Okay, I’m a little sore and moving a little slowly today. I’ve actually swept the floor and made the tea. Sugar’s on the table. I think I’m going to sit down for a while now…come on in and make yourselves at home.
What “dirt” shall we discuss? Charlie Sheen shutting down “Two and Half Men” with his bad behavior, putting hundreds of people out of work? Libyan leader on the run? Obama partying down while the Middle East melts?
So many topics, so little time…but we’ll manage, I’m sure.
Friday “Diggin’ in the Dirt” Recovery Open Comments
by
Tags:
Comments
100 responses to “Friday “Diggin’ in the Dirt” Recovery Open Comments”
-
If i had Admin privelges, there’d already be a Music Thread.
Just sayin–
-
If i had Admin privelges, there’d already be a Music Thread.
Just sayin– -
I’ve never been big on the whole music thread thing, but I’ll see what I can do. It seems that my cohorts in crime are also late coming to work.
-
I’ve never been big on the whole music thread thing, but I’ll see what I can do. It seems that my cohorts in crime are also late coming to work.
-
Recall petitions already being circulated for 7 of the Wisconsin Fleebaggers.
The Unions are mulling over whether or not they will mount a similar effort agains some Republicans.
It will be interesting to see who gets more signatures, and who is successful.
Which is why the Unions might not want to do it.
-
Recall petitions already being circulated for 7 of the Wisconsin Fleebaggers.
The Unions are mulling over whether or not they will mount a similar effort agains some Republicans.
It will be interesting to see who gets more signatures, and who is successful.
Which is why the Unions might not want to do it. -
I’ve never been big on the whole music thread thing, but I’ll see what I can do. It seems that my cohorts in crime are also late coming to work.
There’s history and tradition involved.
It all started as Zappa Friday, until we ran out of Zappa tunes.
-
I’ve never been big on the whole music thread thing, but I’ll see what I can do. It seems that my cohorts in crime are also late coming to work.
There’s history and tradition involved.
It all started as Zappa Friday, until we ran out of Zappa tunes. -
I vote we make Sarge the official Hamster Music Czar.
🙂
-
I vote we make Sarge the official Hamster Music Czar.
🙂 -
Music thread up, in honor of the rodeo. Have fun!
-
Music thread up, in honor of the rodeo. Have fun!
-
A man and his dog were walking along a road. The man was enjoying the scenery, when it suddenly occurred to him that he was dead.
He remembered dying, and that the dog walking
beside him had been dead for years.
He wondered where the road was leading them.After a while, they came to a high,
white stone wall along one side of the road.
It looked like fine marble.At the top of a long hill, the wall was broken
by a tall arch that glowed in the sunlight.When he was standing before it, he saw a
magnificent gate in the arch that looked like
mother-of-pearl, and the street that led to
the gate looked like pure gold.He and the dog walked toward the gate,
and as he got closer, he saw a man at a desk to one side.When he was close enough, he called out,
‘Excuse me, where are we?’‘This is Heaven, sir,’ the man answered.
‘Wow! Would you happen to have
some water?’ the man asked.‘Of course, sir. Come right in, and I’ll
have some ice water brought right up.’The man gestured, and the gate began to open.
‘Can my friend,’ gesturing toward his dog,
‘come in, too?’ the traveler asked.‘I’m sorry, sir, but we don’t accept pets.’
The man thought a moment and then
turned back toward the road and continued
the way he had been going with his dog.After another long walk, and at the top
of another long hill, he came to a dirt road
leading through a farm gate that looked as if
it had never been closed.There was no fence.
As he approached the gate, he saw a man inside,
leaning against a tree and reading a book….‘Excuse me!’ he called to the man.
‘Do you have any water?’‘Yeah, sure, there’s a pump over there,
come on in.’‘How about my friend here?’
the traveler gestured to the dog.‘There should be a bowl by the pump,’ said the man.
They went through the gate, and sure enough, there was an old-fashioned hand pump with a bowl beside it.
The traveler filled the water bowl and took a long drink himself, then gave some to the dog.
When they were full, he and the dog walked back toward the man who was standing by the tree.
‘What do you call this place?’ the traveler asked.‘This is Heaven,’ he answered.
‘Well, that’s confusing,’ the traveler said. ‘The man down the road said that was Heaven, too.’
