Sure, I agree absolutely.
Man, when I lie about stuff like that to my girlfriend/mother/boss (not all the same person, mind you), it’s called “laying the groundwork”.
-Joe
An Episcopalian is a Presbyterian with a trust fund.
A Presbyterian is a Methodist with a college education.
And a Methodist is a Baptist with shoes. 
How the hell would *you * know, comfortably wrapped in your Fox bubble as you are? “The Democratic Party” is a pretty broad category. Are you confident you’re not caricaturizing yet again?
That was one hell of a lot of GOP talking points, er, make that “code words” (a concept you have expressed difficulty with in the past) there.
What part of “no one else’s business” didn’t you understand? :dubious:
“They”? Where would you find that in any, ANY policy statement with the words Democratic Party on it, outside of your own fantasies, that is?
This post of yours is a concise summary of examples of the habitual intellectual dishonesty that characterizes your “contributions” to political posts on this board. It shows lumping, caricaturization, projection, code words, narrow framing, dismissal or failure (or refusal) to consider or even understand alternative viewpoints, on top of your utterly predictable and absolute blind partisan loyalty. You can’t even tell *yourself * a convincing lie about what views you don’t share even are.
No doubt you consider your brand of lying to be simple effective advocacy on behalf of your party, but really, you’re simply **Shodan ** with an adult-level vocabulary.
Er, what?
He can’t make up shit well enough to completely convince even himself. He loves to try it anyway, though, exactly the way other men love wanking.
Clear now?
There’s a call for you, Elvis. Your high school English teacher is poised on the ledge, threatening suicide…
And should states give full faith and credit to the laws of other states concerning marriage?
Um, actually, I quoted those words directly from the 2004 Democratic Platform. (PDF file). So, yeah, I’m pretty confident.
I saw that coming and am enjoying it.
First, let me point out that once again, I was quoting directly from the party’s platform.
Are you asking me what I think, or what the Democratic Party thinks?
I think the issue is settled law: the full faith and credit clause does not apply to matters of public policy.
You know, if you ever get tired of being named Bricker, you could always go under the username The Artful Dodger (or are you not a baseball fan?)
i think your post strongly implied that you believe that marriage laws should be left to the states.
You mean that state marriage definitions are a matter of public policy and not laws either statues or common law?
Yeah, the poetic and flowery language should have been a give-away.
Edited to add: As frustrating as he is sometimes, if I find myself on the defendant side of our criminal justice system, I hope I get an attorney just like him…
Your distinction doesn’t exist. A state may create public policy through law. When you say, “state marriage definitions are a matter of public policy and not laws either statues or common law” you imply they must be one or the other.
I believe marriage laws should be left to the states, as does the Democratic Party. (I also believe that each state should enact same-sex marriage, a view that does NOT appear in the Democratic Party platform).
Well, if it’s a matter of public policy being made into law then if a state does put same-sex marriage into its law (enact) shouldn’t a same-sex couple married in one state be married in all?
Your original statement:
appears to me to be a clear implication that you were saying that marriage in a state is a matter of public policy bur not a law.
Only if the alleged “policy” of discrimination has a rational basis, hmm? The utter absence of which has been discussed in detail on this board. As you well know.
BTW, as you also well know, *nobody * gives a damn about party platforms except when looking for a cheap, self-satisfying Gotcha.
The only problem with discussing it on this board is that this board does not sit on any of the federal circuits, or the US Supreme Court. So to the extent that “this board” has agreed that there is no rational basis for these decisions, it’s meaningless. On the other hand, in the real world, where decisions about federal law and the constitution actually get made, not one single court decision stands today claiming that the basis is not rational. I find it puzzling that you point with such satisfaction to the discussions held on this board, when they have zero effect as far as creating or changing law.
Wow.
Just… wow.
When you didn’t know where those words came from, it was: “How the hell would you know, comfortably wrapped in your Fox bubble as you are? “The Democratic Party” is a pretty broad category. Are you confident you’re not caricaturizing yet again? That was one hell of a lot of GOP talking points, er, make that ‘code words’ (a concept you have expressed difficulty with in the past) there.”
Now that you know, there’s not an ounce of shame there. With a perfectly straight face, you accuse me of getting a cheap gotcha, never once acknowledging that you made a mistake in your attack.
I think that’s hilarious.
You’re funny.
It means the brightest minds on this board, yours included, have been unable to think of one. Perhaps osmeone else could, but nobody, including you, can find anything. That does lend some confidence as to the ability of a court to do so either, huh?
Nor one that says it is. There is no decision until there is a case. IOW that don’t mean shit, as you well know but somehow think is a convincing point nonetheless. What is a Wookie doing living on Endor anyway?
There’s a *lot * of things you find puzzling, aren’t there? Not that we haven’t all done our best to help, though.
What part of “nobody reads party platforms”, puzzles you? The part about what “the Democrats’ values” being unrelated to it, perhaps? Do “The Republicans”, to a man, stand for everything in all their recent party platforms, the way you insist “The Democrats” should? I really don’t think you want to go there. But it’s too late, you already are. You’re merely bashing and pretending it’s discussion. Again.
Everything I said about the post of yours in question exemplifying so mah of your favorite pettifoggery techniques stands, and with the evidence on record, including this latest.
Enjoy wanking that much, do you?
Same thing John Mace says when he can’t admit being shown he’s foolishly wrong, either. You could at least think up your *own * line.
:dubious:
Bye.