1. Lets hope that Referendum 71 passes with a Slamming Success! However, it is quite sure if Referendum 71 is a success, it would be further challenged in the courts. The same is being proved true with California's Proposition 8 having a court date set at Jan. 11, 2010 for a legal challenge to overturn Proposition 8. Apparently, it is the courts who have the say and not the voters. Bottom line: Any judge that goes against the vote of the people without strong and good cause, should be be brought forward on charges of abuse of power and usurping the vote of the people. I, of course, would go further than that. I would charge the judge with Treason and have him publicly put to Death as an example to all who wish to usurp our Rights.

Posted by: Daniel on August 31, 2009 06:10 PM

2. "Haters"? Who exactly is trying to rip civil rights away from couples that have done absolutely NOTHING to you?

What bigots.

Posted by: demo kid on August 31, 2009 07:58 PM

3. Hey, demo shit...The Tradition of marriage is between a man and a woman not, between a man and a man, woman and a woman, man and a dog etc. But then, you're a Liberal, a confused Craphead who thinks the killing of millions of babies is perfectly alright.

Posted by: Daniel on August 31, 2009 08:19 PM

4. Since the people are no longer able to decide their fate. We have a system that is full employment for lawyers. The left leaning lower courts seem to decide against the wishes of the people insuring that the issue will be appealed, makeing sure that the lawyers will be fully employed until the appeal process is exhausted. The only ones to win are the lawyers, the only group of people that doesn't understand the consitution. I doubt if they have never read it.

Posted by: Clyde the patriot on September 1, 2009 07:53 AM

5. Since the people are no longer able to decide their fate. We have a system that is full employment for lawyers. The left leaning lower courts seem to decide against the wishes of the people insuring that the issue will be appealed, makeing sure that the lawyers will be fully employed until the appeal process is exhausted. The only ones to win are the lawyers, the only group of people that doesn't understand the consitution. I doubt if they have never read it.

Posted by: Clyde the patriot on September 1, 2009 07:56 AM

6. Since the people are no longer able to decide their fate. We have a system that is full employment for lawyers. The left leaning lower courts seem to decide against the wishes of the people insuring that the issue will be appealed, makeing sure that the lawyers will be fully employed until the appeal process is exhausted. The only ones to win are the lawyers, the only group of people that doesn't understand the consitution. I doubt if they have never read it.

Posted by: Clyde the patriot on September 1, 2009 07:56 AM

7. Your Right, Clyde...The lawyers are using the courts to their fullest, bringing frivolous lawsuits and any other game-play to fill their pockets from the earnings of the people. That's why we need tort reform to reduce such lawsuits and the lawyers will fight tooth and nail to prevent tort reform. However, your wrong in claiming the lawyers don't understand the Constitution. They understand the Constitution, they just ignore it when it is to their advantage in Ripping Off the Public. Such a Deal!

Posted by: Daniel on September 1, 2009 08:16 AM

8. Anyone using a knee-jerk insult like "bigot" to describe those opposing their position qualifies, since you asked, Dumbo.

But then, I knew you would. Leftists are so easily manipulated.

Posted by: Hinton on September 1, 2009 08:49 AM

9. @3: YOUR tradition of marriage. Until you personally take over the country and install yourself as an absolute dictator, though, I'd like to believe that we still respect the rights of the minority.

@4-7: What is the relevance here? Blaming lawyers is just a smokescreen for the real issue: you want to take rights away from people.

@8: "So easily manipulated"? Believing that folks should have equal rights is being "manipulated"? Pfft. You're silly.

And the label still fits... tolerance of intolerance isn't tolerance, and calling the opposition of your hate to be "hate" is amusing.

Posted by: demo kid on September 1, 2009 11:32 AM

10. dumbo, it's as asinine as your fringe leftists claiming "racism" as the cause of opposition to the messiah's programs.

"Bigotry" when used to describe a political position you oppose... no matter the reason... is based on hatred.

YOU base your positions on a platform of intolerance.

*I* base my positions on a platform of opposition.

The knee-jerk reaction you exhibited is one of total intolerance for a POLITICAL position you oppose. Thus the act and actions of a bigot.

Your fellow bigots have come on to this very web site and many other places and done all they can to keep the people of this state from having the final say on this issue. You would deny us OUR rights, enumerated in this state's laws and Constitution, to make the decision we are authorized to make on this and any other issue confronting us.

YOU are one of the haters.

If Ref 71 prevails, I'll live with it. If it falls... and so many of your bigoted ilk told us it would never make the ballot... then I can live with that as well.