‘Oh, you mean the place with the gold streets and pearly gates?
Nope. That’s hell.’
‘Doesn’t it make you mad for them to use your name like that?’
‘No, we’re just happy that they screen out the folks who would leave their best friends behind.’
Mornin’ Gang -
A man and his dog were walking along a road. The man was enjoying the scenery, when it suddenly occurred to him that he was dead.
He remembered dying, and that the dog walking
beside him had been dead for years.
He wondered where the road was leading them.
After a while, they came to a high,
white stone wall along one side of the road.
It looked like fine marble.
At the top of a long hill, the wall was broken
by a tall arch that glowed in the sunlight.
When he was standing before it, he saw a
magnificent gate in the arch that looked like
mother-of-pearl, and the street that led to
the gate looked like pure gold.
He and the dog walked toward the gate,
and as he got closer, he saw a man at a desk to one side.
When he was close enough, he called out,
‘Excuse me, where are we?’
‘This is Heaven, sir,’ the man answered.
‘Wow! Would you happen to have
some water?’ the man asked.
‘Of course, sir. Come right in, and I’ll
have some ice water brought right up.’
The man gestured, and the gate began to open.
‘Can my friend,’ gesturing toward his dog,
‘come in, too?’ the traveler asked.
‘I’m sorry, sir, but we don’t accept pets.’
The man thought a moment and then
turned back toward the road and continued
the way he had been going with his dog.
After another long walk, and at the top
of another long hill, he came to a dirt road
leading through a farm gate that looked as if
it had never been closed.
There was no fence.
As he approached the gate, he saw a man inside,
leaning against a tree and reading a book….
‘Excuse me!’ he called to the man.
‘Do you have any water?’
‘Yeah, sure, there’s a pump over there,
come on in.’
‘How about my friend here?’
the traveler gestured to the dog.
‘There should be a bowl by the pump,’ said the man.
They went through the gate, and sure enough, there was an old-fashioned hand pump with a bowl beside it.
The traveler filled the water bowl and took a long drink himself, then gave some to the dog.
When they were full, he and the dog walked back toward the man who was standing by the tree.
‘What do you call this place?’ the traveler asked.
‘This is Heaven,’ he answered.
‘Well, that’s confusing,’ the traveler said. ‘The man down the road said that was Heaven, too.’
‘Oh, you mean the place with the gold streets and pearly gates?
Nope. That’s hell.’
‘Doesn’t it make you mad for them to use your name like that?’
‘No, we’re just happy that they screen out the folks who would leave their best friends behind.’
Mornin’ Gang -
Rush exposes the msm, like as if that was hard.
http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-exposes-msm-bias-imagine-president-palin
#7 Super Dave: I saw that on, I believe, the Twilight Zone when I was a wee pup. I think about it frequently and have told the story to others to make a point. Thanks for bringing it to us.
-
Rush exposes the msm, like as if that was hard.
http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-exposes-msm-bias-imagine-president-palin
#7 Super Dave: I saw that on, I believe, the Twilight Zone when I was a wee pup. I think about it frequently and have told the story to others to make a point. Thanks for bringing it to us. -
Well, THIS ‘splains things in a manner which most of you will understand and appreciate.
I don’t imbibe, so maybe if someone could come up with a visual involving kitties or piles of dirt or something.
And yes, I’ve seen the penny video. Very impressive. Not only is it a good visual, but you have to admire anyone who will spend that much time stacking pennies.
-
Well, THIS ‘splains things in a manner which most of you will understand and appreciate.
I don’t imbibe, so maybe if someone could come up with a visual involving kitties or piles of dirt or something.
And yes, I’ve seen the penny video. Very impressive. Not only is it a good visual, but you have to admire anyone who will spend that much time stacking pennies. -
Sarge: Please read my #128 on yesterday’s o/c thread (posted this am). Please study the links with an open mind.
-
Sarge: Please read my #128 on yesterday’s o/c thread (posted this am). Please study the links with an open mind.
-
I did.
And my mind is plenty broad.
But when you claimed that Slobon Milosovik was railroaded into being convicted of war crimes, you showed me that yours isn’t. Whe you made him the victim and gave him an excuse for committing the genocide and organized rape of muslims in Boznia Herzegovina you showed me that hyour attitude is that Muslims are always wrong and anyone who commits atrocigties against them is always in the right.
