Ted Olson to team up with Bush v. Gore foe to challenge Prop. 8 in federal court.
Ted Olson to team up with Bush v. Gore foe to challenge Prop. 8 in federal court.
Former U.S. solicitor general Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who argued opposite each other in Bush v. Gore, are now teaming up to “represent two same-sex couples filing suit after being denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8. Their suit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in California, calls for an injunction against the proposition, allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples.” The American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is leading the case, notes that it is the first time that Olson and Boies have “served alongside each other as co-counsel.” “For a long time I’ve personally felt that we are doing a grave injustice for people throughout this country by denying equality to gay and lesbian individuals,” Olson told The Advocate in an interview. A copy of the 10-page complaint is here.
I asked Olson about the objections of conservatives who will argue that he is asking a court to overturn the legitimately expressed will of the people of California. "It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution," Olson said. "The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Excellent news!
May 27th, 2009 at 10:42 amDiscrimination makes for strange bed fellows.
(pun intended)
PEACE
May 27th, 2009 at 10:43 amTed Olson to team up with Bush v. Gore foe to challenge Prop. 8 in federal court.
– - Great, Olson and Boies can tag team against Ken Starr.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:48 amKeep the pressure on. The quest for equal rights is not going away.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:49 amspencers mom Says:
Discrimination makes for strange bed fellows.
____________
“strange bedfellows”… no doubt a concept Republicans are quite familiar w/…
May 27th, 2009 at 10:51 amI don’t have high hopes for this case. But yes, the pressure should be kept on regardless.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:52 amWatchdog…
“Separate but equal” doesn’t work and it’s unconstitutional…
May 27th, 2009 at 10:59 amI think it’s a dumb move. With the current composition of the Supreme Court, they would clearly not only validate Prop 8 but they would just as clearly invalidate all the marriages that occurred between same sex couples when it was legal.
A better way is to just fight it out as a Ballot Initiative in 2010, 2012 or however long it takes. On that front, I don’t think it would take any longer.
Getting the Feds involved is agreeing to drink hemlock & Socrates I ain’t.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:01 amThe majority’s rights do not include the denial of the rights of the minority.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:03 amwatchdog….what a moronic statement. Of course they don’t have the same rights. They can’t file taxes together. I know couples who’se fundamentalist parents were able to bar the other member of the couple from hospitals on the grounds that they weren’t related.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:03 amkindness Says:
watchdog….what a moronic statement. Of course they don’t have the same rights.
Also proven by mutt’s use of the word “except”.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:15 amB. ‘Marriage’ is the union & right reserved for opposite sex because my religion says so.
Checking, checking…nope, nothing in the Constitution that says we are a theocracy.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:31 amThe people of California have voted. In this country the vote is a sacred thing. The Cal Supreme Court has upheld that vote.
Better luck next time. Give it another shot.
If the vote of the people isn’t binding then no elected official or policy is valid.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:32 amThe Constitution does give the States the right to govern themselves. This vote allows the State of California to vote on such things and to self determination.
The 10th Amendment.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:39 amYes, the people of California have voted. It’s a shame they voted that way.
However, while the vote of the people is binding, the human being is a fickle thing. Humanity will want something one moment, but they could vote the other way the next time. Heck, the Presidential election is proof of that. It’s all situational.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:42 amObviously since they believe that allowing same sex marriages will lead to people wanting to marry their ferrets and polygamy. Teabaggers must all be closet fetishists. JohnM?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:43 amjay Says:
In this country the vote is a sacred thing.
Exactly. Please be sure to tell Norm Coleman that.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:44 amThe Constitution does give the States the right to govern themselves. This vote allows the State of California to vote on such things and to self determination.
The 10th Amendment.
—
May 27th, 2009 at 11:45 amHow come that doesn’t apply to death with dignity and marijuana statutes? I like when folks pick and choice their 10th ammendment battles selectively….
jay Says:
The Constitution does give the States the right to govern themselves. This vote allows the State of California to vote on such things and to self determination.
The 10th Amendment.
Yeah, so if your state decided you have to be a slave because you have blue eyes, you would be all for it then.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:45 amSo now you want to invalidate the entire Bush presidency?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:47 amNorm Coleman is following the law and his right to do what he is doing is guaranteed within those laws.
A new election is in order or a determination made by the State Supreme Court will rule on the election.
