Does the majority rule in America (anymore)?

[Guest]

I was inspired to create this thread by a comment in anothe thread. I have lifted/copied their statement that I felt neede a separate focus:

"We are a country of majority. The majority makes the rules. Like it or not."

With all the focus and effort on special interests and minority groups (not just race intended) and the ability continuously displayed day after day where the minority(count) rules.

Schools that limit or eliminate something deemed offensive by one person gets accomplished.
A small group that voices opposition to a writing or book or representation they do not like gets approval.
Then the larger issues like ACA where the majority of Americans were against it and it was passed (before read!).
And currently the the Iran nuclear agreement that most of Americans are against is being pushed even with threats by Obama.

So no, based on the current political, special interest, lobbyists and minority group progress I do not believe the majority rules as it once did.

And I do embrace the statement made by the poster quoted above:

LIKE IT OR NOT!!

[Guest]

I was inspired to create this thread by a comment in anothe thread. I have lifted/copied their statement that I felt neede a separate focus:

"We are a country of majority. The majority makes the rules. Like it or not."

With all the focus and effort on special interests and minority groups (not just race intended) and the ability continuously displayed day after day where the minority(count) rules.

Schools that limit or eliminate something deemed offensive by one person gets accomplished.
A small group that voices opposition to a writing or book or representation they do not like gets approval.
Then the larger issues like ACA where the majority of Americans were against it and it was passed (before read!).
And currently the the Iran nuclear agreement that most of Americans are against is being pushed even with threats by Obama.

So no, based on the current political, special interest, lobbyists and minority group progress I do not believe the majority rules as it once did.

And I do embrace the statement made by the poster quoted above:

LIKE IT OR NOT!!

Unfortunately, you are right. I guess I should have said that our country was based on a majority rule. Long since gone, I'm afraid.

[Guest]

I was inspired to create this thread by a comment in anothe thread. I have lifted/copied their statement that I felt neede a separate focus:

"We are a country of majority. The majority makes the rules. Like it or not."

With all the focus and effort on special interests and minority groups (not just race intended) and the ability continuously displayed day after day where the minority(count) rules.

Schools that limit or eliminate something deemed offensive by one person gets accomplished.
A small group that voices opposition to a writing or book or representation they do not like gets approval.
Then the larger issues like ACA where the majority of Americans were against it and it was passed (before read!).
And currently the the Iran nuclear agreement that most of Americans are against is being pushed even with threats by Obama.

So no, based on the current political, special interest, lobbyists and minority group progress I do not believe the majority rules as it once did.

And I do embrace the statement made by the poster quoted above:

LIKE IT OR NOT!!

Not as simple as portrayed.

Presidential races, for example is based on the majority of votes WITHIN the state to get ALL the electoral votes.

You elect a senator or Rep who is, in theory to represent his "constituents". Of course, what happens is that he/she is in a political party, and this if no real feedback from constituency, he/she will lean to the party in most cases.

Then, consider voter turnout....is the majority turning out to vote ? Is the majority knowledgable and involved in the issues ?

Then, again are you voting one one issue only, which could or could not be the majority feeling ?

Romney wins in 2012 IF turnout of those who we "think" may have voted for him had actually voted. Republicans win in 2014 because of turn out for the most part.

[Guest]

Not as simple as portrayed.

Presidential races, for example is based on the majority of votes WITHIN the state to get ALL the electoral votes.

You elect a senator or Rep who is, in theory to represent his "constituents". Of course, what happens is that he/she is in a political party, and this if no real feedback from constituency, he/she will lean to the party in most cases.

Then, consider voter turnout....is the majority turning out to vote ? Is the majority knowledgable and involved in the issues ?

Then, again are you voting one one issue only, which could or could not be the majority feeling ?

Romney wins in 2012 IF turnout of those who we "think" may have voted for him had actually voted. Republicans win in 2014 because of turn out for the most part.

True, but I was generalizing when I suggested the rule of the majority. And generally speaking we did have such an ideology. The majority vote produced elected representatives that were supposed to consider the needs and wants of the majority, not the few. It's an old argument, now moot.

[Guest]

The constitution and its amendments were enacted to ensure that the minority did not get overlooked. The founders did excellent in their pursuit of balance and equality. The founders were concerned early on that the federal government would back to a monarchy.

Unfortunately beginning with FDR's Fair Deal and moving forward the federal government has gotten too involved in every aspect of people's lives, too large too regulate nd continues to erode the state rights

the executive today is operating almost exclusively by fiat. The legislative Branch is disorganized and fearful of not losing voters, and the judiciary has become activist.

Coupled with the above our educational system has failed, our culture has been declining for many years accompanied with a decline in morality and
lobbyist and unions have dominated in society.

We have now arrived to a state of being that we can't tell the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. Hence the minority now rules on every social issue irrespective of its validity, legality, morality.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Have you thought that the majority need not be only one group but could actually be several minority groups bonded together to become one large majority entity?

Using that as a base for discussion, the minority groups merged into a majority entity could easily contain or overpower or out vote the group that used to be the majority.

[Guest]

The constitution and its amendments were enacted to ensure that the minority did not get overlooked. The founders did excellent in their pursuit of balance and equality. The founders were concerned early on that the federal government would back to a monarchy.

Unfortunately beginning with FDR's Fair Deal and moving forward the federal government has gotten too involved in every aspect of people's lives, too large too regulate nd continues to erode the state rights

the executive today is operating almost exclusively by fiat. The legislative Branch is disorganized and fearful of not losing voters, and the judiciary has become activist.

Coupled with the above our educational system has failed, our culture has been declining for many years accompanied with a decline in morality and
lobbyist and unions have dominated in society.

We have now arrived to a state of being that we can't tell the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. Hence the minority now rules on every social issue irrespective of its validity, legality, morality.

Personal Best Regards:

An accurate assessment!

[Guest]

What constitutes a majority today? What I mean here is that political groups manipulate mislead or plain out lie about polls, etc. We all understand that numbers an be made to say anything. We all know that pollsters will ask questions or select from a group that will say what they want the poll to reflect.

Even with those polls most pundits agree are legitimate this government will ignore. Obamacare, Iranian Deal are two in the forefront. But consider if we really have a majority with a war on women? Do we have a majority that believe the decision to establish a ratio of a CEO's pay to a clerk is needed and valid? I wanted to do a thread on this but every day someone adds a new thread that I thought no we need to address what has been posted now and then come back to this issue.

How should society act with a minority (meaning small) organizations like Black Lives Matter? Black Lives do matter but so do all lives.

I believe we are heading toward total moral anarchy and a disregard for the rule of law. Irrespective of the side one comes down on, on abortion Planned Parenthood's actions should horrify people because such a breach opens the door to other orwellian aspect .

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Have you thought that the majority need not be only one group but could actually be several minority groups bonded together to become one large majority entity?

Using that as a base for discussion, the minority groups merged into a majority entity could easily contain or overpower or out vote the group that used to be the majority.

A minority(not talking of race, so chill out folks) wishes to think that, but in reality, they are only louder. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. But, the fact is that PC seems to reign in America. In reality, many small groups are just an irritation that the majority doesn't want to deal with, so they buckle to them just to shut them up. It doesn't convince anyone that they are right or deserving, just an irritation that no one wants to deal with.

[Guest]

The silent majority empowers and emboldens minority group (numbers not race but race is one).
Too many of the silent majority just do not care as long as they are not personally affected.....not in their backyard!

And of course the weak and spineless, don't offend anybody (unless it is the majority).

