Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.

[MrFun]

....

THE SUIT IS ARGUING THAT THE THING IS NOT THEIR RIGHT.

Additionally, demonstrating that the thing you believe is a civil right is also "warm and fuzzy" HAS NO BEARING ON THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS.

You're almost as bad as Ben.

What were people so worked up then about the "warm and fuzzy" of white and black people marrying one another? Based on your logic then, the argument that white and black people had no right to marry one another also had legitimate merit.

[MrFun]

Based on what legal theory?

The people of CA acted to change the constitution of thier state in response to that ruling. I ask again can you give me a real reason why Starr's defense of the CA constitution is without merrit.

So then why can't the state of California change its constitution to prohibit interracial marriage?

[Ben Kenobi]

... so when the population was massively against the war, shouldn't Bush have pulled out...?

Again, you are assuming that the majority of people were against the war. Push polls are not the same as a referendum.

Whenever anyone claims, "the people believe in X", I will ask if there has been a national referendum. We clearly don't know what the people actually believe unless we have one.

There are a lot of wars I didn't mention, but none of them have anything to do with the fact that you're an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.

Obviously, because it weakens your argument. I didn't call you a hypocrite, I was curious why you mentioned one and not the other. Is it because you believe there was massive support behind afghanistan?

If so, why are you cherry picking examples? I would not have been opposed to a referendum for either, but I would reject the concept that it's necessary to have a referendum for everything.

Which means that you're not in favor of direct election or referendums for everything, which means that opposing other people's arguments with the question, "Was there a national referendum?" is stupid.

No, I think it would be a good thing, but I don't believe it's necessary. Those are two very different statements.

Now, the other point, which hasn't come up, is that I believe a national referendum trumps everything else.

This is what didn't happen in California. There has been a referendum, and CA has said twice, and said no to gay marriage. For the judiciary to go behind their backs once and do it anyways is an affront to democracy.

[MrFun]

The judiciary could be stepping in to protect the rights of the minority from the oppression of the majority.

[Felch]

What were people so worked up then about the "warm and fuzzy" of white and black people marrying one another? Based on your logic then, the argument that white and black people had no right to marry one another also had legitimate merit.

It was the law. The fact that the elected representatives of the people felt the need to pass a law indicates that it had some merit. Does that make it good? Does it make it just? Does it help produce beautiful babes like Beyonce (or Halle Berry)? No. But it means that somebody, somewhere, felt that it was necessary.

[-Jrabbit]

I believe a national referendum trumps everything else.

So a national referendum should be permitted to drive Presidential policy decisions and overturn Supreme Court decisions?

[Felch]

Push polls are not the same as a referendum.

While the statement is true, it's presented in a dishonest context. Who says that the polling that indicated a drop in support for the Iraq War was push polling? The questions are published along with the results. Also, who says that a referendum won't be influenced by propaganda? Our freedom of speech pretty much guarantees that a referendum is just as bad as a push poll.

[Felch]

Communists point out that in the liberal scenario, the wolf still has the ultimate power, and argues that the sheep need guns.

You got guns?

You could probably find an SKS for cheap (~$200). It's a good commie gun, chambered in 7.62x39, ten round internal magazine, and because it's old school (circa 1945), the ATF allows them to come with a bayonet.

Good for hunting mid-size game (gators, deer, redcoats, etc.)

[Lorizael]

Again, you are assuming that the majority of people were against the war. Push polls are not the same as a referendum.

Whenever anyone claims, "the people believe in X", I will ask if there has been a national referendum. We clearly don't know what the people actually believe unless we have one.

True or false: In the past, you have cited polls demonstrating that the population is against gay marriage to support your arguments.

Obviously, because it weakens your argument. I didn't call you a hypocrite, I was curious why you mentioned one and not the other. Is it because you believe there was massive support behind afghanistan?

My argument is that you're a hypocrite. The war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with your hypocrisy.