Count all the votes under the same criteria and lets see how it comes out.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:47 amIt’s a bit late for that, don’t you think?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:49 amWhere were you in 2000?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:49 amRight here. Al Gore had the same rights as Norm Coleman does.
He, however, gave up the fight didn’t he?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:51 amJay? Try the 14th Amendment.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:51 amNOPE, I believe for the good of the country all the crimes committed in Florida and Ohio against Democratic voters should be investigated and folks like Jeb Bush and Karl Rove and all the locals who committed election fraud and caging and who never really recounted the votes in Florida should be thrown in jail so it never happens again.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:53 amwatchdog Says:
None of their rights have been violated. Its merely a title that all this crap is about. Gay couples have every benefit straight couples do except the title.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:52 am
_____________
Yeah, good point. I mean, so what if negroes have to drink out of the colored water fountain – they’re still getting water, right?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:53 amIt seems that due process was followed. Prop 8 was upheld by the court.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:54 amIn California, the Majority can amend the State Constitution to discriminate against the minority.
To those who insist same-sex couples enjoy exactly the same rights as opposite sex married couples, please follow the link to the Complaint filed in federal court. It details some very specific legal distinctions between the two under California law.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:55 amSo what you are saying is that ACORN should be investigated for their actions in this last election. Oh, they are aren’t they?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:56 amExcept as it turned out the votes were never actually RECOUNTED and then the Supreme Court acted as activist judges and stopped and further counting. Maybe they should be investigated and their bank accounts investigated during that time. Maybe David Souter will now be able to speak up about his dissent. Most likely he’ll end up dead like the DC Madame, the anthrax scientist and al Libbi. I’m sure Cheney is working on it from his bunker already.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:56 amThey made a great blunder. They put it up before the people to vote on.
They should have done what Mass. did. Deny the people the right to vote and make a State proclamation.
Try that rout next time.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:58 amThey were investigated and followed the rules to the letter which is why we all found out about their workers who weren’t following the rules and why not of their registrants voted illegally. Why do you teabaggers have so much trouble understanding the facts.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pmSo what you are saying is that the votes should be recounted fairly in the Coleman , Franken election.
Hey, I’m in favor of that.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pmCop out. Typical.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:01 pmThey’ve been recounted twice and Franken lead was expanded. What don’t you understand?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:02 pmI understand that the same criteria for determining those votes were not followed. That is the basis for Colemans case before the State supreme court.
It’s up to them now to decide as the law permits.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:03 pmWhat’s the copout? I don’t care if they keep investigating ACORN as long as they investigate the Diebold machines and all the caging committed against minorities. Lets check everybody until it’s all worked out. What would I care about ACORN?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:04 pmLets get to it then.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pmDoodle, you’re getting off topic. Try and keep on topic.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:07 pmWow talk about strange bed fellows — He may be conservative, but Ted Olsen is a very, very good lawyer, as is Boies, both of whom have argued many cases before the SCOTUS. That is some real heft.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:07 pmGive me ONE non-religious reason why gays should be denied equal access to the institution, rights, and priveleges of marriage. Anyone?
Denying gays such equal access by vote of the majority would have its equivalent in denying Republicans the right to marry in a Democratic majority state. Maybe THAT should be the strategy. Let’s start the Church of the Democratic Socialists and put such a proposition on the ballot in a solid blue state.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:10 pmI have no problem with that. That is the law and rights under the Constitution.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:10 pmIt’s not allowed in the State of California under its Constitution. How’s that?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:11 pmJay: learn a little something about law under a republican form of government like we have before you start crowing about how a state’s right of self-determination trumps all. If that were the case, Jim Crow laws would never have been defeated; African-Americans would still be considered 3/5ths of a person and wouldn’t be able to own property; women would never have received the vote; men and women of different races would not be able to be married to each other; and on, and on, and on.
There’s a little thing called the Constitution of the United States of America, moron. By its very words, it is the supreme law of our country, and any state law that runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution is null and void — regardless of whether that’s a statute, a regulation, or even a state constitutional provision. It’s the price for admission to the union. Therefore, the federal courts interpreting the U.S. Constitution and its provisions of equal protection and due process under the 14th Amendment (under which these federal protections are stated to apply to every state</strong — read it!), should have no problem invalidating this illegal amendment to the constitution of the state of California, no matter how many misguided California bigots voted for it.