What that means to me is that you will never, ever be able to understand what I am saying and always try to make it look like I’m apologizing for Muslims or making excuses for them.
I am not.
I am merely pointing out how easy it is for people to go over the edge with this stuff, and you attitude and statements regarding Milosovik show me that you’ve gone over that edge.
If too many people have the attitude you seem to wish they would adopt, we’re going to have WWIII and all of us will end up living in caves.
-
I did.
And my mind is plenty broad.
But when you claimed that Slobon Milosovik was railroaded into being convicted of war crimes, you showed me that yours isn’t. Whe you made him the victim and gave him an excuse for committing the genocide and organized rape of muslims in Boznia Herzegovina you showed me that hyour attitude is that Muslims are always wrong and anyone who commits atrocigties against them is always in the right.
What that means to me is that you will never, ever be able to understand what I am saying and always try to make it look like I’m apologizing for Muslims or making excuses for them.
I am not.
I am merely pointing out how easy it is for people to go over the edge with this stuff, and you attitude and statements regarding Milosovik show me that you’ve gone over that edge.
If too many people have the attitude you seem to wish they would adopt, we’re going to have WWIII and all of us will end up living in caves. -
Sarge: Let me make a few statements of position:
1. I do not believe that each and every moooslim is a violent, blood thirsty savage. That being said, enough of them are that to ignore that reality is playing russian roulette.
2. Slobo was responding to moooslim church burning, murder and rape. That is a fact. Did he go way overboard, perhaps but the adage of “don’t start no crap and there won’t be no crap” applies, he was responding to continued attacks. The mooooslims have made it a practice to ethnically cleanse, rape, murder, pillage and burn in eastern europe for centuries.
3. Whether you want to believe it or not, we are already headed for WWIII and the islamic caliphate will be at the core of it. Do you want to be caught flat footed or do you want to be prepared so that you can take care of yourself and your family?
4. As far as Israel goes, the reporting is so unbelievably biased against Israel that the truth seldom comes out. For a different perspective try http://www.honestreporting.com
5. I never said that the mooooslims are always wrong. They are however usually the instigators of the problem and when the response rightfully comes then they scream abuse.I am not unsympathetic to your position, I used to hold it myself. I used to believe that you could negotiate with them and treat them according to our western modern sensibilities and they would respond accordingly. Some of them will respond as we would, but enough of them will not that they all must be viewed and interacted with extreme caution. Islam represents a different civilization that what we have here. There are some wonderful people who happen to be moooslim no doubt, I have never said that each and every one is a thug so don’t paint me with that brush.
-
Sarge: Let me make a few statements of position:
1. I do not believe that each and every moooslim is a violent, blood thirsty savage. That being said, enough of them are that to ignore that reality is playing russian roulette.
2. Slobo was responding to moooslim church burning, murder and rape. That is a fact. Did he go way overboard, perhaps but the adage of “don’t start no crap and there won’t be no crap” applies, he was responding to continued attacks. The mooooslims have made it a practice to ethnically cleanse, rape, murder, pillage and burn in eastern europe for centuries.
3. Whether you want to believe it or not, we are already headed for WWIII and the islamic caliphate will be at the core of it. Do you want to be caught flat footed or do you want to be prepared so that you can take care of yourself and your family?
4. As far as Israel goes, the reporting is so unbelievably biased against Israel that the truth seldom comes out. For a different perspective try http://www.honestreporting.com
5. I never said that the mooooslims are always wrong. They are however usually the instigators of the problem and when the response rightfully comes then they scream abuse.
I am not unsympathetic to your position, I used to hold it myself. I used to believe that you could negotiate with them and treat them according to our western modern sensibilities and they would respond accordingly. Some of them will respond as we would, but enough of them will not that they all must be viewed and interacted with extreme caution. Islam represents a different civilization that what we have here. There are some wonderful people who happen to be moooslim no doubt, I have never said that each and every one is a thug so don’t paint me with that brush. -
Found this to be an interesting read. It’s a bit long.
-
Found this to be an interesting read. It’s a bit long.
http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/02/24/moving-rinos-rightward-is-good-defeating-them-is-even-better/ -
From Drudge: Mayo enters politics… or is it vice versa ?