Popular vote = majority wins.
Electoral vote = majority.
Show of hands = majority.

Silent majority gets what it deserves......a deteriorating America!

[Guest]

The silent majority empowers and emboldens minority group (numbers not race but race is one).
Too many of the silent majority just do not care as long as they are not personally affected.....not in their backyard!

And of course the weak and spineless, don't offend anybody (unless it is the majority).

Popular vote = majority wins.
Electoral vote = majority.
Show of hands = majority.

Silent majority gets what it deserves......a deteriorating America!

Really, how about 9 people in black robes over the majority!

[Guest]

Really, how about 9 people in black robes over the majority!

Excellent point!! :BigApplause:

[Guest]

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.

Captain John Smith of Jamestown gave the order of "no work, no food."

I mentioned both references because the first part is from the Bible and I do realize that the Bible offends liberal atheists.

When the pilgrims immigrated to America, they attempted socialism via the Mayflower Compact......and it failed.

Clean socialism from America and you will undoubtedly rid us of the noisy minority with their radical views.

Today, anyone that controls the media controls the voice and is louder than any majority. The minority always has an excuse for their failure, and it is never their fault. Those of the majority will undoubtedly be the ones that have made their way without gov assistance. They make no excuses for obstacles they encounter on the way. Liberals profess not to believe in a deity, yet use Christian charity as a means to extort benefits from the majority.

[Guest]

Really, how about 9 people in black robes over the majority!

Then we no longer have a democracy!

[Guest]

Then we no longer have a democracy!

I think that was the point. Nine elders (because you only get rid of them when they die on the job) dictate what they deem right or wrong. No matter what the majority want. No matter what the founders wanted. No matter what the constitution says. Obama says the constitution is just a guide. I doubt the elders even consider it that.

[Guest]

I think that was the point. Nine elders (because you only get rid of them when they die on the job) dictate what they deem right or wrong. No matter what the majority want. No matter what the founders wanted. No matter what the constitution says.

The Supreme Court justices review laws and determine if they are in accordance with the Constitution. If the majority of voters vote on some item, the Court can strike it down as being unconstitutional. It is the Court's responsibility to interpret the Constitution.

[Guest]

The Supreme Court justices review laws and determine if they are in accordance with the Constitution. If the majority of voters vote on some item, the Court can strike it down as being unconstitutional. It is the Court's responsibility to interpret the Constitution.

Yep, and they use their opinion and ideology to interpret the constitution. We need term limits for them as much as we need term limits for congress. If they can't even agree with each other, then how do you figure that they are correct in their interpretation?

[Guest]

Yep, and they use their opinion and ideology to interpret the constitution. We need term limits for them as much as we need term limits for congress. If they can't even agree with each other, then how do you figure that they are correct in their interpretation?

Just remember, they do not review EVERY law that is passed. There is a complex system to rise to the Supreme Court level, and the justices decide what cases to hear and rule on.

[Guest]

Yep, and they use their opinion and ideology to interpret the constitution. We need term limits for them as much as we need term limits for congress. If they can't even agree with each other, then how do you figure that they are correct in their interpretation?

If you are a student of the US Constitution, you will know that the lifetime terms of the justices is set forth in Article III. The justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The justices can resign or be removed by impeachment and convicted.

To impose term limits would involve a Constitutional amendment process which would take years (if ever) to accomplish.

Whenever a vacancy occurs on the Court, the President will try to fill the vacancy with a judge of the same political mindset of the President. It always doesn't work. George W. nominated John Roberts to the Court, didn't he? :clap2:

[Guest]

I mentioned both references because the first part is from the Bible and I do realize that the Bible offends liberal atheists.

Liberals profess not to believe in a deity, yet use Christian charity as a means to extort benefits from the majority.

I am very offended by your blanket statement that Liberals do not believe in a deity.

I am a Quaker - which is Christian - and we certainly believe in God.

Yes, there are some Liberals who are atheists just as there some conservatives who are atheists.

I was a friend of Saul Alinski and he was a Christian. He attended the services of the Universal Unitarian Church and was a very spiritual man.

Your blanket statement is just hateful.

[Guest]

A minority(not talking of race, so chill out folks) wishes to think that, but in reality, they are only louder. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. But, the fact is that PC seems to reign in America. In reality, many small groups are just an irritation that the majority doesn't want to deal with, so they buckle to them just to shut them up. It doesn't convince anyone that they are right or deserving, just an irritation that no one wants to deal with.

I totally agree.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

I am a God fearing liberal Christian. If you read Jesus's teachings, you will be reading the teachings of a liberal by today's standards. Why do conservatives assume they are the only Christians? Why do they assume they are in the majority? The conservatives want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I think most residents of The Villages are conservatives. How many of them would support repealing Medicare? How many would volunteer or vote for taking away their Medicare benefits? What is so bad about making complete health care, not just emergency health care, available for everybody? There are some things, e.g. military, first responders, infrastructure construction and maintenance, etc. are best done by government; why not health care?

[Guest]

A minority(not talking of race, so chill out folks) wishes to think that, but in reality, they are only louder. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. But, the fact is that PC seems to reign in America. In reality, many small groups are just an irritation that the majority doesn't want to deal with, so they buckle to them just to shut them up. It doesn't convince anyone that they are right or deserving, just an irritation that no one wants to deal with.

You are describing the tea party to a tee, a small but very loud group that is in the process of destroying the republican party. In years past, how many senate seats did they cost the GOP with the likes of Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, Ken Buck, Todd Akin, and many more?

And 2016 will be no different with candidates such as Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, etc. Even the chairman of the RNC, Reince Preibus, stated that the republican party, as we know it, will cease to exist with another loss in 2016.

[Guest]

You are describing the tea party to a tee, a small but very loud group that is in the process of destroying the republican party. In years past, how many senate seats did they cost the GOP with the likes of Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, Ken Buck, Todd Akin, and many more?

And 2016 will be no different with candidates such as Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, etc. Even the chairman of the RNC, Reince Preibus, stated that the republican party, as we know it, will cease to exist with another loss in 2016.

I think the Tea Party does not carry the weight you think they do at all.

BUT...I will most certainly agree that the political climate because of the last 6 1/2 years is totally screwed up.

Trump is grabbing all the headlines from serious candidates on the GOP side.

Clinton's campaign seems to have drawn to a halt and if the reports are accurate the desperation in the Democratic party has them looking at Joe Biden and Al Gore even. More talk of criminal activity than issues on the left.

I still maintain it all could have been different had President Obama handled his first year in office more like a statesman than someone who just won a trophy.

BUT.....the climate has been changed for sure. As has the world.....we have more enemies, less friends, more violence in the Mid East and on our own streets.

It is a shame and I keep hoping for some optimistic news somewhere on something.

ISIS is now using chemical weapons, Iran is going to get rich and armed, Russia is getting stronger, we just opened diplomatic relations with one of the worst human rights countries in the world (Cuba).

We have a civil rights movement based on a lie, we make hero's of criminals, we continually hear of multiple shootings everywhere and crime in the poverty areas has never ever been higher or more violent.

Not a positive time for our country at all.

[Guest]

I think the Tea Party does not carry the weight you think they do at all.

BUT...I will most certainly agree that the political climate because of the last 6 1/2 years is totally screwed up.

Trump is grabbing all the headlines from serious candidates on the GOP side.

Clinton's campaign seems to have drawn to a halt and if the reports are accurate the desperation in the Democratic party has them looking at Joe Biden and Al Gore even. More talk of criminal activity than issues on the left.