Stick around and spew some more of your misguided and uneducated hatred, and we’ll continue to school you.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:11 pmI’m a little confused by this. First, if the Supreme Court of California found that Prop 8 is valid, then what is the basis for the complaint? Federal law? They expect that the US Supreme Court will over turn it based on the US Constitution?!?!?!??
I mean, it has always seemed obvious to me that the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution SHOULD be interpreted to prevent such discrimination, but the ROBERTS Court? Seriously?
If they win this, that will be an amazing accomplishment.
And no, while domestic partnership gives many of the same rights, it does not give all those rights. In any event, labeling it differently under the law does, by definition, make it unequal. If it is a religious matter, then government should not be in the Marriage business at all, and should not recognize or give benefits or obligations related to it. If it’s the word “Marriage” that bothers the right, then government should change the name from civil marriage to civil unions in all case, and not give any recognition to Marriage whatsoever.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:11 pm#50 gudin: read #49; the answer to your first question is “yes”.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:13 pmYeah, like you make the rules around here. What a moron.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:13 pmI agree.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:13 pmjay says: It’s not allowed in the State of California under its Constitution. How’s that?
How’s that??? Terrible! Give one non-religious reason why such a denial of access should be in any Constitution in the US or in any law in the US or up to anyone other than those who would decide for themselves whether or not to marry and to whom.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:16 pmI don’t want to be accused of driving the discussion off topic by you liberals. It’s obvious to me that you people constantly drive things off topic.
Rules, what rules? LMAO Amusing.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:16 pmIt seems that the California State Supreme Court has made it’s ruling upholding Prop 8. Like it or not, until the law is changed, it’s the law.
You should go and poll those who voted whether their decision was made on a religious basis. I can’t answer that one.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:18 pmThe government cannot simply have domestic partnerships for all and leave the term “marriage” to the churches, although that would be a great first step. Non-traditional churches must also have the right to sanction a gay domestic partnership and refer to it as “marriage” as well or there is no freedom of religion.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:19 pmjay says: I can’t answer that one.
Then why did you bother posting a response to my question at all? Oh, I forgot, you like the attention.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:21 pmjay Says:
So what you are saying is that ACORN should be investigated for their actions in this last election. Oh, they are aren’t they?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:56 am
_____________
Unless Mickey Mouse showed up to vote somewhere, ACORN did nothing wrong.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pmWhether or not California gives RDP the same tax breaks as married couples is beside the point. If it is just about “title” then why bother to create a whole other system for gay people to fall under?
Is marriage that much of a sanctity that it’s a straights only club? We’ve made this argument a hundred times before… why do people still not understand this?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pmOK. I have no objection to anyone doing anything unless the law forbids it.
If you don’t like the law then change it. It’s the American way. Good luck.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pmjay says: OK. I have no objection to anyone doing anything unless the law forbids it.
Unless that something is torture?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:23 pmjay Says:
OK. I have no objection to anyone doing anything unless the law forbids it.
If you don’t like the law then change it. It’s the American way. Good luck.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
____________
Thank you for your support of abortion rights.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:23 pmNice post. I posted my opinion based on the Constitution and the law. Sorry if that’s too radical for you.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:23 pmMaybe the churches could refer to it as holy wedlock and the state could call it woolly headlock.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:25 pmI don’t support abortion in any way but it is the law, isn’t it?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:25 pmjay says: Nice post. I posted my opinion based on the Constitution and the law. Sorry if that’s too radical for you.
So? I didn’t ask about that. I didn’t ask you for your opinion if you didn’t have a justification for including denial of access to marriage by gays. You weren’t radical. You were attention-seeking.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pmI didn’t deny anyone the right to getting married, gay or not, the Cal Supreme Court and the people of California did.
So you have a problem with someone posting his opinion. How liberal of you.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pmJay: continue to ignore the U.S. Constitution — that’s quite un-American and unpatriotic. Why do you hate the United States of America so much?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:30 pmPatrioticLiberalChristianMantisReligiosa Says:
No opinions allowed here unless it supports his opinion.
Got it. LMAO Ha Ha Ha Ha
May 27th, 2009 at 12:31 pmJay is just peeved because the scoreboard is still heavy on the side of the states that have decided to follow the Constitution. By the time this reaches the Supremes, there will probably be more and the weight of precedent will not be on California’s side.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:35 pmI have a copy of the document on my desk. How about you? If it was in the Constitution then this thread would be unnecessary and Prop 8 would have been overturned wouldn’t it?