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1102/in_ad_carville_hawks_miracle_whip.html
-
From Drudge: Mayo enters politics… or is it vice versa ?
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1102/in_ad_carville_hawks_miracle_whip.html -
Bonesy
I’m done with you on this subject
Milosovik was a blood thirsty animal who had no excuse whatseover to murder and rape. he was not responding to any musklim violence. He was the perpetrator and instigator. He was not railroaded.
He was as guilty as sin and is roastinf in Hell, which is where everybody with his kind of thinking will spend eternity.
There is just no talking with a mind as closed as yours.
-
Bonesy
I’m done with you on this subject
Milosovik was a blood thirsty animal who had no excuse whatseover to murder and rape. he was not responding to any musklim violence. He was the perpetrator and instigator. He was not railroaded.
He was as guilty as sin and is roastinf in Hell, which is where everybody with his kind of thinking will spend eternity.
There is just no talking with a mind as closed as yours. -
Merton’s concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy stems from the Thomas theorem, which states that “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” According to Thomas, people react not only to the situations they are in, but also, and often primarily, to the way they perceive the situations and to the meaning they assign to these perceptions. Therefore, their behavior is determined in part by their perception and the meaning they ascribe to the situations they are in, rather than by the situations themselves. Once people convince themselves that a situation really has a certain meaning, regardless of whether it actually does, they will take very real actions in consequence.
-
Merton’s concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy stems from the Thomas theorem, which states that “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” According to Thomas, people react not only to the situations they are in, but also, and often primarily, to the way they perceive the situations and to the meaning they assign to these perceptions. Therefore, their behavior is determined in part by their perception and the meaning they ascribe to the situations they are in, rather than by the situations themselves. Once people convince themselves that a situation really has a certain meaning, regardless of whether it actually does, they will take very real actions in consequence.
-
There is just no talking with a mind as closed as yours.
Hey Sarge, try looking in the mirror.
-
There is just no talking with a mind as closed as yours.
Hey Sarge, try looking in the mirror.
-
These were the rules of the Art and Evolution contest:
Imagine an island with a unique environment. Choose an existing animal to put on the island. Fast forward a million years or so and imagine how the animal would evolve as a result of that environment. Draw a picture of the evolved animal.
The 7 year old future scientist that won the contest explained her cute drawing as follows:
The island has purple polka-dotted trees and bushes and quiet predators,” she explained. “And the only food is hard nuts. So after a long, long time, the monkeys evolve to have purple polka dots, huge ears to hear the predators, and sharp teeth to crack the nuts.
The contest was not part of school work, but it was nice of the school to mention the 7 year old’s accomplishment in morning announcements. What wasn’t so nice is that they initially refused to use the real name of the contest because simply because it contained the word “evolution.”
But Ms. Warner said they’re not going to call it an ‘Evolution & Art’ contest — just an ‘Art’ contest. When I asked why, she said, ‘Because evolution is not in the curriculum.’ I said yes it is, it’s in the high school curriculum, and she said, ‘But it’s not in the elementary curriculum, so it’ll just be described as an ‘Art’ contest.
-
These were the rules of the Art and Evolution contest:
Imagine an island with a unique environment. Choose an existing animal to put on the island. Fast forward a million years or so and imagine how the animal would evolve as a result of that environment. Draw a picture of the evolved animal.
The 7 year old future scientist that won the contest explained her cute drawing as follows:
The island has purple polka-dotted trees and bushes and quiet predators,” she explained. “And the only food is hard nuts. So after a long, long time, the monkeys evolve to have purple polka dots, huge ears to hear the predators, and sharp teeth to crack the nuts.
The contest was not part of school work, but it was nice of the school to mention the 7 year old’s accomplishment in morning announcements. What wasn’t so nice is that they initially refused to use the real name of the contest because simply because it contained the word “evolution.”
But Ms. Warner said they’re not going to call it an ‘Evolution & Art’ contest — just an ‘Art’ contest. When I asked why, she said, ‘Because evolution is not in the curriculum.’ I said yes it is, it’s in the high school curriculum, and she said, ‘But it’s not in the elementary curriculum, so it’ll just be described as an ‘Art’ contest.