I still maintain it all could have been different had President Obama handled his first year in office more like a statesman than someone who just won a trophy.

BUT.....the climate has been changed for sure. As has the world.....we have more enemies, less friends, more violence in the Mid East and on our own streets.

It is a shame and I keep hoping for some optimistic news somewhere on something.

ISIS is now using chemical weapons, Iran is going to get rich and armed, Russia is getting stronger, we just opened diplomatic relations with one of the worst human rights countries in the world (Cuba).

We have a civil rights movement based on a lie, we make hero's of criminals, we continually hear of multiple shootings everywhere and crime in the poverty areas has never ever been higher or more violent.

Not a positive time for our country at all.

Buddy, if you EVER knew what the heck you were talking about, it would be a miracle! You are totally clueless.

[Guest]

Buddy, if you EVER knew what the heck you were talking about, it would be a miracle! You are totally clueless.

YET, you dispute not one thing. Hmmm,

[Guest]

Let's cut out this juvenile chiding and get back to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has said ACA and same sex marriage are legal. That satisfies the liberals but not the conservatives. More people in the country identity as conservative than liberal. Shouldn't the views of the majority be the views that are made constitional since we are a nation built on majority views?

[Guest]

Then we no longer have a democracy!

When a major majority of the population believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and 9 people in black robes overrule probably close to 300 million citizens that is no longer a democracy but an anarchy. The supreme court was established to interpret the constitution, not legislate from the bench. That belongs to Congress!

[Guest]

If you check recent Gallup and Pew Research polls, you will find that a majority of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage being legal everywhere.

The majority has ruled and was upheld by the Supreme Court.

[Guest]

Buddy, if you EVER knew what the heck you were talking about, it would be a miracle! You are totally clueless.

I bet if you take a poll, you will find more on here that agree with him, than with you. I agree with him. On the other hand, you have disputed nothing that he mentioned. Try having an intelligent conversation, and then maybe the rest of us won't think "you are totally clueless."

[Guest]

If you check recent Gallup and Pew Research polls, you will find that a majority of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage being legal everywhere.

The majority has ruled and was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Not true, but if it makes you feel better.....

Try reading the poll questions before making broad statements.

[Guest]

I am a God fearing liberal Christian. If you read Jesus's teachings, you will be reading the teachings of a liberal by today's standards. Why do conservatives assume they are the only Christians? Why do they assume they are in the majority? The conservatives want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I think most residents of The Villages are conservatives. How many of them would support repealing Medicare? How many would volunteer or vote for taking away their Medicare benefits? What is so bad about making complete health care, not just emergency health care, available for everybody? There are some things, e.g. military, first responders, infrastructure construction and maintenance, etc. are best done by government; why not health care?

Yes, Obama's dream of a socialist Utopia. Pie in the sky dreams. Why work when the gov can take care of you, right? Gotta love it when liberals, atheists and gays try to justify behavior by using the Bible, Jesus and religion against real believers.

You want the Bible:

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Matthew 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

The same with:
Matthew 13:12
Mark 4:25
John 15:2
etc, etc.

Please don't try to use scripture to convince conservatives of what you feel is right. Convince us with something that is fair, balanced, logical and WORKS. I've personally experienced socialism in other countries and I have yet to see a country as great as America. Why try something as old as socialism, when we have something in America that allows everyone the opportunity to live the lifestyle they choose? Sure, there is always room for improvement, but it only works when you WORK at it, not expect others to hand their labors over to you, because you feel that they should share. Believe me, Americans are very charitable and generous. We voluntarily give to those in need. We don't need the gov forcing us at gun point to hand over the fruits of our labor.

[Guest]

If you check recent Gallup and Pew Research polls, you will find that a majority of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage being legal everywhere.

The majority has ruled and was upheld by the Supreme Court.


The majority also ruled when they went to the polls on election day 2012 and reelected Barack Obama, who supported same-sex marriage, as opposed to Mitt Romney, who thinks marriage is only between one man and one woman.

BTW: when this Supreme Court ruling came down, 37 states had already legalized same-sex marriage, including Florida.

[Guest]

When a major majority of the population believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and 9 people in black robes overrule probably close to 300 million citizens that is no longer a democracy but an anarchy. The supreme court was established to interpret the constitution, not legislate from the bench. That belongs to Congress!

:agree:

[Guest]

The majority also ruled when they went to the polls on election day 2012 and reelected Barack Obama, who supported same-sex marriage, as opposed to Mitt Romney, who thinks marriage is only between one man and one woman.

BTW: when this Supreme Court ruling came down, 37 states had already legalized same-sex marriage, including Florida.

A lot of messed up folks, but just because liberal reps make a decision for the rest of us, does not mean the majority concur. If they truly used a referendum to allow the voters to decide, they get a different decision. NC did it and the voters decided that marriage was between a man and women. Big difference between civil unions and (religious) marriage. Even Christians might allow for a civil union, as long as their religious beliefs are not forced to conform to what they view as deviant behavior not endorsed by the Bible.

Back to the majority. The majority want to abolish Obamacare. The majority do not want their tax money to pay for everyone's college. The majority feel that free cell phones are being abused, that food stamps are being abused, that the border needs to be enforced, that illegals should not be given taxpayer benefits, that marijuana should not be legalized for recreation purposes, etc.

[Guest]

A lot of messed up folks, but just because liberal reps make a decision for the rest of us, does not mean the majority concur. If they truly used a referendum to allow the voters to decide, they get a different decision. NC did it and the voters decided that marriage was between a man and women. Big difference between civil unions and (religious) marriage. Even Christians might allow for a civil union, as long as their religious beliefs are not forced to conform to what they view as deviant behavior not endorsed by the Bible.

Back to the majority. The majority want to abolish Obamacare. The majority do not want their tax money to pay for everyone's college. The majority feel that free cell phones are being abused, that food stamps are being abused, that the border needs to be enforced, that illegals should not be given taxpayer benefits, that marijuana should not be legalized for recreation purposes, etc.


We will find out if all this is true on election day 2016.

[Guest]

Marriage should have been left as, and as I believe and many others (probably a majority), is between a man and a woman. Two beings that can create another being.

Those who prefer other than man and woman should be called something else.

We all know it was not called something else because they wanted whatever benefits accorded a man and woman in marriage.

The usual use, abuse or hide behind the law and most importantly a means for politicians to create a new voting block.

We are whoring away and redefining certain aspects of our lives and beliefs we have had for centuries to accomodate the few (and re-election!).

[Guest]

Not true, but if it makes you feel better.....

Try reading the poll questions before making broad statements.

Once again, you engage your mouth before putting your brain in gear.
Cite your source for your statement.

[Guest]

Once again, you engage your mouth before putting your brain in gear.
Cite your source for your statement.

You first. Polls are like AH's. Everyone has one. :a20:

[Guest]

Marriage should have been left as, and as I believe and many others (probably a majority), is between a man and a woman. Two beings that can create another being.

Those who prefer other than man and woman should be called something else.

We all know it was not called something else because they wanted whatever benefits accorded a man and woman in marriage.

The usual use, abuse or hide behind the law and most importantly a means for politicians to create a new voting block.

We are whoring away and redefining certain aspects of our lives and beliefs we have had for centuries to accomodate the few (and re-election!).

