Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
[water]

I need to learn how to block quote.

[ilikenewsocks]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Or, as Josh put it:

Wait till you hear real information from real news outlets.

You mean like Dan Rather and CBS News?

The irony of Josh dissing the accuracy of blog reporting is delicious. Not filling, but definitely tasty.

Yours,
Flip-Floppin'

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You people simply do not know what he meant when he said opposed.

I believe that when Kerry says he opposes it, he means that he would vote against it if it came to a vote in a legislative body in which he sat. Do you think he means something else?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
So how early is too early to start drinking?

There is no too early. Just avoid getting fired for drinking on the job.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I believe that when Kerry says he opposes it, he means that he would vote against it if it came to a vote in a legislative body in which he sat.

Unlike when he was for the war, but then voted against it? Yes, yes, yes - we're all aware of this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I need to learn how to block quote.

listen. you haven't been rational for about 3 months. If that was all set up, so you could make the post you made, and claim it was clearly tongue in cheek, then I have to say you got me. But my money is on you being really irrational, your post being sincere and my post bringing you one brief moment of lucidity so that you had to go to W-A-T-E-R.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Instead of Google, Hank uses the "Lawtalkers" search engine, where you post your query in simple English text, with some mildly provocative phrasing, and trained lawyers rush to the internet to disprove it. In expert hands like Hank's, it can be very effective.

We'll see if he still likes the method after he gets my bill.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I believe that when Kerry says he opposes it, he means that he would vote against it if it came to a vote in a legislative body in which he sat. Do you think he means something else?

Two things, and please don't hate me for this.

1.) I think it would depend entirely on his constituency, and on some issues I certainly don't have a problem with this.

2.) (and this relates to that full-faith-and-credit topic too):

From The Advocate, September 3, 1996

>>The misnamed and misguided Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is as unconstitutional and unnecessary as it is mean-spirited and malicious. The authors of the bill mistakenly claim that Congress has the authority to allow one state to ignore a legally recognized marriage in another. But the U.S. Constitution is unequivocal on this point: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”<<

Guess who wrote this column (this is only the first paragraph)?

ETA: I honestly do not know what he meant. I think its obvious though that he wanted it to be facially interpreted one way, but subject to later interpretation another way. FWIW, my whole argument here is that the later interpretation will be a bit less prejudicial towards gay people, and that the case against him (depending on your viewpoint) on this issue has been overstated a bit on the Left.


Hello

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Not Bob
One thing I've been wondering about is what happens on the national level to the party of the candidate that loses?

For the GOP, the question really remains regardless of who wins - Cheney ain't running in 2008 no matter what.

I think Wes Clark has the inside line, maybe Edwards. Clinton no way.

GOP is harder. But if Bush wins this year, my bet is that the Daily Show had the 2008 line-up on for its post debate analysis: Wes vs. Rudy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Unlike when he was for the war, but then voted against it? Yes, yes, yes - we're all aware of this.

If and when Thurgreed bitch-slaps you for this post, he has my proxy.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
OK, I was wrong, you're just a tool. Am I getting warmer?

Yep. But that would make you a smug tool. But at least you admitted you were wrong.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
We'll see if he still likes the method after he gets my bill.

I tried to ask a nice, unloaded question and all I get is shit. You guys were saying the loyalty oath thing was pretty major, so I didn't think I was asking for alot.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Two things, and please don't hate me for this.

1.) I think it would depend entirely on his constituency, and on some issues I certainly don't have a problem with this.

2.) (and this relates to that full-faith-and-credit topic too):

From The Advocate, September 3, 1996

>>The misnamed and misguided Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is as unconstitutional and unnecessary as it is mean-spirited and malicious. The authors of the bill mistakenly claim that Congress has the authority to allow one state to ignore a legally recognized marriage in another. But the U.S. Constitution is unequivocal on this point: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”<<

Guess who wrote this column (this is only the first paragraph)?

Hello

1) The question was what he meant, not what he'd do.

2) I'm curious to hear who wrote that, but -- and this is one of those rare topics where even Not Me and I seem to be in agreement -- I think it's pretty well established that the Full Faith and Credit Clause has a public policy exception that would permit states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Unlike when he was for the war, but then voted against it? Yes, yes, yes - we're all aware of this.

I'll say it again: You told Brandt on the phone; he told me. I know what happened, yes, yes?

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
1) The question was what he meant, not what he'd do.

2) I'm curious to hear who wrote that, but -- and this is one of those rare topics where even Not Me and I seem to be in agreement -- I think it's pretty well established that the Full Faith and Credit Clause has a public policy exception that would permit states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

Kerry wrote it.

I am intrigued how some on the right seem to feel Kerry is pro gay marriage. Because I can tell you the majority of the gay community doesn't think he is. Most people I know simply see him as a better choice when compared to Bush.