I love this country and served it for 20 years in the military. How about you?
You are also off topic. The name calling is what you do here isn’t it?
If you don’t like the law then overturn it. It’s the American way.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:35 pmI’m not peeved at all. I wish all the gays well. Many States have already voted to allow gay marriage, just not California. I’m sure that will change but until it does the people of this country have an obligation to obey the law.
How’s that?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pmjay Says: So you have a problem with someone posting his opinion. How liberal of you.
Liar. I do not have a problem with you or anyone posting your opinion. That is a right that I will defend at any time and anywhere. However, I retain the right to voice my opinion that your response to me was irrelevant to my question put forth to the general TP community and that you appear to me to be simply seeking attention by responding as you did. Do you have a problem being criticized?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pmHey folks, I’m with you on this one. First you have to change the law or obey those laws that have been enacted.
I live by the Constitution of the United States and as an American I try to obey them.
Your beef is with the people of California, not with me.
You are funny though.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:43 pmI understand. Then you should defend my right to voice my opinion here. Do you have a problem with being criticized? I really don’t. I’m criticized every time I post here.
You have turned this thread into something that is all about me. It’s not. You’re getting off topic with you nonsense.
I don’t really care what I “appear to you”? You have a preconceived notion of me and it shows every time you post to me.
It’s a childish game. It’s not new, I see it here all the time. It’s funny though.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:48 pmjay Says:I live by the Constitution of the United States and as an American I try to obey them.
Yet you laugh when American citizens are denied rights.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:57 pmI didn’t laugh at anyone except those who feel it is their duty to criticize a person you don’t like. Not for what I say but for who you think I am. I am all about the law. How about you?
Again you make it all about me.
You go read post # 75.
Don’t go off topic.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:01 pmThe resident bigot has just shown up. Don’t blame here for her posts, it’s has to do with her upbringing.
LMAO Ha Ha Ha Ha
I was wondering when you were going to show your nasty little face here.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
May 27th, 2009 at 1:12 pmI like it here little girl.
I’m not intimidated by bigots like you. I’m not intimidated by any of you here.
Your funny.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:14 pmjay says: Not for what I say but for who you think I am.
Since what you say here is the only way we can see who you are, I’d say your point is rather round.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:15 pmjay Says:
I like it here little girl.
I’m not intimidated by bigots like you. I’m not intimidated by any of you here.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:16 pmYou’re funny. I corrected my typo before Keith gets here. Ha Ha Ha Ha
Typical post. You also show what you are by what you post here.
I’m not impressed.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:17 pmI’ll take that as a big compliment.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:26 pmYou make my point better than I ever could.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:30 pmhy would olsen take this case?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:08 pmsomething stinks.
RHF also makes my point.
Childish stuff.
LMAO
May 27th, 2009 at 3:28 pmYou sure do like dancing…
May 27th, 2009 at 3:39 pmMore childish stuff. I see you have nothing to say as usual.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:57 pmWhat is childish about dropping your favorite childish diddy? I have plenty to say and it all makes you look foolish….
May 27th, 2009 at 4:22 pmRight.
Sorry but you are what you are.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:48 pmThat’s alright. I assumed you were a child.
So what about death with dignity and marijuana laws isn’t that state’s rights stuff as well?
cheers-
May 27th, 2009 at 4:54 pmIn most States it is against the Law to commit suicide. So far anyone who has succeeded in committing suicide haven’t been charged under the law or prosecuted. DUH
The marijuana thing is your specialty isn’t it?
Childish comments from you and totally off topic.
cheers-
May 27th, 2009 at 5:08 pmNow if you tax and spenders could tax both of them then you would be all over it.
Wait, you do tax both don’t you?
cheers-
May 27th, 2009 at 5:10 pmThe marijuana thing is your specialty isn’t it?
—-
Not really as I don’t smoke but I am asking you whether or not the states should decide and why the feds have interferred when they have and what you think of that in light of you strong feelings about the 10th. Know correct me if I am wrong but the feds also have interferred with those states that have addressed the dignified death matter. Again in light of your love of the 10th, I assume you spoke out. I am just trying to help you establish you cred as to the 1oth
Explain to me again how that is childish or off topic. The 10th is your whole premise.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:18 pmPlease don’t bore me with tax whining. I have no patience for it….