They can call it whatever they wish. My marriage was a blessing from God. That's one entity that they can't force into acceptance. I can get the law to change my name to Frita or Mary, but that don't make me female in God's eyes. God don't make mistakes and those that feel different are just insulting Him. If they wish to embarrass themselves by dressing as women, it's a free country and I respect their right. And I respect their right to love whatever they wish, be it male to male, female to female, male to dog, horse, sheep, or chicken, etc. The law is the law. But, the law can't legislate blessings from God, no matter what they force from the churches. It's not my responsibility to condemn. That's God's bailiwick.

[Guest]

The majority also ruled when they went to the polls on election day 2012 and reelected Barack Obama, who supported same-sex marriage, as opposed to Mitt Romney, who thinks marriage is only between one man and one woman.

BTW: when this Supreme Court ruling came down, 37 states had already legalized same-sex marriage, including Florida.

So, when a GOP candidate is elected in 2016, you will say that the majority now thinks that marriage is between one man and one woman?

[Guest]

So, when a GOP candidate is elected in 2016, you will say that the majority now thinks that marriage is between one man and one woman?

If that is the candidate's position and if that candidate is elected, that would be the assumption. We won't know what the candidate's position is until a candidate is elected and the GOP platform is written at next year's convention. For instance, Donald Trump has not voiced his opinion on same-sex marriage.

[Guest]

When a major majority of the population believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and 9 people in black robes overrule probably close to 300 million citizens that is no longer a democracy but an anatherchy. The supreme court was established to interpret the constitution, not legislate from the bench. That belongs to Congress!

Dear Guest: The Supreme Court's majority decision was based on flawed logic and bad law. The progressives on this bench engaged in judicial activism.

As to the majority of the population the wrong question is being presented. The question isn't are you in favor of same sex marriage? Rather the question should have been do you believe the definition of marriage should continue to defined as being between one man and one woman?

What the Supreme Court did was to negate the definition of what is a man or what is a woman and by blurring that distinction they have opened a pandora's box.

This issue should not have been left to the supreme court but to individual states or as a referendum.

Roe v Wade was also bad law and has divided this nation since its ruling. The same sex marriage decision is roe v Wade on steroids

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Some here are erroneously trying to make us believe that since The president is a democrat elected by the majority.
Yes to a point. More accurately he was elected by the majority of those who voted.
He in no way represents the real majority.
The gay marriage issue just happened to be rammed through the political and judicial system and does not represent the way the real majority of Americans feel.

If there were a nation wide referendum on the subject of the definition, the real majority would have defeated what has been done recently.

So it is helpful to define the participation of select events.

[Guest]

Dear Guest: The Supreme Court's majority decision was based on flawed logic and bad law. The progressives on this bench engaged in judicial activism.

As to the majority of the population the wrong question is being presented. The question isn't are you in favor of same sex marriage? Rather the question should have been do you believe the definition of marriage should continue to defined as being between one man and one woman?

What the Supreme Court did was to negate the definition of what is a man or what is a woman and by blurring that distinction they have opened a pandora's box.

This issue should not have been left to the supreme court but to individual states or as a referendum.

Roe v Wade was also bad law and has divided this nation since its ruling. The same sex marriage decision is roe v Wade on steroids



Well, learn to live with both same sex marriage and Roe v. Wade. BOTH are the law of the land!

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1100182]Some here are erroneously trying to make us believe that since The president is a democrat elected by the majority.
Yes to a point. More accurately he was elected by the majority of those who voted.
He in no way represents the real majority.
The gay marriage issue just happened to be rammed through the political and judicial system and does not represent the way the real majority of Americans feel.
---------

If you actually feel that Pres. Obama was elected by a majority of those who actually voted, how is that different than any other President who has been elected? Only the people who cast a vote can be counted.

I have a good buddy in The Villages who does not vote and he just says, "Don't blame me, I don't vote."

Once again, if you can cite a recent Gallup poll or other credible poll about same sex marriage, do so.

[Guest]

Some here are erroneously trying to make us believe that since The president is a democrat elected by the majority.
Yes to a point. More accurately he was elected by the majority of those who voted.
He in no way represents the real majority.
The gay marriage issue just happened to be rammed through the political and judicial system and does not represent the way the real majority of Americans feel.

If there were a nation wide referendum on the subject of the definition, the real majority would have defeated what has been done recently.

So it is helpful to define the participation of select events.


One political party is totally out of touch with reality. The polls are always skewed, the wrong people voted, the wrong questions were asked, but this one may take the cake. To repeat the quote "the president was elected by the majority of those who voted". As if this is a bad thing and not the way things have been done since this country was founded and the way countries around the world count their votes.

This particular party needs to ask itself why have we lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, and what can we do to turn this around, and why have we lost the women's vote every year since 1988. There is still time to do some soul searching before the next presidential election.

[Guest]

:rant-rave:" More accurately he was elected by the majority of those who voted.
He in no way represents the real majority.":rant-rave:

Huh? Are not Presidents elected by a majority of people who vote? This has to be the strangest statement that was EVER posted on TOTV.

[Guest]

Dear Guest: The Supreme Court's majority decision was based on flawed logic and bad law. The progressives on this bench engaged in judicial activism.

We don't have a nine member Supreme Court. There are three Republican leaning judges voting as a block. There are four Democratic leaning judges voting as a lock. Justice Roberts, and Justice Kennedy are the only two that base their decisions on the case at hand. Every decision that is controversial is going to be decided by Roberts and Kennedy. The decision will be either 5/4 or 6/3.

You can't call the four progressive judges activists, and not call the three conservatives activists. They are both doing the same thing.

[Guest]

Dear Guest: The Supreme Court's majority decision was based on flawed logic and bad law. The progressives on this bench engaged in judicial activism.

We don't have a nine member Supreme Court. There are three Republican leaning judges voting as a block. There are four Democratic leaning judges voting as a lock. Justice Roberts, and Justice Kennedy are the only two that base their decisions on the case at hand. Every decision that is controversial is going to be decided by Roberts and Kennedy. The decision will be either 5/4 or 6/3.

You can't call the four progressive judges activists, and not call the three conservatives activists. They are both doing the same thing.

Just a very minor correction to your post. The word is "bloc" and not "block".

As stated in an earlier post, the justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The President will try to nominate a judge with the same political leanings.

[Guest]

It doesn't matter if you feel that the same sex marriage decision was flawed. It is now the law of the land.

There is nothing to do about it now. Same sex marriages are just as legal as two sex marriages.

[Guest]

It doesn't matter if you feel that the same sex marriage decision was flawed. It is now the law of the land.

There is nothing to do about it now. Same sex marriages are just as legal as two sex marriages.

Dear Guest: so let me get this straight if the Supreme Court decides that eminent domain should be expanded to include entire cities being removed for the benefit of the government it would be the law of the land and we better get use to it.? Dred Scott (circa 1887) affirming slavery was the law of the land so should blacks have just accepted their fate?

I don't care what people do in their private lives but the decision made was pure politics and deeply flawed as was Roe v Wade. Even the plaintiff in the Roe case regretted her decision and fights for its repeal.

So here we are deeply divided over another issue that if handled properly would have prevented this wide divide.

Despite what the Supreme court ruled biology clearly defines a man ans woman and their respective roles in marriage and procreation. And despite trans gender operations etc the DNA clealy speaks to the sex of this individual .

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

It doesn't matter if you feel that the same sex marriage decision was flawed. It is now the law of the land.

There is nothing to do about it now. Same sex marriages are just as legal as two sex marriages.