Your level of hatred towards those wise enough to oppose your positions (almost everyone alive) is the amusing aspect of this situation; your knee-jerk alinsky-ism is laughable in its predictability... as you are in yours.

Since you asked.

Posted by: hinton on September 1, 2009 12:23 PM

11. @10: dumbo, it's as asinine as your fringe leftists claiming "racism" as the cause of opposition to the messiah's programs.

That's a pretty broad statement. However, when a Republican calls for a "great white hope" to defeat Obama in 2012, you can kinda understand how people can believe Republicans to be racist.

"Bigotry" when used to describe a political position you oppose... no matter the reason... is based on hatred.

Bigotry is when you treat a group with hatred and intolerance. Do you deny that you hate gays and want to take away their rights?

YOU base your positions on a platform of intolerance.

Really? Why? As I said, tolerance of intolerance isn't tolerance... it's abetting bigotry. You point out where I've said that the rights of right-wingers in this society should be abridged.

The knee-jerk reaction you exhibited is one of total intolerance for a POLITICAL position you oppose. Thus the act and actions of a bigot.

Have I personally said that conservatives should lose the right to marry? Or the right to free speech? If not, I'm at a loss as to what basis you have for that statement.

And damn right I'm "intolerant". The bile that you spew out for people that disagree with YOU is unparalleled, and I don't mind standing up to oppose that.

Your fellow bigots have come on to this very web site and many other places and done all they can to keep the people of this state from having the final say on this issue. You would deny us OUR rights, enumerated in this state's laws and Constitution, to make the decision we are authorized to make on this and any other issue confronting us.

Your "rights"? If the people of the South had the right to make the final say on civil rights in the 1960s, African-Americans would still be drinking from separate water fountains. There's a difference between democracy and tyranny by the majority.

If Ref 71 prevails, I'll live with it. If it falls... and so many of your bigoted ilk told us it would never make the ballot... then I can live with that as well.

That will be the day. Personally, I don't mind fighting until everyone has equal rights in this society.

Your level of hatred towards those wise enough to oppose your positions (almost everyone alive) is the amusing aspect of this situation; your knee-jerk alinsky-ism is laughable in its predictability... as you are in yours.

"Alisky-ism"? Wow. Far right wingnuts are almost absurd with the crap that they throw around. :)

And in terms of opposition, go on believing that far right loons are in the "majority". I, for one, believe that most people aren't so evil and twisted that they get satisfaction from deny two people that love each other the right to start a household.

Figures that you love your rights and freedoms... but aren't willing to fight for the rights and freedoms of others.

Posted by: demo kid on September 1, 2009 01:55 PM

12. @11 demo shit...So you're the Great Crusader who stands for the Rights of all. What a Laugh! Guess What? Not all people deserve the same rights of others. Those who conduct themselves outside the law don't deserve the same rights as others. Those who wish to steal the ageless meaning of marriage and call their faux marriage a marriage that deserves the same recognition and rights as a respected traditional marriage are seriously wrong in their demands. But, you're a Liberal and everything is a matter of personal perception. There is no real Right and Wrong. It is whatever the fashion of the day says it is. There is no absolutes. There is no Good and Evil. How confused blind can you be? That's Right...You're a Liberal and that is expected of a Liberal. The Blind Fools of this World.

Nobody, said that two people can't live together. What is said is, they will not get the same rights as those who meet the lawful criteria and meaning of marriage. Have a Clue! Naah...Forget It...You're a Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on September 1, 2009 03:32 PM

13. @13: Those who wish to steal the ageless meaning of marriage and call their faux marriage a marriage that deserves the same recognition and rights as a respected traditional marriage are seriously wrong in their demands.

"Ageless definition of marriage"? So did you pay your wife's father with chickens, or goats?

Posted by: demo kid on September 1, 2009 04:34 PM

14. @13: Gee....That retort was brilliant and meaningful. You had better take a long nap. If your ability to reply with substance is so anemic, it is best not to reply at all.

Posted by: Daniel on September 1, 2009 07:13 PM

15. @14: If you're stating that there is an ageless definition of marriage, then obviously you paid a dowry, right? Maybe you kidnapped your wife on your wedding day?

And... since you believe that marriage is ageless, could I have as many wives as Jacob did?

Posted by: demo kid on September 1, 2009 09:30 PM

16. @15...Yes, the definition of marriage is ageless. Only, an Idiot like you and your Liberal friends would think that the definition of marriage changes with the seasons and or the fashion of the day. What Dolts! Naturally, the obtainment of a wife to be can be different in different times and cultures. But, the definition of marriage remains the same and it is always a commitment between a man and a woman. If the man or a woman has more than one spouse, it is still looked upon as a separate marriage between a man and a woman each time. But, being a Liberal, you have once again, shown your confusion as to where it is at. What a Surprise!

