What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I hope this whole thing drags on, Kentucky's governor flips SCOTUS the bird, starts a gong show that runs up until the election, and Drew Curtis gets elected :D
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

joecct said:
You're supposing that the State will roll over. What if they say "Enough is enough!" and tell the Feds to pound sand?
Click to expand...

Then most likely all federal funding would be cut off. If you tell the Fed to pound sand you best have a nice reserve saved up because you arent getting a nickel of funding after that.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Handyman said:
Then most likely all federal funding would be cut off. If you tell the Fed to pound sand you best have a nice reserve saved up because you arent getting a nickel of funding after that.
Click to expand...

The Fed has threatened (e.g., the national speed limit) this but has it ever actually happened? It would be interesting to see what this Court, as nutty as it can be on some things, would say.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

WeAreNDHockey said:
Is US News and World Report mainstream enough? They ran this.

I personally don't care what this woman says anymore to defend herself. She is covered in the stench of hypocrisy and my belief is she just hates (fears) gays. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

So wait. She divorces her first husband, and marries a second guy, while knocked up by some dude who eventually becomes her third husband?

What do you suppose her feelings on adultery are? What does the bible have to say on that?
 
joecct said:
I would not go that far. She believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman (at a time). She is offended (but not harmed) when two people of the same sex present themselves to be married.

In this I agree with her.
Click to expand...

The "I'm offended" crowd has now come full circle. :)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Twitch Boy said:
I hope this whole thing drags on, Kentucky's governor flips SCOTUS the bird, starts a gong show that runs up until the election, and Drew Curtis gets elected :D
Click to expand...

Kentucky's Governor told Mrs. Davis to shut up and get back to work.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

rufus said:
So wait. She divorces her first husband, and marries a second guy, while knocked up by some dude who eventually becomes her third husband?

What do you suppose her feelings on adultery are? What does the bible have to say on that?
Click to expand...

She got saved 4 years ago so none of it counts. It's a Celestial Chapter 7.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

joecct said:
I would not go that far. She believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman (at a time).
Click to expand...

But that's not what the bible says. The bible says that marriage is God's joining, and no man can put asunder. Anyone marrying another person has committed adultery.

Just another case of a so-called "Christian" picking and choosing the parts of the bible they want to adhere to, while ignoring the rest. The parts they ignore are usually those that cause inconvenience in their own lives, while the parts they choose to live by are those that inconvenience the lives of others.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kepler said:
She got saved 4 years ago so none of it counts. It's a Celestial Chapter 7.
Click to expand...

That's what I love about the born-agains. Just a simple "I'm sorry" excuses a lifetime of sin and debauchery, and now they are free to harangue other people about how they should be living.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kepler said:
The Fed has threatened (e.g., the national speed limit) this but has it ever actually happened? It would be interesting to see what this Court, as nutty as it can be on some things, would say.
Click to expand...

If a State ignored the order of the Federal Court they most certainly would. To not do so would completely undermine the Federal Court.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

rufus said:
So wait. She divorces her first husband, and marries a second guy, while knocked up by some dude who eventually becomes her third husband?

What do you suppose her feelings on adultery are? What does the bible have to say on that?
Click to expand...
non Catholics believe that divorce nullifies a marriage. Adultery? Heck look at the Gov of NY. Nobody cares (unfortunately).
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kepler said:
I think it is a valid act of protest to refuse to issue the license and take the consequences. The process is working inexorably towards those consequences. I have no problem with what anybody's doing in this situation.

I have no idea if she's motivated by faith or attention-seeking or a cash grab once she gets on the derp gravy train. It doesn't matter. Individuals ought to be able to throw themselves down on the track in front of the onrushing train if they want. I assume each of us can construct a situation in which we'd wholly approve of doing that. In supporting one we must support the right of all, regardless of how loathsome that individual and/or their cause is.
Click to expand...

From 102 years ago...
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

5mn_Major said:
Although a self designated progressive above all else...am I actually thinking this is going too far?

University of Tennessee tells staff and students to stop using 'he' and 'she' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nts-stop-using-switch-xe-zir-xyr-instead.html

Maybe I'm finally getting old.
Click to expand...

If you're getting old I am positively ancient. I am as open minded a person as you'll meet when it comes to issues of gender or orientation and this is ridiculous. As ridiculous as it gets.

We're becoming a society that assumes insult or bias or discrimination where none exists. I long for the time to come when we first assume no insult or bias is intended and wait instead for proof of someone's negative motive. Not that hard to do. Most people reveal themselves quickly enough.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Maybe, but we should remember when it was "ridiculous" for men to have long hair, or for women to want to keep working after marriage.

It's all hemlines, and they change with the season.
 
Kepler said:
Maybe, but we should remember when it was "ridiculous" for men to have long hair, or for women to want to keep working after marriage.

It's all hemlines, and they change with the season.
Click to expand...

I still think it's ridiculous for men to have long hair, generally speaking. And there are very few tattoos that don't cause me to judge the person getting them.

Now get off my lawn, before I start talking about the onion I wore on my belt, as was the style at the time.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Attempts at change make sense when there is a potential pathway to tangible success. In this situation (he/she), there is no existing demand for the change, probable widespread resistance due to the burden of usage, and almost no chance of realistic societal benefit. This is not slavery nor is it NA mascots...nor frankly even the metric system.


unofan said:
I still think it's ridiculous for men to have long hair, generally speaking. And there are very few tattoos that don't cause me to judge the person getting them.
Click to expand...

Not me. I think its cool and admirable more often than not to have someone creating a personal style.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top