Any law can be changed or modified. Not that it will happen because anyone not PC is ostracized by the loud minority. But, with a conservative in the White House and congressional majority, the PC avalanche can be slowed. Maybe the PC minority will be hushed enough so that the moral majority can lead properly. Because without morality, America will definitely fall. Of course, liberals love anarchy, because they hold more power over the people that way. The dependent are easily lead by the gold ring in their noses.

[Guest]

Dear Guest: so let me get this straight if the Supreme Court decides that eminent domain should be expanded to include entire cities being removed for the benefit of the government it would be the law of the land and we better get use to it.? Dred Scott (circa 1887) affirming slavery was the law of the land so should blacks have just accepted their fate?

I don't care what people do in their private lives but the decision made was pure politics and deeply flawed as was Roe v Wade. Even the plaintiff in the Roe case regretted her decision and fights for its repeal.

So here we are deeply divided over another issue that if handled properly would have prevented this wide divide.

Despite what the Supreme court ruled biology clearly defines a man ans woman and their respective roles in marriage and procreation. And despite trans gender operations etc the DNA clealy speaks to the sex of this individual .

Personal Best Regards:

Wow! Your American history is way off! The Dred Scott decision was 1857 - which was before the Civil War.

[Guest]

Wow! Your American history is way off! The Dred Scott decision was 1857 - which was before the Civil War.

And out of all he said, that was what you picked out to comment on? Wow! Can anyone say "grasping at straws?"

[Guest]

The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court was in 1857 which was BEFORE the Civil War. The Chief Justice had the opinion that slaves were personal property of their owner no matter if the owner went into free territory.

Moot point since slavery was abolished by an amendment to the US Constitution.

You should be glad that the Supreme Court decided that same sex marrriage is legal in all the USA. Now, when your grandson or granddaughter tells you they are getting married to their lover of the same sex, you can rejoice in their happiness.

[Guest]

The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court was in 1857 which was BEFORE the Civil War. The Chief Justice had the opinion that slaves were personal property of their owner no matter if the owner went into free territory.

Moot point since slavery was abolished by an amendment to the US Constitution.

You should be glad that the Supreme Court decided that same sex marrriage is legal in all the USA. Now, when your grandson or granddaughter tells you they are getting married to their lover of the same sex, you can rejoice in their happiness.

You agree that Dred Scott was a mistake, yet you cannot see this particular decision as something that could be a bad one !!

You do recall that about 10 years ago, a same sex couple was breaking the law by simply showing their love and still break the law in almost 1/2 the countries of the world ?

Problem today is if you are able to get political traction and power on ANY issue and then slam it in the face of everybody, it suddenly becomes mainstream.

[Guest]

You agree that Dred Scott was a mistake, yet you cannot see this particular decision as something that could be a bad one !!

You do recall that about 10 years ago, a same sex couple was breaking the law by simply showing their love and still break the law in almost 1/2 the countries of the world ?

Problem today is if you are able to get political traction and power on ANY issue and then slam it in the face of everybody, it suddenly becomes mainstream.

You do recall that over 10 years ago Massachusetts, under Governor Mitt Romney, became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage and started what would become a wave, eventually encompassing 37 states before the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be legal in all 50 states.

[Guest]

You do recall that over 10 years ago Massachusetts, under Governor Mitt Romney, became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage and started what would become a wave, eventually encompassing 37 states before the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be legal in all 50 states.

Since you mentioned Gov Romney's name for some reason, it should be noted that he was totally opposed to the ruling.

And he and I and everyone respect the law and abide by it. As with Dred Scott, all court decisions are correct and moral.

[Guest]

Mass. was the first state that made same sex marriages legal. Gays didn't throw it in the face of Mass. residents quite the opposite. There was a petition to reverse the same sex law in Mass. It had enough signatures. The state legislature didn't allow the petition to get on the ballot; therefore, it was never voted on.

The legislators knew the law would be reversed, if it was voted on. Mass. residents lived with it, and there was no great harm done. No harm; no foul. Let them dance in the streets on Gay Pride Day, and march in the St. Patrick's Day parade. Who cares!

[Guest]

The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court was in 1857 which was BEFORE the Civil War. The Chief Justice had the opinion that slaves were personal property of their owner no matter if the owner went into free territory.

Moot point since slavery was abolished by an amendment to the US Constitution.

You should be glad that the Supreme Court decided that same sex marrriage is legal in all the USA. Now, when your grandson or granddaughter tells you they are getting married to their lover of the same sex, you can rejoice in their happiness.

Ah, so now we understand your problem.

[Guest]

Mass. was the first state that made same sex marriages legal. Gays didn't throw it in the face of Mass. residents quite the opposite. There was a petition to reverse the same sex law in Mass. It had enough signatures. The state legislature didn't allow the petition to get on the ballot; therefore, it was never voted on.

The legislators knew the law would be reversed, if it was voted on. Mass. residents lived with it, and there was no great harm done. No harm; no foul. Let them dance in the streets on Gay Pride Day, and march in the St. Patrick's Day parade. Who cares!

Gotta love those Gay Pride parades. Makes all that gay marriage stuff understandable. It's so fun to watch humans act silly and dress like weirdos. It helps all us straights understand their mentality and take them seriously. :a20:

[Guest]

It is a good thing that they dress like weirdos. The alternative is skin tight pants, not that their manhood is that noticeable anyway. It is much better for the environment that they parade in the streets. Tip toeing through the tulips ruined the poor flowers for years in the Public Gardens.

They finally had to leave their umbrellas home too. When the wind picked up, there was real competition for air space with the drones. They couldn't get rid of the pesky drones with a flick of the wrist. It had to be so depressing.

[Guest]

It is a good thing that they dress like weirdos. The alternative is skin tight pants, not that their manhood is that noticeable anyway. It is much better for the environment that they parade in the streets. Tip toeing through the tulips ruined the poor flowers for years in the Public Gardens.

They finally had to leave their umbrellas home too. When the wind picked up, there was real competition for air space with the drones. They couldn't get rid of the pesky drones with a flick of the wrist. It had to be so depressing.

A homophobe Tea Bag poster. How original he is with his homophobic quips.

Or is it maybe he protests too much??? Hmmmm?

[Guest]

A homophobe Tea Bag poster. How original he is with his homophobic quips.

Or is it maybe he protests too much??? Hmmmm?

"homophobe" and "Tea B..." are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, as you would know. Just saying. Obviously, you liberals (ref: Debbie Whatshername) have a hard time with definitions and terms, and are not motivated enough to research when given ample time. Please have your troll manager call me so that we can plan a counseling session for you. :jester:

[Guest]

A homophobe Tea Bag poster. How original he is with his homophobic quips.

Since I am as far away as you can get from a Tea Partyer, I must be quite original. You literally have no sense of humor at all. Lighten up! You will live longer.

[Guest]

homophobe" and "Tea B..." are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, as you would know. Teabagging is a slang term for the sexual act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a willing sexual partner for pleasure or onto the face or head of another person.

Well, you certainly got it right when you said they are opposite ends of the spectrum.

By the way, I am the person you said was walking lock step with Debbie Whatshername. Now, it appears that you are defending me.

I am a true independent. I just got hit by both sides, and I am laughing like hell at them.

[Guest]

homophobe" and "Tea B..." are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, as you would know. Teabagging is a slang term for the sexual act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a willing sexual partner for pleasure or onto the face or head of another person.

.

If you go back to all the posts on this thread, yours is the only one who used the sexual slang term which you described in a vile way not becoming a gentleman.

The other poster said Tea Bag which is the perfectly accepted word for one way - albeit not a good way - to brew a cup of tea.