-
General Hummer leads Pentagon‘s Repeal Implementation team as DA-DT sensitivity training starts on the battlefield. 🙂
Wow. Just what we need as the Middle East goes up in flames.
h/t: Drudge
-
General Hummer leads Pentagon‘s Repeal Implementation team as DA-DT sensitivity training starts on the battlefield. 🙂
Wow. Just what we need as the Middle East goes up in flames.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/combat-troops-to-get-gay-sensitivity-training/?page=1
h/t: Drudge -
Charo: Lady Gaga Is Madonna With Diarrhea.
I didn’t know thatsheCharo was still around. -
Charo: Lady Gaga Is Madonna With Diarrhea.
I didn’t know thatsheCharo was still around. -
How do you make an old lady drop the “F” bomb?
Have the old lady next to her yell “BINGO!!”
-
How do you make an old lady drop the “F” bomb?
Have the old lady next to her yell “BINGO!!” -
Gingrich: Obama Sparks ‘Constitutional Crisis,’ Raises Impeachment Specter.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.
Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment.
Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.
-
Gingrich: Obama Sparks ‘Constitutional Crisis,’ Raises Impeachment Specter.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.
Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment.
Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996. -
Well, I was wondering when the “I” word was coming up. I think he’s committed some impeachable offenses. Heck, I just find him offensive, period.
-
Well, I was wondering when the “I” word was coming up. I think he’s committed some impeachable offenses. Heck, I just find him offensive, period.
-
#22 I would expect a former speaker of the house to know the difference between enforcement and the latitude that every justice department in every administration in our lifetimes has exercised in prioritizing what cases they support and the extent to which they do. This is nothing new, at all.
…not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.
Can anyone here state a case where the DOMA law has been violated?
Of course, it’s entirely possible that Newt knows the difference between enforcement and defending laws against a constitutional challenge quite well, but is just a political hack with aspirations.
-
#22 I would expect a former speaker of the house to know the difference between enforcement and the latitude that every justice department in every administration in our lifetimes has exercised in prioritizing what cases they support and the extent to which they do. This is nothing new, at all.
…not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.
Can anyone here state a case where the DOMA law has been violated?
Of course, it’s entirely possible that Newt knows the difference between enforcement and defending laws against a constitutional challenge quite well, but is just a political hack with aspirations. -
Bob
Its time for you to provide the most recent example of a President saying he will not defend a law in court.
-
Bob
Its time for you to provide the most recent example of a President saying he will not defend a law in court. -
Oh, crap, Bob, it’s not the refusal to enforce a law (which is a problem, btw). It’s the fact that he came out in public in his office as President of these United States and declared a law unconstitutional, which is NOT part of his job description. He is usurping the powers of the judicial branch, and using regulations to usurp the powers of the legislative branch. He has defied rulings by the courts, putting himself above the law.
The guy is an arrogant wiss.
-
Oh, crap, Bob, it’s not the refusal to enforce a law (which is a problem, btw). It’s the fact that he came out in public in his office as President of these United States and declared a law unconstitutional, which is NOT part of his job description. He is usurping the powers of the judicial branch, and using regulations to usurp the powers of the legislative branch. He has defied rulings by the courts, putting himself above the law.
The guy is an arrogant wiss. -
#25 The president does not defend laws in courts.
#26 Nobody declared anything unconstitutional, despite how many time you may have heard that talking point repeated.
-
#25 The president does not defend laws in courts.
#26 Nobody declared anything unconstitutional, despite how many time you may have heard that talking point repeated. -
Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment
Finally, something from Gingrich that I like.
“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.
“First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.
Excellent point!
Bob would also soil his wife’s panties and called that one word I’m still not sure is allowed to be typed here.
-
Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment
Finally, something from Gingrich that I like.“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.
“First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.Excellent point!
Bob would also soil his wife’s panties and called that one word I’m still not sure is allowed to be typed here. -
#29 Darren Pssst, scroll up to my #22. 😉
-
#29 Darren Pssst, scroll up to my #22. 😉
-
#30 Super Dave, been there and done that earlier today. Write your congress critter if you support impeachment.
#29 Darren, perish the thought!
Bob would also soil his wife’s panties
And btw, that’s ex-wife’s panties. 😉
-
#30 Super Dave, been there and done that earlier today. Write your congress critter if you support impeachment.