Posted by: Daniel on September 1, 2009 09:50 PM

17. Susan Hutchison has said she supports a YES vote on R-71. How do you guys like that?

Posted by: ivan on September 2, 2009 06:39 AM

18. Susan Hutchison has said she supports a YES vote on R-71. How do you folks like THAT?

Posted by: ivan on September 2, 2009 06:40 AM

19. Susan Hutchison has said she supports a YES vote on R-71. How do you folks like THAT?

Posted by: ivan on September 2, 2009 06:42 AM

20. Those who know Susan, would expect nothing less.

Posted by: Daniel on September 2, 2009 07:16 AM

21. @16/20: Great! I look forward to marrying several times, then, and treating my wife as property! Whew! I'm glad that the definition of marriage is ageless. Wouldn't want "progress" to get in the way of a good wife-beating.

Face it... marriage has changed radically over history. A desire to form a household is the key element of marriage, not a man/woman pairing.

And while I'm tempted to let you be the idiot on this one, you do know that a "YES" vote on R-71 *supports* gay marriage, right?

Posted by: demo kid on September 2, 2009 07:52 AM

22. Those who know Susan, would expect nothing less.

yes, because she's a bigot, too.

do you clowns not see the hypocrisy here? you claim the left/obma/pelosi/etc is trying to deny your rights, and then you turn around and support taking away some one else's rights?

ah, the party of no, alright. the party of no honesty, no principle, no literacy, no integrity...

Posted by: mike on September 2, 2009 08:16 AM

23. @21...No, I didn't know that a YES vote on R-71 would be supporting gay marriage. Thank you. I'm disappointed in Susan's position. However, you're still confused about marriage. It is a commitment between a man and a woman....Period! Whether, that commitment is respected by one or both parties is another matter. You are Wrong to be so simplistic as to think marriage is just, to form a household. It is more than, just a household. It is also, the basis to propagate mankind.

Posted by: Daniel on September 2, 2009 09:38 AM

24. the simpleton in this debate would be you, daniel.

by your (flawed) logic, mormon marriages are baseless.

also, by your (flawed) logic, my (devoutly catholic) cousin's marriage is baseless since she's unable to procreate due to infertility issues.

as would married couples who opt not to have children and adopt instead.

the 'basis' of marriage is not to propagate mankind. this is your false reasoning. you don't need to be married at all to 'propagate mankind', moron. in fact, it happened quite well and for a very long time before your asinine, old-timey religious definition of marriage came along.

daniel, were you born an asshole, or was it learned?

Posted by: mike on September 2, 2009 09:58 AM

25. @24 mike...I said marriage was the basis for the propagation of mankind. I did not say it was the only way for which it is possible for mankind to be propagated nor that marriage is only for the propagation of mankind. So have a Clue and quit being such a confused IDIOT!

Posted by: Daniel on September 2, 2009 10:10 AM

26. either way you are still incorrect. marriage is not the foundation for the propagation of mankind. you are the one that doesn't even know what the word basis means, apparently.

i take it you were just born one, then?

Posted by: mike on September 2, 2009 12:15 PM

27. also, you're dumb enough to think that liberals are for marraige between a man and dog, which is hilariously incorrect. how did you get past 3rd grade? holy crap!

god, and i am still laughing hard over the fact that you hate gays enough to deny their civil rights yet insist on calling everyone else haters. riproaringly, hypocritically hilarious!

Posted by: mike on September 2, 2009 12:25 PM

28. mike...You have definitely deteriorated into a hate filled, screaming in the dark senseless IDIOT! Nuff Said.

Posted by: Daniel on September 2, 2009 01:38 PM

29. i'm not the one capitalizing everything, daniel.

stop projecting your values of hate and hypocrisy. i'm not filled w/ hate, but i am filled w/ disgust and disdain towards all the blatant lies, hypocrisy and hatred blared by the right on this site.

Posted by: mike on September 2, 2009 01:54 PM

30. Your mindless vitriol filled rantings against those who stand up for the sanctity of marriage, leads me to suspect that you do so because, you yourself are gay. Right?