As that poster suggested, I googled Tea Partiers Hats and came up with a pageful of Tea Party delegates all wearing different hats with tea bags hanging down from the brims.

Now, get your shorts unkinked and try to stay on topic.

The majority who voted has ruled on the election of Pres. Obama and will rule on the next President. I only wish I could vote in your elections but being still a Brit, I cannot do so.

[Guest]

If you go back to all the posts on this thread, yours is the only one who used the sexual slang term which you described in a vile way not becoming a gentleman.

The other poster said Tea Bag which is the perfectly accepted word for one way - albeit not a good way - to brew a cup of tea.

As that poster suggested, I googled Tea Partiers Hats and came up with a pageful of Tea Party delegates all wearing different hats with tea bags hanging down from the brims.

Now, get your shorts unkinked and try to stay on topic.

The majority who voted has ruled on the election of Pres. Obama and will rule on the next President. I only wish I could vote in your elections but being still a Brit, I cannot do so.

Actually, the majority does NOT elect the president. They are elected by electoral votes. Close though. I am not a member of the Tea Party, although I agree with their ideology. I can understand why a Brit would not care for the Tea Party.

[Guest]

I was inspired to create this thread by a comment in anothe thread. I have lifted/copied their statement that I felt neede a separate focus:

"We are a country of majority. The majority makes the rules. Like it or not."

With all the focus and effort on special interests and minority groups (not just race intended) and the ability continuously displayed day after day where the minority(count) rules.

Schools that limit or eliminate something deemed offensive by one person gets accomplished.
A small group that voices opposition to a writing or book or representation they do not like gets approval.
Then the larger issues like ACA where the majority of Americans were against it and it was passed (before read!).
And currently the the Iran nuclear agreement that most of Americans are against is being pushed even with threats by Obama.

So no, based on the current political, special interest, lobbyists and minority group progress I do not believe the majority rules as it once did.

And I do embrace the statement made by the poster quoted above:

LIKE IT OR NOT!!






Here is the short answer to you whining - ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

Maybe - just maybe - if the R's gave their nomination to a moderate who didn't put his foot in his mouth every second and who didn't go around alienating huge blocks of voters you'd stop crying about the majority not ruling like it once did. Presumably, you mean back in the 40's or 50's when everybody was white

Have some earth shattering news for you - it's 2015, Hispanics are the fastest growing block of voters, 51% of the electorate are women.

Deal with it

[Guest]

I was inspired to create this thread by a comment in anothe thread. I have lifted/copied their statement that I felt neede a separate focus:

"We are a country of majority. The majority makes the rules. Like it or not."

With all the focus and effort on special interests and minority groups (not just race intended) and the ability continuously displayed day after day where the minority(count) rules.

Schools that limit or eliminate something deemed offensive by one person gets accomplished.
A small group that voices opposition to a writing or book or representation they do not like gets approval.
Then the larger issues like ACA where the majority of Americans were against it and it was passed (before read!).
And currently the the Iran nuclear agreement that most of Americans are against is being pushed even with threats by Obama.

So no, based on the current political, special interest, lobbyists and minority group progress I do not believe the majority rules as it once did.

And I do embrace the statement made by the poster quoted above:

LIKE IT OR NOT!!

Leftists have historically been authoritarian and only feign the democratic process until they can grab power. Then they shove their enlightened truth down the throats of the u enlightened

[Guest]

Here is the short answer to you whining - ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

Maybe - just maybe - if the R's gave their nomination to a moderate who didn't put his foot in his mouth every second and who didn't go around alienating huge blocks of voters you'd stop crying about the majority not ruling like it once did. Presumably, you mean back in the 40's or 50's when everybody was white

Have some earth shattering news for you - it's 2015, Hispanics are the fastest growing block of voters, 51% of the electorate are women.

Deal with it

You are correct, elections do have consequences. Obama blatantly proves that point. In a negative way, of course.
Of course you make everything into a racial, sexual deviant or gender issue. But, I take that for granted considering your ignorance.
Talking about alienating huge blocks of voters? We'll see how this election fares for the left Obama has alienated just about everyone with his flip-flopping policies.
If you think women are dumb enough to vote with the left this time, I think you are in for a rude awakening. Women work today. They don't need liberal welfare. And they want a real woman to vote in as the first female president. Hilary is not their choice. And do you really think that Hilary will get the Latin vote? I don't think so. And she definitely won't get the Independent vote, and that is what will be the deciding factor in this election.

If the Dems want a winning candidate for 2016, they had better ditch Hilary. She has no chance of winning the election. Then again, keep her and make it easier for us.

[Guest]

I was inspired to create this thread by a comment in anothe thread. I have lifted/copied their statement that I felt neede a separate focus:

"We are a country of majority. The majority makes the rules. Like it or not."

With all the focus and effort on special interests and minority groups (not just race intended) and the ability continuously displayed day after day where the minority(count) rules.

Schools that limit or eliminate something deemed offensive by one person gets accomplished.
A small group that voices opposition to a writing or book or representation they do not like gets approval.
Then the larger issues like ACA where the majority of Americans were against it and it was passed (before read!).
And currently the the Iran nuclear agreement that most of Americans are against is being pushed even with threats by Obama.

So no, based on the current political, special interest, lobbyists and minority group progress I do not believe the majority rules as it once did.

And I do embrace the statement made by the poster quoted above:

LIKE IT OR NOT!!

As long as 90 percent of Americans supported national background checks after the Connecticut killings of our children and NOTHING got done, then you can easily say that the numerical majority no longer has a chance to succeed, however the financial majority, those with BIG money, will always win.

[Guest]

You are correct, elections do have consequences. Obama blatantly proves that point. In a negative way, of course.
Of course you make everything into a racial, sexual deviant or gender issue. But, I take that for granted considering your ignorance.
Talking about alienating huge blocks of voters? We'll see how this election fares for the left Obama has alienated just about everyone with his flip-flopping policies.
If you think women are dumb enough to vote with the left this time, I think you are in for a rude awakening. Women work today. They don't need liberal welfare. And they want a real woman to vote in as the first female president. Hilary is not their choice. And do you really think that Hilary will get the Latin vote? I don't think so. And she definitely won't get the Independent vote, and that is what will be the deciding factor in this election.

If the Dems want a winning candidate for 2016, they had better ditch Hilary. She has no chance of winning the election. Then again, keep her and make it easier for us.

It all depends on who runs against Hillary … if its Trump she will win probably 40 states.

[Guest]

I am a God fearing liberal Christian. If you read Jesus's teachings, you will be reading the teachings of a liberal by today's standards. Why do conservatives assume they are the only Christians? Why do they assume they are in the majority? The conservatives want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I think most residents of The Villages are conservatives. How many of them would support repealing Medicare? How many would volunteer or vote for taking away their Medicare benefits? What is so bad about making complete health care, not just emergency health care, available for everybody? There are some things, e.g. military, first responders, infrastructure construction and maintenance, etc. are best done by government; why not health care?

The Federal government does not have a great track record
of running large programs in a cost effective efficient manner!
Name one program that is not loaded with inefficiency and waste!
I don't believe God wants us to waste the resources he gives us!

[Guest]

It all depends on who runs against Hillary … if its Trump she will win probably 40 states.

If she isn't in prison!

[Guest]

As long as 90 percent of Americans supported national background checks after the Connecticut killings of our children and NOTHING got done, then you can easily say that the numerical majority no longer has a chance to succeed, however the financial majority, those with BIG money, will always win.