#29 Darren, perish the thought!Bob would also soil his wife’s panties
And btw, that’s ex-wife’s panties. 😉
-
bob;
Nobody declared anything unconstitutional, despite how many time you may have heard that talking point repeated.
OK.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act “contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution’s) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”
Is that close enough, sweetie?
Dear Mr. Speaker:
After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, I am writing to advise you of the Executive Branch’s determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending DOMA cases to implement that determination.And if you’re saying DOMA is not unconstitutional than there really should be no reason to remove it. If it’s not unconstitutional than the law does not violate anyone’s rights.
_______________________________________________________________________President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has asked his Justice Department to stop defending it in court, the administration announced today.
“The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits,” a person briefed on the decision said.
Is that close enough?
Holder said that Obama concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, which defines “spouse” as a member of the opposite sex, “fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the president’s determination.”
How about that one?
Does a federal judge count? Of course they do. you yourself the other day said parts of DOMA have been ruled unconstitutional. That means you think at least someone has ruled it unconstitutional and now you’re saying “nobody” has ruled it unconstitutional? Or did you mean “in this administration”?
Last May, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled Section 3 unconstitutional because it violated states’ rights to set their own marriage policies and violated the rights of same-sex couples in the states that permitted marriages. The Justice Department entered into an appeal process on October 12, 2010. Tauro stayed implementation of his own ruling pending the appeal. The department filed its defense in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit on January 14.
-
bob;
Nobody declared anything unconstitutional, despite how many time you may have heard that talking point repeated.
OK.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act “contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution’s) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”
LINK
Is that close enough, sweetie?Dear Mr. Speaker:
After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, I am writing to advise you of the Executive Branch’s determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending DOMA cases to implement that determination.And if you’re saying DOMA is not unconstitutional than there really should be no reason to remove it. If it’s not unconstitutional than the law does not violate anyone’s rights.
_______________________________________________________________________President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has asked his Justice Department to stop defending it in court, the administration announced today.
“The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits,” a person briefed on the decision said.LINK
Is that close enough?Holder said that Obama concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, which defines “spouse” as a member of the opposite sex, “fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the president’s determination.”
How about that one?
Does a federal judge count? Of course they do. you yourself the other day said parts of DOMA have been ruled unconstitutional. That means you think at least someone has ruled it unconstitutional and now you’re saying “nobody” has ruled it unconstitutional? Or did you mean “in this administration”?Last May, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled Section 3 unconstitutional because it violated states’ rights to set their own marriage policies and violated the rights of same-sex couples in the states that permitted marriages. The Justice Department entered into an appeal process on October 12, 2010. Tauro stayed implementation of his own ruling pending the appeal. The department filed its defense in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit on January 14.
-
The I-word has been lurking in the hearts of thousands for a long time. That it spills out now and again is not a shock but rather a relief to realize those who think it are not alone.
-
The I-word has been lurking in the hearts of thousands for a long time. That it spills out now and again is not a shock but rather a relief to realize those who think it are not alone.
-
bob #31;
And btw, that’s ex-wife’s panties.
I do stand corrected.
-
bob #31;
And btw, that’s ex-wife’s panties.
I do stand corrected.
-
Super Dave;
Yo, that there #22 post is awesome!!! 😉
-
Super Dave;
Yo, that there #22 post is awesome!!! 😉 -
Bonecrusher #21;
How do you make an old lady drop the “F” bomb?
Have the old lady next to her yell “BINGO!!”
I didn’t know you met Mrs. Darren’s great grandmother before she passed away.
-
Bonecrusher #21;
How do you make an old lady drop the “F” bomb?
Have the old lady next to her yell “BINGO!!”I didn’t know you met Mrs. Darren’s great grandmother before she passed away.
-
Darren, please show me where the constitution gives the government the power to define marriage. Also, if you don’t mind, can you state any ills that the existence of DOMA has prevented. Really, is it a necessary law? Is it helpful in any way?
The law was constitutionally weak from it’s inception. It’s name title gives credence to the term “homophobe.” Is there a valid need for government to spend our money “defending” marriage from lesbians? Why are people so afraid of the government treating Cindy and Tracie just like any other couple?
Ironically, conservatives say they respect free markets, yet a significant portion of conservatives disagree with the bulk of the Fortune 500 and many other employers who have no problem whatsoever with treating people equally in regard to recognizing partnerships.
