if it is not a majority nation, then what do you call one person, one vote. majority rules. oh wait, that's right, that only last long enough for the libs to find an activist liberal judge to over rule the majority's will.
On Feb 1, 11:00 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Ohio mark, > > I think that that is your problem.... The US is NOT a majority rule nation. > It never was. Where did you get that idea ?? > > It is a REPUBLIC which is a RULE of LAW nation that has a constitution. Yes > those local rules are placed at the behest of the "majority" but are > subservient to and MUST comply with the constitution which requires a > "super" majority to change (even that must be done by "constitutional" > methods). > > Until you cancel all equal protection and equal opportunity sections of the > constitution itself that guarantees that all rights and priveledges are > granted to all people on US soil EQUALLY you will just have to let them have > it "up the ass" from their spouses or friends. > > To NOT allow any citizen his/her equal rights and protections is indeed to > spit on and or wipe your ass with that hallowed document. > > You seem to want to do just that. > > On 2/1/09, Ohio mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > getting it in the ass is what they like. and like it or not this is > > still a majority rules country. and if the majority says this is the > > way it is, then so be it. if we did what the fool libs want and cater > > to everyones individual wants, we would have nothing but chaos. > > > On Feb 1, 9:26 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Travis, > > > > Tell me if I have this arguement correct. > > > > One group of citizens/people that claim to hold the constitution "sacred" > > > are allowed a certain priveledge/right and they do not want another group > > of > > > citizens that same priveledge/right. > > > > The group of citizens that is being denied this equality of > > priveledge/right > > > is boycotting and or legally harrassing the people and businesses of > > those > > > people that donated money to enforce this denial of priveledge/right. > > > > Now the people that favored/supported the denial are trying to call > > "foul" > > > because they are being held accountable for their own beliefs/actions by > > the > > > group they sought to deny the rights to. > > > > If I've got this correct, then I agree with you. > > > > but could we change it to rock salt ?? > > > > On 2/1/09, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Maybe a few of them will get a load of buckshot in their asses. > > > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Ohio mark <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > >> let us sit back and see what happens to these people when their names > > > >> are disclosed. the limp wristers are foaming at the mouth to get at > > > >> them. or maybe that isn't foam. > > > > >> On Feb 1, 6:28 am, swamp fox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > fine with me ! > > > > >> > On Feb 1, 6:21 am, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > And while I am at it, all doners to all non-profit and > > not-for-profit > > > >> should > > > >> > > be public. And that includes all religious donations too. > > > > >> > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Travis <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > Keep it simple. All doners of any amount to all political > > causes, > > > >> pacs, > > > >> > > > campaigns, etc should be public. > > > > >> > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 2:03 AM, swamp fox < > > [email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > >> this thread is about the bigots in Cal trying to stay hidden > > under > > > >> > > >> cover not the Americans who donated to obama . do try to keep > > up > > > >> > > >> streak ! > > > > >> > > >> On Jan 31, 10:15 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > >> > So should Obama be required to publicly disclose all HIS > > > >> donors??? > > > >> > > >> > Something his refused to do... Guess Mickey Mouse and > > Donald > > > >> Duck > > > >> > > >> > are haPPY AS THEIR STATUS CAN BE REMAIN HIDDEN... > > > > >> > > >> > On Jan 31, 7:07 am, swamp fox <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > > Prop. 8 Campaign Can't Hide Donors' Nameshttp:// > > > >> > > >>www.truthout.org/013009O > > > >> > > >> > > Bob Egelko, The San Francisco Chronicle: "Proposition 8 > > > >> proponents' > > > >> > > >> > > complaint that a California campaign-finance disclosure law > > has > > > >> led > > > >> > > >> > > to > > > >> > > >> > > harassment of same-sex marriage opponents failed today to > > sway > > > >> a > > > >> > > >> > > federal judge, who refused to throw out the law or shield > > > >> donors' > > > >> > > >> > > names. Lawyers for Protect Marriage, sponsor of the > > > >> constitutional > > > >> > > >> > > amendment that won voter approval Nov. 4, said contributors > > > >> have > > > >> > > >> > > already faced consumer boycotts, picketing and even death > > > >> threats > > > >> > > >> > > after the state posted their names and other information in > > > >> mandatory > > > >> > > >> > > campaign reports."- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > > > >> > > > -- > > > >> > > > *~@):~{> > > > > >> > > -- > > > >> > > *~@):~{>- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> > > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > > Mark M. Kahlewww.filacoffee.com > > -- > Mark M. Kahlewww.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