I believe you are mistaken in your 90%.

By the way, there is a background check requirement whenever you purchase a gun from a licensed dealer.

Most folks do not have a problem with a background check, but that is very costly and does next to no good, other than to spotlight possible convicted felon purchasers. As far as a national gun registration, no way. No one is going to register their guns with the fear of the government possibly attempting to confiscate them whenever they please. Besides, most of your gun related crimes are perpetrated using unregistered, black market or stolen guns. You don't have to fear honest gun owners.....unless you are the bad guy.

[Guest]

If she isn't in prison!

if Bush and Cheney stayed out of prison there is just no hope that Hillary will ever see the inside of one.

I take that back, Bush and Cheney should not have been put in prison, they should have been hung by street lamps with piano wire and left to rot for the deaths of our finest in a made up war.

[Guest]

I believe you are mistaken in your 90%.

By the way, there is a background check requirement whenever you purchase a gun from a licensed dealer.

Most folks do not have a problem with a background check, but that is very costly and does next to no good, other than to spotlight possible convicted felon purchasers. As far as a national gun registration, no way. No one is going to register their guns with the fear of the government possibly attempting to confiscate them whenever they please. Besides, most of your gun related crimes are perpetrated using unregistered, black market or stolen guns. You don't have to fear honest gun owners.....unless you are the bad guy.

it was very close to 90 percent, maybe high 80s.

it seems to me that these latest mass killings were by mental retards who were able to buy a weapon legally.

Call it what you want, but if it even stops one idiot from getting a gun and shooting up a theatre then it is well worth it.

This whole crackpot theory of people worried that the government is coming to take your guns away was just a weapon industry tactic to get scared people to buy more guns while they still can.

[Guest]

Wow! Your American history is way off! The Dred Scott decision was 1857 - which was before the Civil War.

Dear guest My history is not of its my keyboarding skills

[Guest]

it was very close to 90 percent, maybe high 80s.

it seems to me that these latest mass killings were by mental retards who were able to buy a weapon legally.

Call it what you want, but if it even stops one idiot from getting a gun and shooting up a theatre then it is well worth it.

This whole crackpot theory of people worried that the government is coming to take your guns away was just a weapon industry tactic to get scared people to buy more guns while they still can.

Look at how much power and involvement our Federal government has in our everyday lives in recent years, so it is not to far fetched to believe that a Federal government gun grab is Very possible!

[Guest]

This whole crackpot theory of people worried that the government is coming to take your guns away was just a weapon industry tactic to get scared people to buy more guns while they still can.

Absolutely correct!

There have been around 16 million babies born since President Obama took office. There have been more than 65 MILLION background checks for buying guns in that same time period!

[Guest]

it was very close to 90 percent, maybe high 80s.

it seems to me that these latest mass killings were by mental retards who were able to buy a weapon legally.

Call it what you want, but if it even stops one idiot from getting a gun and shooting up a theatre then it is well worth it.

This whole crackpot theory of people worried that the government is coming to take your guns away was just a weapon industry tactic to get scared people to buy more guns while they still can.

YOu should go hide in a bunker somewhere. Somewhere safe. No matter what anyone tells you about gun statistics, you will always pull up some kind of lie somewhere and try to use it. You liberals are about as paranoid as can be. I am surprised you don't try to legislate a gov sponsored babysitting service that will protect you until you are old enough to become a conservative. Mass murderers are few and far between, so get over it. If the crazies don't have guns then they will just resort to bombs, or knives or axes or bats. A crazy is a crazy no matter what you take away from them. Doctors take more lives than guns, so maybe you want to outlaw doctors? Or maybe cars, since they also take more lives.

[Guest]

YOu should go hide in a bunker somewhere. Somewhere safe. No matter what anyone tells you about gun statistics, you will always pull up some kind of lie somewhere and try to use it. You liberals are about as paranoid as can be. I am surprised you don't try to legislate a gov sponsored babysitting service that will protect you until you are old enough to become a conservative. Mass murderers are few and far between, so get over it. If the crazies don't have guns then they will just resort to bombs, or knives or axes or bats. A crazy is a crazy no matter what you take away from them. Doctors take more lives than guns, so maybe you want to outlaw doctors? Or maybe cars, since they also take more lives.

You gotta be careful. You know what they say about gettin into a pi$$ing contest with a skunk!

[Guest]

Leftists have historically been authoritarian and only feign the democratic process until they can grab power. Then they shove their enlightened truth down the throats of the u enlightened

They are democratic in name only. Democracy to a liberal is just an oxymoron. Great example of the enlightened Democrat is the Nazis, National Socialist German Workers' Party, or the Democratic People's Republic (of North Korea), etc.

[Guest]

After reading these threads, this is the reason religion should be left out of all government discussions and decisions. First of all there are hundreds of religions that generate hundreds of opinions toward how to interpret the laws of our country, so leave it out of the equation. Nothing ****es me off more than someone starting off an opinion with a phase ending in a numeral reference to the bible. How can these people claim to be so religious and have absolutely no compassion for the less fortunate Americans in this country. They go to such extremes to see that no funding goes for anything that may benefit them. The Pope has pleaded with parishioners for empathy yet you see no evidence to show this is working! The right is so filled with hatred against the President and his programs that they are like mad dogs about everything working well in America under him. The world is changing and we have to change as well, sorry but this is a reality.

[Guest]

After reading these threads, this is the reason religion should be left out of all government discussions and decisions. First of all there are hundreds of religions that generate hundreds of opinions toward how to interpret the laws of our country, so leave it out of the equation. Nothing ****es me off more than someone starting off an opinion with a phase ending in a numeral reference to the bible. How can these people claim to be so religious and have absolutely no compassion for the less fortunate Americans in this country. They go to such extremes to see that no funding goes for anything that may benefit them. The Pope has pleaded with parishioners for empathy yet you see no evidence to show this is working! The right is so filled with hatred against the President and his programs that they are like mad dogs about everything working well in America under him. The world is changing and we have to change as well, sorry but this is a reality.

I do hope you are not confusing an opposing opinion or position for hatred!
All the way from the completion of his first year....because I said I would give him a year before I give an opinion.

After his first state of the union it the only conclusion I could come to is we have an incompetent executive in the WH. And for the next 5 years he confirmed my conclusion by time and time again making commitments with no resolve to see them through or implemented. Or to take action to correct the fact that implementaion was not going as promised. This person does none of that.

And over the past 6 years to witness time and time again his taking a black position on a black incident is not what a real president would do.
To give in to the enemy as many times as he has done is just not what the commander in chief of the most powerful nation on the planet does.
To refuse to label the enemy as Islamic Terrorists is totally and completely innexcuseable.

He does not represent the needs of we the people and the needs a strong and powerful and respected nation like the USA was before he emasculated it.

As I have said many times before, in corporate America he would have not made it to the first state of the union.

No for me it is not hate. It is earned disgust and disrespect!!!

[Guest]

After reading these threads, this is the reason religion should be left out of all government discussions and decisions. First of all there are hundreds of religions that generate hundreds of opinions toward how to interpret the laws of our country, so leave it out of the equation. Nothing ****es me off more than someone starting off an opinion with a phase ending in a numeral reference to the bible. How can these people claim to be so religious and have absolutely no compassion for the less fortunate Americans in this country. They go to such extremes to see that no funding goes for anything that may benefit them. The Pope has pleaded with parishioners for empathy yet you see no evidence to show this is working! The right is so filled with hatred against the President and his programs that they are like mad dogs about everything working well in America under him. The world is changing and we have to change as well, sorry but this is a reality.