May 27th, 2009 at 5:20 pmThe Federal government has a law on the books right now that allows the sale of Marijuana. You have to purchase a tax stamp from them to do it.
So that law is already on the books. The 10th amendment doesn’t apply there unless the Feds remove that regulation. Of course any state can ignore that law, like Oregon, California and Alaska. If the Feds don’t prosecute then it’s fine by me. It’s still against the law though.
The dignified death matter is up to the person. If you want to off yourself then have at it. I doubt if anyone can stop you.
It’s a moot argument.
Now go and read the tenth amendment and try and understand what it says. That’s important. You should understand what you’re trying to argue about. It seems that you don’t know what it says.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:29 pmI’m sorry to hear that you have no patience. I never run out of it.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:31 pmOh, I’m in favor of States Rights in all forms. How about you?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:35 pmThe dignified death matter is up to the person. If you want to off yourself then have at it. I doubt if anyone can stop you.
It’s a moot argument.
—
May 27th, 2009 at 5:36 pmThan why has the fed interferred? Did you or did you not speak out? The fed has consistently interferred with state drug policy as well as seatbelt, speed limit, and helmet laws. I am asking if you are consistent or not. Can you not handle the discussion?
In many cases I did speak out and still do. How about you?
I’m totally consistent in everything I have said.
Can you handle the discussion? It seems to me that you can’t.
You should read the 10th amendment. Have you?
Just asking?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:41 pmYou seem pretty good at asking questions but so far you haven’t answered any. Why is that?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:43 pmYou should read the 10th amendment. Have you?
–
That lacks consistency.
So what specifically have you spoken out about?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:46 pmFour ignorant posts from RHF. I hope they are not going to disrupt our discussion. #105-108.
She can’t help herself. It’s her upbringing I think.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:47 pmThe marijuana thing is your specialty isn’t it?
—
May 27th, 2009 at 5:49 pmConsistency? This looks more like random assumptions intended to be an implied insult.
Do you really want me to go back through all those posts showing this consistency thing to be bunk?
You seem pretty good at asking questions but so far you haven’t answered any. Why is that?
I’ll ask you this question again.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:49 pmjay
May 27th, 2009 at 5:50 pmMay I ask who established you as the judge of ignorance and childishness? Or do you still wanna dance…. That whole deal was real intellectual and adult-like right?
Oh sorry. That is an easy one. I am Socratic…
May 27th, 2009 at 5:51 pmNow you are confrontational
You go knock yourself out if it makes you feel better.
Why won’t you answer questions put to you from me?
Are you that one sided in your thought. You can only ask but don’t have to answer?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:52 pmBack to the childish baby stuff again.
Next time use Na Na Na Na Na Na.
It always worked good for you in the schoolyard.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:55 pmWhy won’t you answer questions put to you from me?
—
I just did. Can you please show the confrontational part. I am always civil. You have been the one tossing around ignorance and childish. What happen to this whole consistency thing of yours?
120 is hurting…
May 27th, 2009 at 5:56 pmCheck 101. I suppose that blows out 116. Got consistency?
May 27th, 2009 at 6:02 pmI am always civil. Now that is a joke right?
That was real civil.
You go and do what you think is best.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:03 pmWhy don’t you go back and read your posts # 94,96,102,110,115,117.
If you can’t keep up then I’ll slow down for you. Answer the questions in # 109,111,112,116,119.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:09 pmPretty feeble argument you’re making.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:11 pmWhat is feeble about showing that you are mistaken. Did you or did you not say this
“but so far you haven’t answered any”
May 27th, 2009 at 6:12 pm102?
May 27th, 2009 at 6:14 pm112? I already dealt with that. As to the 10th no not in all forms and you know that is the case.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:15 pmApparantly you missed 118
May 27th, 2009 at 6:16 pmI did. Your post #102 isn’t an answer to a question let alone one of mine.
More games? Answer the questions that I asked of you.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:18 pmRight. A most intelligent answer that had nothing to do with the discussion. It’s more of a dodge than an answer.
If you can’t keep up then I’ll slow down for you.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:22 pmApparently.
Another dodge.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:25 pmI know your gimic is driving up the number of posts but this is just lame. I have clearly showed that I answered you question relative to marijuana being my speciality well before your claim that I had answered none of your questions. You can f uck around all you want but the time stamps will continue to show you the fool. I am happy to play along a little while longer but I do have some paperwork to get to soon.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:26 pmSince when is a proven education and dialoque technique a dodge?