Once again, our political industry proves itself inferior to a free market system, both socially and fiscally. DOMA was and is nothing more than a wedge issue, and a convenient political football kicked around by duplicitous politicians and pundits when they see benefit in doing so.
-
Darren, please show me where the constitution gives the government the power to define marriage. Also, if you don’t mind, can you state any ills that the existence of DOMA has prevented. Really, is it a necessary law? Is it helpful in any way?
The law was constitutionally weak from it’s inception. It’s name title gives credence to the term “homophobe.” Is there a valid need for government to spend our money “defending” marriage from lesbians? Why are people so afraid of the government treating Cindy and Tracie just like any other couple?
Ironically, conservatives say they respect free markets, yet a significant portion of conservatives disagree with the bulk of the Fortune 500 and many other employers who have no problem whatsoever with treating people equally in regard to recognizing partnerships.
Once again, our political industry proves itself inferior to a free market system, both socially and fiscally. DOMA was and is nothing more than a wedge issue, and a convenient political football kicked around by duplicitous politicians and pundits when they see benefit in doing so. -
bob;
States have the right to define marriage. DOMA tried to bridge the gap between allowing states to define marriage and not force states to accept other state’s marriage not permitted within their own state. A constitutional amendment would be far better (unless people like you use a fderal judge to nullify it and there’s too many political wimps to impeach that judge) but that is what DOMA exists for. With out it government benefits will rise and those married in one state can move to another and violate that state’s laws despite state sovereignty.
-
bob;
States have the right to define marriage. DOMA tried to bridge the gap between allowing states to define marriage and not force states to accept other state’s marriage not permitted within their own state. A constitutional amendment would be far better (unless people like you use a fderal judge to nullify it and there’s too many political wimps to impeach that judge) but that is what DOMA exists for. With out it government benefits will rise and those married in one state can move to another and violate that state’s laws despite state sovereignty. -
#39 Darren, I recognize and respect the rights of free associations that are called religious organizations to recognize and define whatever they like.
I think government at every level should treat associations between free people equally under the law. Government should not have the power to favor some associations over others, regardless of how many opportunistic politicians find benefit from using nebulous wedge issues to convince people that there is some pressing need to do so.
Cindy and Tracie are gay. They will be gay regardless of how many laws are passed with the stated purpose of treating them differently.
Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this topic. I prefer freedom and equality for all persons. You apparently feel threatened by Cindy and Tracie to the degree that you find it necessary for the federal government to “defend” you from them.
I feel sorry for you.
-
#39 Darren, I recognize and respect the rights of free associations that are called religious organizations to recognize and define whatever they like.
I think government at every level should treat associations between free people equally under the law. Government should not have the power to favor some associations over others, regardless of how many opportunistic politicians find benefit from using nebulous wedge issues to convince people that there is some pressing need to do so.
Cindy and Tracie are gay. They will be gay regardless of how many laws are passed with the stated purpose of treating them differently.
Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this topic. I prefer freedom and equality for all persons. You apparently feel threatened by Cindy and Tracie to the degree that you find it necessary for the federal government to “defend” you from them.
I feel sorry for you. -
Why don’t we all just collectively pat Bob on the head and tell him it’s all gonna be okay? Because he hears only what he wants to hear, and he is always right, despite being beat soundly about the head with facts.
Okay, on three everyone: one….two….THREE /pat, pat, pat
-
Why don’t we all just collectively pat Bob on the head and tell him it’s all gonna be okay? Because he hears only what he wants to hear, and he is always right, despite being beat soundly about the head with facts.
Okay, on three everyone: one….two….THREE /pat, pat, pat -
Well, I am officially getting “man hands”. I did some more digging this evening, and I now sport four blisters. I guess I need to invest in some work gloves, even though I really don’t like wearing them. I have the satisfaction of knowing I made more progress in flattening the hill, and certain sets of muscles are feeling comfortably exercised. We’ll see how I feel in the morning. 🙂
Barf Kitty has her hot water bottle (a milk jug full of hot water) which means she’s not trying to cuddle up under my chin. The menfolk are out for the night. I have control of the remote, a quiet house, a hot shower and pizza all to my little ol’ self.
Sometimes, life is good.