Posted by: Daniel on September 2, 2009 02:17 PM

31. mindless vitriol? you do realize the hypocrisy of your statement, right?

the sanctity of marriage?!? you are right, because the 50% of people that divorce (more 'believers' than not) are upholding the sanctity of marriage? or the percentage of cheating dbags? those that marry for citizenship? you are right, they are all upholding the sanctity of marriage.

btw, the sanctity of marriage is a myth propagated by the right.

daniel, you aren't standing up for the sanctity of marriage, you're standing up against the rights of your fellow humans and americans. it's sad, pathetic and your intolerance is hypocritical.

oh wait, i get it - you mean the sanctity of marriage like that of david and solomon!

i'm not gay, i'm happily married to my wife. we have several friends who are gay and who are happily committed. they lead more fulfilling lives than most of the holier-than-thou folks i know. they also don't harass believers for ruining the sanctity of marriage with their high divorce rates.

Posted by: mike on September 2, 2009 02:37 PM

32. The sanctity of marriage remains in effect whether, it is misused by man or not. The virtue of honesty remains in effect whether, the majority are liars or not. Get the Picture? Naah...Your a Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on September 2, 2009 03:39 PM

33. there is no sanctity of marriage. it's not just a religious contract anymore. are you really so obtuse? or just a ginormous bigot? maybe both?

this incessant notion that only liberals lie, and conservatives somehow are honest and truthful is a barrel o' laughs, daniel. your life must be so hard, knowing that a smaller and smaller group of people want to identify w/ your narrow-minded way of life.

Posted by: mike on September 2, 2009 04:58 PM

34. To a far left Liberal like yourself, there is no sanctity of marriage and...Life as well. In fact, anybody who thinks that the killing of millions of babies is all right also, believes in no absolutes such as, Good and Evil. Marriage is a religious contract whether it is recognized by man or not.

Yes, Liberals Lie and there are Conservatives that Lie. None of us are perfect. However, there are more honest men among the Conservatives than the Liberals. This can be supported by a survey that was done of the populations in prisons. 87% of the prison population claim to be Liberal. The percentage is probably greater than that because, since Liberals have a greater propensity to Lie, I'm sure a number of Liberals claimed that they were Conservatives.

An honest man makes a concerted effort not to Lie. A dishonest man does not put forth such an effort. Not only that, a dishonest man will, at times, make a deliberate point of Lying.

As far as being a member of a smaller and smaller group, I would prefer to be with a small group that stands for GOD and Good than, a large group that stands for Evil. Does this make any sense to a man who thinks the killing of millions of babies is OK? Probably Not!

Posted by: Daniel on September 2, 2009 05:59 PM

35. considering the rate of abortions being performed doesn't fluctuate much whether it's legal or not, and just as many 'followers' have abortions as rational beings, and also considering that fetuses aren't babies, then i'd say you are a big hypocritical liar.

there is sanctity of life among the left, moron. that's why we are against the death penalty, against unnecessary war, for medical care for all. just because i don't believe in god doesn't mean i don't believe in good and evil, you can have morals without religion, dimwit.

marriage is NOT a religious contract, since you can be an atheist and get married.

more honest men among conservatives than liberals? you believe that crap? and you're going to base a survey on who tells the truth more right/left, on a prison survey? hilarious.

just cos you stand for god, doesn't mean you inherently stand for good, especially w/ the views numbskulls like yourself possess. a far larger number have been killed 'in the name of god' than socialism or any other -ism.

killing babies is not ok. fetuses are not babies. science is a tough one for you, huh daniel...

Posted by: mike on September 2, 2009 06:14 PM

36. It continues to amaze me how dysfunctional a Liberal mind is. In the first place, the moment of conception a human life begins. Whether, you call it a fetus or not, it is still a human life. Of course, you do realize that partial birth abortion is part of the numbers of babies killed. There are babies that are pulled from the womb and some are alive and perfectly capable of living outside the womb but, left to die because of deliberate lack of care. But, your a Liberal and even that is not killing a baby.

Your statement that marriage is not a religious contract because, you can be an atheist and still get marriage does not mean marriage is not a religious contract. Marriage is a religious contract whether it is recognized by man or not. A person who does not believe in GOD doesn't mean that GOD does not exist. Does any of what I have said to you make any sense? Probably not.

It is true that people have been killed in the misuse of GOD'S name. GOD says those who misuse my name, I reserve special punishment. However, far, far more in the many, many millions have been killed under the banner of Socialism aka Nazism aka Fascism aka Communism. Read your history.

Posted by: Daniel on September 2, 2009 06:51 PM

37. @35 and others: Mike, I think that this is a lost cause. Daniel, in all of his capitalizing glory, is absolutely incapable of engaging anyone on the basis of logic. He's just frothing with hard right-wing fury, and while it's fun to poke at him and watch him implode, he's just not capable of making a reasoned argument to save his life.

