesn't make us reproduce, I said the built in kill switch for a "gay evolutionary principle" is the inability to reproduce when your sexual attraction limits you to same sex couples .
Are you just trolling? You said
SO are you saying that someone never ever chooses to be gay? Even after you suggest that people have turned gay after experiencing sexual abuse as a teen? I know people who are gay simply because it gets them off. They choose to be gay and admit it. This anecdotal evidence alone would probably be enough to show you are the one full of something without explaining how you failed in taking my comment out of context.
I also like the way you only quoted part of what I said, that full quote should need no explanation and you shouldn't be there scratching your head, but here it is anyways, I said:
And if you looks at the paragraph I quoted from your post, you would specifically see that I was referring to the idea of not being born defective but being swayed into the direction of being from influences. And I acknowledge your proposition that people who purposely become gay or turn gay after traumatizing experiences do not have the same satisfaction as someone who is gay because of a subconscious underlying.
You really are an ignorant ass aren't you?
Your right, constantly bashing the church by taking crap out of context and applying after the fact information to before the fact knowledge does make them tend to dismiss accusations as just another wild bullshit accusation from someone with an agenda and allows the behavior to continue. I'm glad that you are finally realizing what you are doing is wrong. However, I don't think you even know you are doing it or realizing it's wrong.
BTW, The term but boy was directed exactly at you, not the people claiming to have been molested by the priests. Second, But is spell in the extend of but they did this, not the spelling of Butt meaning the ass. But hey, I guess all fair in your world right? And of course I have never said it was their fault. But that doesn't matter to you, you will take anything you want, even if it wasn't said and use it to what you think is your own advantage. And the false allegations just gives more people the willingness not to believe you when you make an accusation. Have you ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
Lol.. Once again, you are working primarily from nothing but your imagination. Nothing I said was a lie, and asking if you were one of the but boys was a question, not calling you a name. But hey, you haven't let facts get in your way so far, I guess it was too much to assume that they would be beneficial here.
You see, you such an ignorant fuck that you won't get it if it was handed to you. What allowed it to happen for so long was that no one was reporting it until way later after it happened. As the report said, and my numbers back up, two thirds of the people this happened to kept quiet about it until 1993 when a lawsuit was brought against the catholic church in Boston and made it all very public. After the lawsuit happened, then another third of the reported abuses that happened between 1950 and 2001 started pouring in. This raised the alarm and cause it to be in the public's mind while also summoning the courage for another ~3500 people, or one third to come forward in the last 3 years after they saw the 1993 lawsuit being won and the guy getting a large sum of money.
So what allowed it to happen was people being embarrassed to say anything and delaying their accusations until years or decades later, the thought that they wouldn't have been believed because wild and out of context accusations like yours were being thrown around and dismissed with all real evidence at the time saying the contrary, and a willingness or ability to underestimate the scope of the problem because no one was really reporting it until way later or well after it happened.
Now my attitude is to realize that the failure in stopping this was in the lack of reporting and the attitude towards the victims from the church and society in general which caused the failures to report to be extremely high. You can sit there and ignore all that and say someone should have known and lie about it being common knowledge when it wasn't even reported, but in order to stop it from happening, you need to find why it failed, stop making wild and out of context accusation like you are, and encourage a change in perception to the victims so that they report the abuses without fear of reprisal
There is nothing wrong or false about what I said. and you can quote the report all you want, you simply have to also quote the part about when the complaints were filed which would give the church cause to know something was happening.
As I stated before and the report also states, "one-third of the accusations were made in the years 2002 and 2003. Another third of the allegations were reported between 1993 and 2001". This means that for the bulk of the time, regardless of what was happening, the church only knew about 1/3 of the accusations from 1950 until 1993 This completely fits with my numbers that were also explained. At that time (1993), the accusations increased another third of the total until 2001, so between 1950 and 2001 the church could have only knew about 2/3rds of the accusations. And as the report states, another one third came in between 2002 and 2003*-4 when they started the investigation. So it wasn't until 2003-4 that they knew of the entire scope of the matter.
Lol.. Ok, if I have lied about it, then show me what I have said that isn't supported by the report or facts. And FYI, I'm not claiming the abuses never happened, I'm claiming that your unsupported accusations that the church condoned the behavior is unsupported because they didn't know of the full scope and magnitude until the final years of before the report. And to that end, you just supported my claim by stating where the report says that not only are sexual assaults under reported, but that these are just the cases that the Catholic Church admits to. Except I believe the correct wording "admits to knowing about". and you are claiming I'm cherry picking data.
And yes, if the parishes swept something under the rug or the priest got completely away with it, then how in the hell is the pope and the church leadership supposed to know about it in order to be so called supporting it as you claim? Do you even understand the concept of accountability at all? You have to know of something in order to be accountable to it. It the church didn't know, then how can they have covered it up, how can they have endorsed it, how can it be common knowledge when it simple wasn't reported? Like I said before, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. But that fails the very elementary wacko conspiracy test in which something doesn't sound logical enough to even be plausible.
And no, you attempting to insult me or wave your hands in the air yelling it isn't so because I closed my eyes and wished really hard while ignoring the facts, does nothing to strengthen your case.
Well, I see once again that any effort of intellectual debate is lost on you. The law didn't go in because it's not true that it was common knowledge. It's that simple. The amount of shear audacity you have to purposely maintain in order to believe that ever state in the country with every country, city and tow
I'm not entirely sure why you brought race and gender up. In dubio pro reo works in the US too, however, there is generally circumstantial evidence which accompanies the accusations so there would practically never be someone on trial at the single accusation of someone else with nothing else in supporting evidence. For instance, someone was shot by a 6 foot tall person as calculated from a picture that only had a shadow of the figure, he was shot with a 9 mil handgun as evidence of the bullet and bullet wound indicate. Now suppose you are 6 foot tall and own a 9 mil that you can't seem to find for ballistics testing, you claiming you were across town at the time of the shooting so it couldn't be you apposed by someone claiming they saw you arguing with the murdered victim minutes before being found dead would get you convicted of some sort of murder related crime. And that would generally be true if you were Caucasian or not, male or female.
Listen, I'm not telling you that you have to believe someone, I telling you that just because there is no empirical evidence left for you to inspect or that you can test, does not mean that something did not happen. I have personally known people who have survived crap that no one would have thought possible and walked away with a few scratches but otherwise fine. I saw a guy climb onto the roof of a car and attempt to surf like in the movie teen wolf, get hit in the head by a tree branch hanging over the road while going 40 mph down a country road, get thrown off and ended up being ran over by the truck behind us, and walk away with nothing more then scratches on his arm and face. and let me tell you, when the truck behind us hit him, it looked like it was going to flip the truck as both tires on the drivers side hopped about 20 inches off the ground on when they went over him. You can believe me or not, but just because I don't have pictures or video or the ability to recreate it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Lol.. I said nothing about it proving anything. I said that your assumption of it religion being pure faith is inaccurate.
Are you trying to troll now? I said nothing of the sorts, I said the reporting of miracles have declined as science and technology has adva