A not so atypical example of how these medacious asses slander the words of opponents by paraphasing and adding their own lies to the mix.
Anyone who believes that Obama is opposed to judges who don't rely on the Constitution is really bent the other issues may be true among many other things but the notion that they should relinquish the constitution is a diabolical lie.
In that repect we can look at the innumerable ways in which the Republicans under Bush have literally shreaded the Ameican Constitution to the point where it is hardly recognizable.
"the gay". Isn't that a little like Ross Perot's "you people". Since Obama said it and I want him to win, I guess we will give him that one.
You can't expect an announcer to upstage Palin in his language; that's got to be really very hard!
What is so aweful about it is that it is after the Nazis got into full swing that they openly renounced Jews: look where that went; just the open damning of a part of the human community.
So why do some gay men and women continue to vote for Kit Bond?
Anybody who declares the Constitution to be a "Judaeo-Christian" document neatly avoids the "establishment" clause. Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion is rendered meaningless if the Constitution itself is a religious document. The existence of the Constitution establishes "Judaeo-Christianism."
Isn't that a wonderful piece of "strict constructionism"? No other form of religion can be recognized. And I though Islamic, Talmudic and Canon Law were bad!
If there's any doubt about what "Judaeo-Christian" means, I'm sure that too will be strictly constructed. A nice example might be the "unconstitutionality" of same-sex marriage.
And about 61% of the Federal judges floating around now--thanks to Bush appointeeism--are now "conservatives" and likely enamoured of "strict construction." Anything other than strict construction would be, of course, judicial activism, and legislating from the Bench. Since strict construction accomplishes so much, why shouldn't it be called "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench."
'JOE THE PLUMBER' NEEDS 2 STOP SHOWIN HIS ASS.
After the Obama landslide, "Joe the Plumber" will organize a mass mooning to extend his "15 minutes of fame".
As long as Palin isn't mooning us I'm good with that.
William
You are so right. DOMA is an unconstitutional establishment of fundamentalist christianity. Theocracy is on the rise, and it has alot to do with 12 step recovery programs. I had rather see W. in the gutter drunk than a sober "born again" President getting instruction from "his real father" encouraging laws to be made against us in the constitution. Obama, a constitutional lawyer should no better when he said in the Rick Warren about marriage, "god is in the mix". He is the only choice for President, but where is his religion going to lead us ? We have to fight against theocracy as gay freethought activists.
i don't see a problem with his grammar, i see a problem with his message.
in this case, he's using "gay" as an adjective to stand in place of a noun, which is a very standard linguistic device in english, e.g.: "give us your poor, your tired..." the grammar makes perfect sense to me.
the message is completely upside-down, of course. i mean, who'd want judges that apply the constitution equally to everyone, whether they're in the majority or not? what a radical notion.
Heh, heh! le_sacre: the Romans had an adage about that: If a set of perfect laws were applied perfectly to everyone, the result would be perfect tyranny.
I may have misquoted it a bit, but it applies to theocrats and their notion of "equality before the law." That's why conservatives are so fond of attacking "judicial discretion." They want laws treated as revelations and doctrines as inviolable religious practice. Anything less would be corruption and sin, a mark of that imperfect human nature which they would make unlawful.
Equality before the law has to be interpreted in conjunction with equity. If you hang a nine-year old under the same laws that would hang someone forty-nine, then you've left equity out of equality. That might be the law strictly constructed and it might be perfectly applied, but the result is absurd and cruel. Perhaps that's what our theocrats want? We had it in Salem if I recall.
Commenting by HaloScan