May 27th, 2009 at 6:28 pmNo need to slow down. I have one leg tied behind my back and still need to hang back and let you draft…
May 27th, 2009 at 6:30 pmBlah blah blah blah.
More of your old civil stuff I see. Back to your old self. I knew you would resort to the vulgarity and foolishness.
You dodged the questions. It’s what you do.
See ya. You go and have a nice evening.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:33 pmAll my evenings are nice. Hope the same is true. When you get a chance scroll back and read and see what conclusions they will draw….
May 27th, 2009 at 6:35 pmIt isn’t, however, what you did here is.
“education and dialoque technique”. That’s rich.
LMAO
May 27th, 2009 at 6:35 pmNEXT!
May 27th, 2009 at 6:36 pmwhat you did here is.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:42 pm–
How so and since when are you deciding? I have just been playing your game… “You can dance if you want to.”
You’re back. I thought you had to leave.
You are right about one thing. This site is a silly game for people like you.
You tried to keep up a dialogue but in the end you resorted to your old nonsense.
You danced and dodged my questions all day.
It is so much like you.
Then you try this “education and dialoque technique” nonsense.
Run along. Let someone who wants to discuss things have a chance.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:48 pmNext?
May 27th, 2009 at 6:52 pmLooking for a new dance partner are you? You sure do like that dancing…
You danced and dodged my questions all day.
—
May 27th, 2009 at 6:54 pmNo I didn’t and you claiming it does not make it so. Education and dialogue is hardly nonsense. Since you are so fond of dialogue why don’t we discuss behavioral ethology?
Run along Mr.
“I’m always civil”You can f uck around all you want but the time stamps will continue to show you the fool. I am happy to play along a little while longer but I do have some paperwork to get to soon.”
Isn’t your paperwork calling?
May 27th, 2009 at 6:55 pmWhy? Do you need some help in that area? Sorry but it’s off topic. Besides I doubt if you are intelligent enough to discuss the subject.
Anyone who resorts to name calling childish games and vulgarity couldn’t be that bright.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:58 pmsorry I ment to delete the “behavioral”. Redundant.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:59 pmI always get the paperwork done and it is sort of never ending. What is uncivil about suggesting that you are intentionally doging the clear evidence that you comment as to not answering any questions is demostratedly false and that you are just avoiding that reality by f ucking around? I didn’t say you were ignorant did I?
Besides I doubt if you are intelligent enough to discuss the subject.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:00 pm—
Shal we compare curricula vitae?
Shall we?
May 27th, 2009 at 7:01 pmname calling? Where?
May 27th, 2009 at 7:02 pmThere you go again. You constantly dodged my relevant questions and answered only the mundane ones. You danced and dodged them all afternoon.
Then you wind up with the insults and vulgarity.
Sorry. You blew it. You are what you are.
You are very good at making excuses for yourself though. I’ll give you credit for that.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:03 pmYou didn’t ask that question, did you?
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
May 27th, 2009 at 7:04 pmLet’s go. Show us where or be made to look foolish…
May 27th, 2009 at 7:05 pmI’m sure you can make up all kinds of lies. This is the internet, isn’t it?
Hey I can make up stuff also.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:08 pmjay
May 27th, 2009 at 7:09 pmI am low on time. I’ll tell you what, why not pick a few real pressing questions and I’ll answer them over and over again and then you can say they weren’t answered. Okay? Just try and make it sort of snappy as the clock does tick.
I’m sure you can make up all kinds of lies. This is the internet, isn’t it?
— Sure but I never lie.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:10 pmOkay so the curricula vitae thing might be too scary. Can we atleast show that name calling? I really don’t want you too look foolish to other readers
May 27th, 2009 at 7:11 pmYou are what you are.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:12 pm—
What the hell is this suppose to mean? I am that I am….
Post # 96,117,133
And that’s just today. How far back do you want me to go.
I have a good memory. Naw, you go look them up yourself.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:13 pmWhat is childish about dropping your favorite childish diddy? I have plenty to say and it all makes you look foolish….
—-
I see no one being called a name here. Do you?
May 27th, 2009 at 7:14 pmMay I ask who established you as the judge of ignorance and childishness? Or do you still wanna dance…. That whole deal was real intellectual and adult-like right?