My logic:

1. You support the war in Iraq.
2. You believe that national referendums trump all else.
3. Polls showed clear national disapproval for the war at various times.
4. You should not support the Iraq war.
5. You are a hypocrite for supporting the Iraq war.

What part does the Afghan war have in my argument? The only flaw in my argument is that you believe polls are not reflective of the will of the people, which you only believe because you're intellectually dishonest - another point I'm trying to prove.

If so, why are you cherry picking examples? I would not have been opposed to a referendum for either, but I would reject the concept that it's necessary to have a referendum for everything.

No, I think it would be a good thing, but I don't believe it's necessary. Those are two very different statements.

You need reasons why certain issues require referendums and others don't, otherwise you actually have no argument.

Now, the other point, which hasn't come up, is that I believe a national referendum trumps everything else.

This is what didn't happen in California. There has been a referendum, and CA has said twice, and said no to gay marriage. For the judiciary to go behind their backs once and do it anyways is an affront to democracy.

Despite my strong support for gay marriage, I don't actually care about what's happening in California. I just think you're an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.

[Kuciwalker]

What were people so worked up then about the "warm and fuzzy" of white and black people marrying one another? Based on your logic then, the argument that white and black people had no right to marry one another also had legitimate merit.

14th Amendment, dude. And their case would not have been helped by pictures of happy mixed race marriages.

[MrFun]

Let's have a referendum then to repeal the 14th Amendment.

[Ben Kenobi]

So a national referendum should be permitted to drive Presidential policy decisions and overturn Supreme Court decisions?

Yes.

Judicial activism is a serious problem.

If there are sufficient amounts of support the will of the people can even amend the constitution! Horrors!

[Ben Kenobi]

While the statement is true, it's presented in a dishonest context. Who says that the polling that indicated a drop in support for the Iraq War was push polling?

Push polling is when you ask a specific question in the hopes of getting the answer that you want. There are all kinds of games you can play. I've seen it enough to know how you do it.

The other problem is your so-called 'random' sample. Again, polling 1000 people is not the same as the will of the people.

Also, who says that a referendum won't be influenced by propaganda? Our freedom of speech pretty much guarantees that a referendum is just as bad as a push poll.

I have no problem with propaganda, I do have a problem with salting your samples.

[Solomwi]

Let's have a referendum then to repeal the 14th Amendment.

I don't think that would help your cause.

[Ben Kenobi]

True or false: In the past, you have cited polls demonstrating that the population is against gay marriage to support your arguments.

Edit, misread. I've called for a referendum on the issue for a long time now. Never have I said that the polls were sufficient to stand by themselves, merely that the fact that the polls are against gay marriage means that there needs to be a referendum to settle the issue rather then passing it by judicial fiat.

1. You support the war in Iraq.

No, I don't. Please quote me where I have said that I supported going to war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Unlike you I was consistant, I rejected both wars when the question was should we go or not.

You seem under the presumption that Iraq was the bad, bad, bad war, but Afghanistan was all good and holy. I think that's because you read the NYTimes and believe whatever they have to say. I don't understand the position whatsoever that one was good and the other was bad.

2. You believe that national referendums trump all else.

Yessir.

3. Polls showed clear national disapproval for the war at various times.

Polls != referendums.

4. You should not support the Iraq war.
5. You are a hypocrite for supporting the Iraq war.

Except that I didn't support the war.

The only flaw in my argument is that you believe polls are not reflective of the will of the people, which you only believe because you're intellectually dishonest - another point I'm trying to prove.

No, I don't believe they are, I believe a national referendum is far more accurate. Sample size should be eminently obvious.

You need reasons why certain issues require referendums and others don't, otherwise you actually have no argument.

I said there are no issues that require referendums. I also said that having a referendum would be beneficial, regardless of the issue. What's so hard to understand about that?

Despite my strong support for gay marriage, I don't actually care about what's happening in California. I just think you're an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.

And you call me a hypocrite?

Good day sir!