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!

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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!