May 27th, 2009 at 7:15 pm—-
Nope, no names here.
In English it means that YOU (the person being referred to) are what you are(meaning the makeup of your liberal thought process).
Hence, “You are what you are”. Simple phrase to understand for such a highly educated man.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:17 pmI know your gimic is driving up the number of posts but this is just lame. I have clearly showed that I answered you question relative to marijuana being my speciality well before your claim that I had answered none of your questions. You can f uck around all you want but the time stamps will continue to show you the fool. I am happy to play along a little while longer but I do have some paperwork to get to soon.
—-
Not here either. Look jay this just isn’t working for you. I don’t mind humoring you for a little while but it is getting a little tiresome. Can I invite you to get out of this basement thread and come join the more current discussions above?
May 27th, 2009 at 7:18 pmlike I said jay. I’ll humor you but the attempts to suggest some superior thought on your part is just tedious. I told you I don’t lie and my consecutive 4.0 average in both of my completed Masters programs seems to suggest you might be mistken. I don’t make it a habit to suggest that my educational success makes me in anyway superior to anyone else. I just find it tedious that others like to suggest that they somehow are qualified to assess the intellect of others they know not. Now are you gonna pose those questions or not. Otherwise I’ll see ya upstairs
May 27th, 2009 at 7:22 pmYou call me a fool and that’s not name calling.
How pathetic.
You mean where the others can gang up on me and divert from the topic being discussed. No thanks, besides you have paperwork to do remember.
I choose who dances for me, you don’t.
You can’t handle me one on one so you need reinforcements. I understand. RHF didn’t stick around long enough to help you.
You know that whenever I post here I am immediately attacked and the discussions come to an end.
If you feel the need, you go up there and ask your friends to come down here and help you out.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:28 pmI suppose it is pointless to point out that I never called you a fool. I said my words (along with you kind help) make you look like a fool.
Now as to this….
“You can’t handle me one on one so you need reinforcements”
This is just hilarious. I have played you about as long as I want. Time to gently remove the hook and go land an actually keeper…
May 27th, 2009 at 7:35 pmRight. You keep telling yourself that.
I don’t care what your education is. You seem to want to flaunt it before me right now but anyone can say anything on a site like this.
All I know is that you become belligerent when someone questions you and you become vulgar when you don’t get your way.
It’s a liberal thing I think. Now I’m not a specialist on that but it seems that most liberals here resort to the same tactic. It’s what I have experienced here every time I post.
Take RHF for example.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:35 pmNobody dance for you. You are without the power to influence the actions and deeds of anyone. If you wish to delude yourself that is your right but it sure looks foolish…
May 27th, 2009 at 7:36 pmAll I know is that you become belligerent when someone questions you and you become vulgar when you don’t get your way.
– Yeah that’s it. If you note you have been asked to lay down some questions several times. You are outleagued and ill armed. I can play this nonsensical game all night and in the end, what has already been shown to be the case will remain unchanged.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:38 pmRight. You run along Professor. The bigot is here now.
The next shift.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:39 pmby the way jay.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:40 pmCan I ask your occupation and or career pathway? If you don’t wish to answer feel free to make something up. I myself feel strongly about honesty but as you have pointed out others may be less inclined.
thanks-
When you decide to answer relevant questions I’ll listen.
You chose to dodge those Professor. Is that what they taught you in your mythical 4.0 PHD program.
C’mon now, come clean.
Lets get back on topic shall we?
May 27th, 2009 at 7:43 pmTry to keep up. It was two Master not a pHD. Not going to ask those questions are you. I am almost embarassed for you but I’ll help out for maybe another 15. Okay?
May 27th, 2009 at 7:45 pmSorry, two mythical Masters degrees.
Lets get on topic if you can. I know you would like to dodge those questions but you drove the discussion into that area, not me.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:47 pmWhy would I suggest that I have successfully competed to advanced degrees if that was not the case? Again I am happy to humor you but it is a little annoying to have to respond to stuff you just make up. Again ask any relevant questions you wish. Just be timely about it. I really don’t wish to help you out beyong maybe 200. Okay?
May 27th, 2009 at 7:51 pmDo you think that the people who voted for Prop 8 have a right to do so?
If so shouldn’t it be followed as long as the amendment stands in their State Constitution?
An easy one for ya.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:55 pmBecause anyone can say anything on the internet. You certainly don’t act or post as if you did.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:57 pmHey db. Is RHF the only one you could get to come down here?