@36: Many of the partial-birth abortions that take place are for very serious reasons. Would you prefer, for example, that a mother carrying a fetus without a brain should carry that baby to term just because you believe that every sperm is sacred? And if you're ranting about partial birth abortions and fetuses that could live outside the womb (which constitute an absurdly small proportion of abortions, since they are mostly illegal!), what does that make a zygote that's smaller than your thumbnail? How is that a "person"? A seed is not a tree.

Oh, and unless we've suddenly switched over to a theocracy, marriage is NOT a religious contract unless you want it to be. Assuming that I need to follow your religion and bow at the feet of your hateful, twisted god is not too pleasant to me, fella. (And at least I know well enough not to invoke my God to prove a point. You're well-known for breaking the Third Commandment when it suits your purposes.)

Posted by: demo kid on September 2, 2009 08:29 PM

38. Well if it isn't demo shit...making false accusations and claims. There have been a number of partial birth abortions performed without serious reasons. There have been a number of partial birth abortions where the baby is perfectly capable of living a healthy life but, is left to die. Let's see...A vicious Killer shouldn't be condemned to death but, the killing of babies is acceptable. Make sense? Only to a Liberal. Yeah, the Liberals are in the Right and the Conservatives are in the Wrong. That's why the prison system is choked with Liberals and few Conservatives can be found. The Liberals have done wonderful things throughout World history. All you have to do is to look how Socialism/Nazism/Stalinism/Fascism/ Communism has been so uplifting to humanity to realize how liberalism has been so wonderful to mankind. Maybe, demo shit should go to Cuba where the people are walking and living in small huts. Where a roll of toiler tissue is a prize coveted item along with that precious plastic bag. Such a Deal!

Posted by: Daniel on September 2, 2009 09:13 PM

39. dan, you are even dumber than i thought, actually...

that you are dumb enough to think the nazis were socialists further proves that. the nazis (like conservatives) were anti-union, anti-gay, anti-communist. the nazis were right-wingers, neo-nazis are also right-wingers. you are a flippin moron that doesn't know how to read or comprehend history if you think otherwise.

maybe one day you hypocrites will actually follow the teachings of your god.

Posted by: mike on September 2, 2009 09:22 PM

40. mike...You better get a history book as well as Google for some facts. Nazi stood for the National Socialist Party. See, Socialist is in their name. The Nazis were Liberal Socialist...PERIOD! Yes, Liberalism can take different names and may have some difference between them but, they all share the same ROOT. Yes, Nazis were anti-communism simply because, they wanted to be the only kid on the block. It is the matter of having total power under one leader, Hitler. Hitler even destroyed his own SA because he thought they were becoming to powerful. Liberals are the Easy Believers of Men and will blindly follow any despot, tyrant who happens to be the fashion of the day whether, it's Hitler, Stalin, Fidel, Chavez, etc. Liberals are the Sucker Class amongst men. They are the unwashed masses who are the fodder of maniacal power seeking men.

Posted by: Daniel on September 2, 2009 09:45 PM

41. history fail, daniel. keep digging your grave. and pray you never have kids.

Posted by: mike on September 2, 2009 09:51 PM

42. That last bit was too much for you to grasp or comprehend? It's your Ego that wont let you reassess your position and make the necessary changes in outlook and awareness. You should pray for the Light to see Truth and step up from the bottom of the barrel.

Posted by: Daniel on September 2, 2009 10:04 PM

43. my ego?!? hilarious, david. you're still failing the history.

the bottom of the barrel is where scum like you dwell. why would i hang out with bigoted bottom feeders? sorry, i'll dwell in reality.

and i'm still waiting for you to follow the teachings of your god. arrogance and haughtiness won't get you into heaven or wherever it is you think you are going.

Posted by: mike on September 2, 2009 10:13 PM

44. mike...You don't deal in reality. Get Real! Your credibility is Zero and yes, you are not standing on respected ground. Those who think its OK to kill babies never are.

Posted by: Daniel on September 2, 2009 10:39 PM

45. science fail, daniel, fetuses aren't babies. hope your parents didn't waste money on your education.

Posted by: mike on September 2, 2009 10:50 PM

46. As been previously explain to you before, from the moment of conception you are dealing with a human life form. A fetus is that developing human life form and so is a baby, child and on to the adult. All stages of the living human being. But, beyond that, you are OK with partial birth abortions which can deliver a healthy baby fully capable of living outside the womb and yet, is deliberately denied care and left to die. But, you're are OK with that. Again, you're a non entity and do stand on soiled ground.

Posted by: Daniel on September 2, 2009 11:06 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?