Defending the Truth

Frisco is a beatiful city, but it costs too much to live there and the queers run it. I would like to visit someday, but I'm in no hurry.

Oh. The irony of that desire to visit...


How the heck do you know what the people who live in that area want?


Yeah. Cause we all know the conservatives are soooo desiring to follow the will of the people on issues like Iraq, or Cindy Sheehan, or stem cells, or prejudice against gays in general...

Foundit: How the heck do you know what the people who live that area want?

I don't and you don't. Why don't the 4 or 5 on the board who think they do let the people decide? Answer me that one.

As for Iraq, the people voted in 2004 for Bush. They did make a choice.

As for Cindy Sheehan, she is mentally ill so nothing further need be said.

As for stem cells, let every state decide and it looks like that is what they are doing.

That's funny.
YOU JUST CLAIMED that you did....


The people voted for the board members.
If the people don't like the board members decision, they will vote them out at the next election.

There was a city council case where they voted to make homosexuality illegal within the city, and the next election those city council members were voted out.


And the people in 2006 voted AGAINST Bush's Republicans, and his popularity rating is in the toilet.


How generous of you...
Just out of curiousity, which states are deciding for your side?

YOu don't like it when people decide the issue do you? You'd like judges to overturn all the laws you don't like wouldn't you. Admit it. You'd love for the supreme court to override every state and just say homo marriage is legal. Am I right or wrong?

Bush was not on the ballot this year. You don't know what everyone voted for. You should get a job on the psychic hot line since you seem to think you know the primary issue for every voter. The facts are that every 6th year of a president, the other party makes gains. The fact also is that the democrats gained very little compared to other 6th year elections of a presidents term. In that regard, you didn't do very well. The seats the dems gained was the lowest number in a long time for a 6th year election. Maybe that's why James Carville is callign for Howie Dean's head. You don't call for the head of your party to resign because you did so well. Media poll numbers mean absolutely nothing.

Actually, my previous post talked explicitly about how the people have a direct input on issues like this.

I wonder if you can realize the irony of a lot of your statements and how they tie together in a hypocritical package. Remember back when we were talking about Bush and the Iraq war, and how most were against it.
And how you talked about how the "people" didn't get to "decide the issue" on that one?


Oh. The irony.
WHO is the one here who was mistakenly talking about service in JROTC being a "right" and talking about why the ACLU wasn't getting involved???
Gee. Was THAT a cry from somebody asking for why the judges weren't overturning this policy???


1) I have frequently put forth the arguments for why gay marriage is a CONSTITUTIONAL right.
2) You'd love for the supreme court to override every state and just say abortion is illegal. Am I right or wrong Alias????


I never said anything about "every voter" alias.
But as far as the general results and their meaning, MULTIPLE experts on BOTH SIDES of the field have explicitly stated that this election had significant resounding meaning towards people's opinions on Bush's policies.

Are they wrong?
Do you deny that what I ACTUALLY just said is true?


"makes gains"?
This wasn't just "makes gains". This was the Republicans losing the house and the senate.
I heard it on the radio and don't know the veracity of it, but I heard that EVERY congressional election without an incumbent went to the democratic party.

This is more than just "making gains".


I would love to see you back up that claim.


Yawn. It's politics.
How many republicans deserted the President's policies on Iraq?


LOL!
Keep telling yourself that.
Your party doesn't seem to agree with you...

Membership in the JROTC program is a right, the right of free association by the members. You have yet to refute this claim. Are we to say that the children of San Francisco should be denied this right by the School Board? Is it within their power to deny this right?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the rights we have in this country come not from government but rather from God. If this is true and according to all historical data regarding our founding, it must be assumed that it is, then the School Board does not have the power to remove this right from the children.

dmk

You are right Sarge. This is the typical liberal bulling that bypasses the will of the people.

Sarge is correct, the ROTC is a right that is being denied by a few to the many. Another example of liberal bullying.

Actually, I have yet to see the claim proven. No legal citation on the issue.

And moreover, I see no way in which this "right" is actually impinged upon.
Are the JROTC members forbidden from being in JROTC? No.
Are they in any way punished for being in JROTC? No.

The only issue is whether or not JROTC can assemble on school property.
The kids are still free to "associate" with JROTC, so it's questionable as to whether your claim of a "right" is even being impinged upon.


Above are some questions as to whether or not it is a right in the first place, but let's move on to another aspect of considering this a "right" that I previously discussed.

If it is a right of association, then does JROTC have the right to exclude GAY members from associating.
Actual CASES on freedom of association would hold my logic as sound...

The holding of Runyon (Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 1976) is that the defendant private schools were free to express and teach their views, such as white separatism, but could not discriminate on the basis of race in the provision of services to the general public. So if the plaintiff African-American children wished to attend such private schools, and were clearly qualified in all respects (but race) and were able to pay the fees, and were willing to attend despite the fact that the schools strongly disliked them, then the schools were required by Section 1981 to admit them. The general rule to be drawn from this is that the First Amendment protects the right to express, including expression of racial discrimination, but people may not practice such ideas even within private associations.

Freedom of association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you claim a freedom of association, then that brings up the issue of whether or not gays can be forbidden from membership. If a gay person is willing to put up with the statements of policy of the military, it is entirely possible that freedom of association could protect his membership.

Careful of what you claim is a "right", because it just may come back to bite you in the ass...