May 27th, 2009 at 7:58 pmPeople have a right to vote on all kinds of things. Does it follow that that right is without limit?
I wholeheartedly support gay marriage for many reasons. Only one of which is the fact that I have yet to hear a coherent logically consistent explaination against it. It is the future and we all know that. I accept this vote as it is as I am sure that when that vote is reversed, you will as well.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:02 pmHey jay:
May 27th, 2009 at 8:04 pm“I am a loner Dottie. A rebel”
It would be out of character to do that you imply.
How would I act?
May 27th, 2009 at 8:05 pmAnd you end your statement with an assumption. You don’t know what my position is on the subject.
Read post # 75.
My argument has been on the Constitutionality of the vote only.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:06 pmdbadass Says:
Like a person with an open mind. I don’t usually bring this up because I also make mistakes in my English and spelling but you aren’t doing very well in that area either. Two masters?
Like I said, anyone can say anything on the internet. Just look at RHF for example. They have booted Repubs from here for fewer infringements. They threaten to remove me all the time. That would be the ultimate victory for me.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:10 pmActually I do understand your position which is why I said I was sure you would support any future change in the law. Do you see the consistency there?
May 27th, 2009 at 8:11 pmYes I do.
So that is my total argument. I try to live by the Constitution and the law. How many gray areas there are in the law can’t be counted in my lifetime. Hell the Tax code is ten thousand pages long.
That is just one law.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:14 pmDon’t mistake attention to mechanical action to thought. I just an a crappy keyboarder and as I know the meaning is clear feel no need to proof. In fact often amusing results emerge.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:15 pmjay you can repeat it as many time as you wish and it doesn’t matter either way but I assure you that you can trust anything I say to be as it is. If you have t need to believe something else, feel free.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:17 pmAnd I admitted that I also make errors in spelling and grammar. Keith takes great joy in pointing them out for me. RHF, well what can I say about her criticisms of my English.
When I make those mistakes Ralph tells me that my posts are not readable.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
I don’t fault anyone for things like that. Hell they stopped teaching English in school years ago.
One more thing db, I have lived through 10 Presidents and I’m on my 11th.
I’ve seen it all before.
The vote is sacred with me and as long as Cal voted the way they did then until it’s changed it should be followed as the wishes of the people.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:20 pmI take everything here with a grain of salt. I believe what I believe.
So far no one on this site has shown me any reason to change my mind.
They have a chance to do that every time they post to me but they are too wrapped up in their dogma to try.
SOOOO it’s all entertainment for me. I give back what I receive.
It’s a way of passing time on long days at work.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:26 pmNo Where?
May 27th, 2009 at 8:27 pmI’d take all that crap up with each individual
I am proud that my children are living the next significant movement forward in humanity and common fellowship. Embrace it.
I also have work to do. I’m wrapping things up so I can go on vacation in the Med.
Maybe the next time we meet it can be less confrontational.
Have a nice day.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:29 pmIt’s a way of passing time on long days at work.
—
May 27th, 2009 at 8:29 pmAhhh. Have you considered the idea of just like ahhh working?
I own my own business and I have a couple computers on my desk. My work comes at the end of the day when my employees return to the building. Of course there are the phone calls so my replies may take some time.
I work 60 hours a week. That’s enough.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:33 pmIt was a joke.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:36 pmI didn’t take it any other way.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:11 pmHah a nice: )
seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat
May 27th, 2009 at 9:28 pmOh crap, it’s another thread hijacked to talk about jay’s job. Dude, go start a blog. I’ll be the first one to not read it.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:04 pmThank god for Sesli. I love that chick…
May 27th, 2009 at 10:21 pmIf one guy can “hijack” a thread then you people here are weak idiots. You’re an idiot and RHF is a hateful bigot.
You keep good company together.
LMAO Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
May 28th, 2009 at 9:11 amThe only inferior person here is the resident bigot. Hey, that’s you!!!
LMAO Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
May 28th, 2009 at 9:16 amI can improve my spelling but you will always be a bigot.
LMAO
You don’t intimidate me, in fact you are quite amusing. Your posts are famous for their bigotry and ignorance.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ;)
May 28th, 2009 at 9:20 amYeah thanks…
sarki dinle
June 1st, 2009 at 3:38 pmklip izle
porno izle
porno