-
Well, I am officially getting “man hands”. I did some more digging this evening, and I now sport four blisters. I guess I need to invest in some work gloves, even though I really don’t like wearing them. I have the satisfaction of knowing I made more progress in flattening the hill, and certain sets of muscles are feeling comfortably exercised. We’ll see how I feel in the morning. 🙂
Barf Kitty has her hot water bottle (a milk jug full of hot water) which means she’s not trying to cuddle up under my chin. The menfolk are out for the night. I have control of the remote, a quiet house, a hot shower and pizza all to my little ol’ self.
Sometimes, life is good. -
Thanks Tedtam, I appreciate the good intentions, maybe.
Do let me know when the facts support the impeachment of a president over this historically convenient partisan wedge non-issue.
-
Thanks Tedtam, I appreciate the good intentions, maybe.
Do let me know when the facts support the impeachment of a president over this historically convenient partisan wedge non-issue. -
/pat, pat, pat
-
/pat, pat, pat
-
I’ll pass the pats along to my cat.
-
I’ll pass the pats along to my cat.
-
bob;
1) No civilization survives allowing any person to be “married”.
2) People have every right to define marriage.It’s as easy as that.
-
bob;
1) No civilization survives allowing any person to be “married”.
2) People have every right to define marriage.
It’s as easy as that. -
Darren, as I said above, I think religious organizations should be, and are free to define/recognize/sanctify marriage as they see fit.
As for your #2, I do not think that you or anyone else, singularly or in mobs have a “right” to empower and direct our government to purposefully disadvantage some free associations while simultaneously favoring others.
Do you realize that your two numbered arguments above are exactly what defenders of arranged marriages still offer in support of that archaic and demonstrably unfair tradition?
-
Darren, as I said above, I think religious organizations should be, and are free to define/recognize/sanctify marriage as they see fit.
As for your #2, I do not think that you or anyone else, singularly or in mobs have a “right” to empower and direct our government to purposefully disadvantage some free associations while simultaneously favoring others.
Do you realize that your two numbered arguments above are exactly what defenders of arranged marriages still offer in support of that archaic and demonstrably unfair tradition? -
As for your #2, I do not think that you or anyone else, singularly or in mobs have a “right” to empower and direct our government to purposefully disadvantage some free associations while simultaneously favoring others.
While mobs scream in wisconsin, do not compare me to them. If you can show me the civilization that has thrived as blessed as ours and had gay marriage, I’m all ears. In fact, how about I just say, “that’s the question no liberaltarian seems to want to answer.”
-
As for your #2, I do not think that you or anyone else, singularly or in mobs have a “right” to empower and direct our government to purposefully disadvantage some free associations while simultaneously favoring others.
While mobs scream in wisconsin, do not compare me to them. If you can show me the civilization that has thrived as blessed as ours and had gay marriage, I’m all ears. In fact, how about I just say, “that’s the question no liberaltarian seems to want to answer.”
-
Do you realize that your two numbered arguments above are exactly what defenders of arranged marriages still offer in support of that archaic and demonstrably unfair tradition?
When Mrs. Darren and I met, it was like we were “pre-picked” to meet and fall in love.
Actually, I couldn’t stand her when we first met. Very annoying. What are the divorce rates in those societies? And do we have less domestic violence than them? Besides, who are you to downplay their totally personal choices. I think you want to control arranged marriage societies like India.
Bob the mob.
-
Do you realize that your two numbered arguments above are exactly what defenders of arranged marriages still offer in support of that archaic and demonstrably unfair tradition?
When Mrs. Darren and I met, it was like we were “pre-picked” to meet and fall in love.
Actually, I couldn’t stand her when we first met. Very annoying. What are the divorce rates in those societies? And do we have less domestic violence than them? Besides, who are you to downplay their totally personal choices. I think you want to control arranged marriage societies like India.
Bob the mob. -
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – Virginia took a big step Thursday toward eliminating most of the state’s 21 abortion clinics, approving a bill that would likely make rules so strict the medical centers would be forced to close, Democrats and abortion rights supporters said.
That should make bob happy. It makes me happy.
-
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – Virginia took a big step Thursday toward eliminating most of the state’s 21 abortion clinics, approving a bill that would likely make rules so strict the medical centers would be forced to close, Democrats and abortion rights supporters said.
That should make bob happy. It makes me happy.
LINK
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.