There you go again with that always abused term "hatred." If we don't agree with you, you naturally assume that we hate you. It's either agree with you or nothing. Liberals feel that if they are non-believers than it should be banned from everyone. If the Republicans don't believe they just don't go to church, but respect others that do believe. If a Republican is gay, he lives a quiet life, whereas a liberal wants to make a law demanding respect. If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants to ban them. I don't like Obama's ideology of socialism, and his policies. I don't know him well enough to hate him. I didn't like Carter's policies either, but I didn't and still don't hate him. Get over it. It's not healthy to think that everyone hates you.

[Guest]

Some few are just not capable of agreeing to disagreeing without counter attacking and name calling and labeling.

[Guest]

Does the majority still rule in America? You bet it does!

The Supreme Court majority decisions on ACA and same sex marriage were majority decisions.

The majority of Americans (51 percent) voted for Pres. Obama.

Looks as though the majority of America will vote for a Democratic President again in 2016.

As we socialist Progressives like to say. :boom: :MOJE_whot::a040:

[Guest]

Does the majority still rule in America? You bet it does!

The Supreme Court majority decisions on ACA and same sex marriage were majority decisions.

The majority of Americans (51 percent) voted for Pres. Obama.

Looks as though the majority of America will vote for a Democratic President again in 2016.

As we socialist Progressives like to say. :boom: :MOJE_whot::a040:

Please stop spreading the false commentary about 51% of Americans voted for Obama. It simply is not true.
Maybe we will allow that 51% of the Americans that voted.
Nice try....again.

[Guest]

Does the majority still rule in America? You bet it does!

The Supreme Court majority decisions on ACA and same sex marriage were majority decisions.

The majority of Americans (51 percent) voted for Pres. Obama.

Looks as though the majority of America will vote for a Democratic President again in 2016.

As we socialist Progressives like to say. :boom: :MOJE_whot::a040:

The Supreme Court does NOT speak for the majority. They just give their slant on a law, based on their ideology, conservative or liberal.

Only 58% of the eligible voters turned out to vote, with Obama receiving 51% of the popular vote. That means that Obama was elected by about 29.5% of the total eligible voters. A quarter of the total registered votes is HARDLY a majority of America. Before you say well this president only received this many votes or this many, you are the one that made the incorrect statement that Obama was elected by the "majority of America." That is simply not true. The majority of America did NOT vote for Obama. Only the majority of the voter turnout, which was only about 3% more than Romney.

As far as a Democrat getting the majority of the vote in the 2016 election, logic dictates different right now. If Clinton gets the nomination, she won't have the black turnout that Obama had, she is losing the female vote, the Latino vote is still undecided, and right now the Independent vote is slanting toward the GOP. I don't see it happening for you.....:boom:

[Guest]

The Supreme Court does NOT speak for the majority. They just give their slant on a law, based on their ideology, conservative or liberal.

Only 58% of the eligible voters turned out to vote, with Obama receiving 51% of the popular vote. That means that Obama was elected by about 29.5% of the total eligible voters. A quarter of the total registered votes is HARDLY a majority of America. Before you say well this president only received this many votes or this many, you are the one that made the incorrect statement that Obama was elected by the "majority of America." That is simply not true. The majority of America did NOT vote for Obama. Only the majority of the voter turnout, which was only about 3% more than Romney.

As far as a Democrat getting the majority of the vote in the 2016 election, logic dictates different right now. If Clinton gets the nomination, she won't have the black turnout that Obama had, she is losing the female vote, the Latino vote is still undecided, and right now the Independent vote is slanting toward the GOP. I don't see it happening for you.....:boom:

What he said!!!

:ho:

:boom:

[Guest]

Since we all (?) agree that ONLY Americans who vote are the ones who count, it is fair to say that 51 percent of American voters (a majority of American voters) voted for Pres. Obama. The 29.5 percent of all eligible voter received by Pres. Obama was a greater number than the number garnered by Romney.

If a person did not vote, they have no one to blame except for themself for the person elected and therefore, these people do not count.

As far as the Supreme Court, their decisions are based upon the majority of the Court- as written in the Constitution.

[Guest]

Since we all (?) agree that ONLY Americans who vote are the ones who count, it is fair to say that 51 percent of American voters (a majority of American voters) voted for Pres. Obama. The 29.5 percent of all eligible voter received by Pres. Obama was a greater number than the number garnered by Romney. Hence confirming the majority of Americans DID NOT vote for Obama (no matter how the picture is painted)!

If a person did not vote, they have no one to blame except for themself for the person elected and therefore, these people do not count. Nice try. Whether they ever voted or not has not one thing to do with being an American. They are, like it or not part of that number labeled total Americans, and they actually do count, like it or not.

As far as the Supreme Court, their decisions are based upon the majority of the Court- as written in the Constitution. Yes and a majority is in fact nothing more than the most votes whether in the millions + 1 or winning vote of 5 VS 4.

What if someone labeled you as a non count person because you are registered on TOTV? Or because you live in TV? One either is or is not an American. And if they are they are one of the total number of Americans. Has nothing to do with anything else.

Re-definition of convenience only works if the majority allows it! :a20:

[Guest]

Since we all (?) agree that ONLY Americans who vote are the ones who count, it is fair to say that 51 percent of American voters (a majority of American voters) voted for Pres. Obama. The 29.5 percent of all eligible voter received by Pres. Obama was a greater number than the number garnered by Romney.

If a person did not vote, they have no one to blame except for themself for the person elected and therefore, these people do not count.

As far as the Supreme Court, their decisions are based upon the majority of the Court- as written in the Constitution.

Since we don't "all" agree that only the ones that voted count, you premise is flawed. A non-vote is not a vote for Obama, so he did not get the majority like it was stated. He only got the majority of the votes cast. Big difference. The idea or theme of this thread was "does the majority rule in America?"

The supreme court decisions are not based on the consensus of the American majority. It is merely based on the majority vote of a few old term limitless judges, and that majority is usually controlled by the political party in power, or had the most appointments to the court.

Our country is not a pure democracy. We are a democratic republic, which means that we are supposed to be represented by politicians that we elect. The majority does not make law. For example, the even though the majority might favor civil unions between gays, the majority does not favor gay marriage. The majority do not rule in America.

[Guest]

He only got the majority of the votes cast. Big difference.

The supreme court decisions are not based on the consensus of the American majority. It is merely based on the majority vote of a few old term limitless judges, and that majority is usually controlled by the political party in power, or had the most appointments to the court.


In order to change the lifetime terms of the Supreme Court justices, the Constitution would have to be amended- just as it would in order to impose term limits on Congress.

You are right in saying that he interpretations by the Supreme Court justices are a majority of the justices. The sitting President will always try to fill vacant seats with judges who have the same political bent as the President. Didn't really work out that way with GW Bush appointing John Roberts, did it? :a20:

[Guest]

In order to change the lifetime terms of the Supreme Court justices, the Constitution would have to be amended- just as it would in order to impose term limits on Congress.

You are right in saying that he interpretations by the Supreme Court justices are a majority of the justices. The sitting President will always try to fill vacant seats with judges who have the same political bent as the President. Didn't really work out that way with GW Bush appointing John Roberts, did it? :a20:

Liberals always think that doing something is impossible. To conservatives, the impossible just takes a little longer. Liberals think that doing something bad is better than doing nothing. That's why we have Obamacare. How many Amendments do we have? How did we get them, if it is impossible?