This week in one picture

[clemben]

Basically yes.

Left wing liberals have also shown time and time again they don't really care much for the constitution. Very ironic that the president is a constitutional lawyer.

I don't entirely disagree with your description of liberals but would tweak it slightly. I would say liberals believe the role of govt is to give everyone an equal opportunity--an equal playing ground to achieve the American dream. If you work hard all your life whether that is as a Wall Street banker or as a high school janitor--that work should be rewarded (FDR new deal style). There should be social safety nets, especially for those who can't help themselves such as persons with disabilities or children. Liberals do respect the Constitution (especially the first amendment) but realize the document was written before cars, the Internet, and automatic weapons.

 

[Overwatch]

I find it laughable and slightly pathetic Obama was against gay marriage just a few years ago. Now he's lighting up the white house. Anything for a vote...

The biggest news this week that nobody is talking about.... Obama is now running for a third term in office!

 

[Ron Munson]

Some of you are missing the point. It isnt so much about gay marriage, it is about the SCOTUS changing laws and the continued erosion of states rights. I don't care if gay people want to get married, it is retarded that the government even regulates marriage to begun with.

The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret the law, not rewrite it. Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Kagen, Breyer, Scalia, and Thomas are all partisan hacks who vote every fvcking time based on their political beliefs and not their understanding of the law.

 

[iceheart08]

Could have been handled in many other ways than lighting up the white house. But I know you are left wing on literally every single political issue, so I wouldnt expect any different.

im sorry... wouldn't have expected any different on what? you taking the president lighting up the white house in the rainbow flag as a personal insult has nothing to do with my political beliefs and everything to do with you being a narcissist.

It is a little juvenile and embarassing. Just seems very unprofessional on a topic that is split in America. We cant just make a decision and move on without acting childish. This is the leader of our country. Just poor taste.

the country isnt split on this issue. the country as a whole supports gay marriage by a long-shot. take 3 seconds and google a poll.

 

[bhurdclemson123]

There are no winners in this thread.

Webster's definition of "douchebaggery" should be rewritten to include dudes who debate the Constitution on a college sports message board on a Friday night

Very strong comment here. Well done!

 

[SWUtigers]

The biggest news this week that nobody is talking about.... Obama is now running for a third term in office!

If Hillary wins it will be a continuation of his failed policies and limp wristed presidency, for sure.

 

[Overwatch]

If Hillary wins it will be a continuation of his failed policies and limp wristed presidency, for sure.

No doubt. She may be a Clinton, but Bill she is not.

 

[Ancheaux's Revenge]

In my ideal world, the gov't would just stop supporting marriage altogether, let anyone marry anyone in the way that they choose without perks or benefits for anyone. (Also, they could institute a fair tax or flat tax while they are at it.) Personally, I married my wife in the biblical way, according to the scripture and as defined by biblical scripture. I could care less about the legal part. We did, of course have to sign the legal certificate for the marriage to be recognized by the gov't. What is inevitable at this point is that Christian Ministers, and probably Muslim clerics; in the very near future, will not be licensed by the gov't to perform or sign marriage certificates, because they cannot legally refuse to marry gays based on religious beliefs. Their license or certification will only be issued on their signature that they will not discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Again, let me reiterate that I could care less if any of you gays find some New Age Guru and stand in front of a crystal ball and get "married". I don't even care if you find a pastor of some denomination that will marry you. Marriage, for me is based on one thing, and one thing only, what God says it is. The rest of you folks are certainly free to, and have a right to define marriage any way you want. I just don't want the gov't defining it for anyone.

I think this is the best post in the thread. If the government didn't support marriage financially this would be a non issue.

Also, the Republican party continues to turn away young people in this country because of this topic.

 

[Ron Munson]

No doubt. She may be a Clinton, but Bill she is not.

This is what troubles me. People are voting for Hillary because they think she is Bill. If you want to vote for Hillary because of her, then fine, but if you are voting for her because she is Bill Part 2, then that is proof what is wrong with our electorate.

 

[tigerworx]

It is a little juvenile and embarassing. Just seems very unprofessional on a topic that is split in America. We cant just make a decision and move on without acting childish. This is the leader of our country. Just poor taste.

Don't know what country you speak of........
He may be the media 'face' of that once revered office. But that's it.
Ask the world.

That dude may be a lot of things........

But he ain't the leader of America.

 

[NCTiger1990]

I can't speak for marrying animals or inanimate objects, but it seems to me that if the ruling allows you to change the "man" and "woman" wording then why can't the "one" be changed to "two" or "three". The only reason polygamy won't be legal is because the liberal justices aren't "that" liberal to where they would allow it YET. I think it would also make a mockery of their ruling which they could never allow.

 

[steele-tiger]

I can't speak for marrying animals or inanimate objects, but it seems to me that if the ruling allows you to change the "man" and "woman" wording then why can't the "one" be changed to "two" or "three". The only reason polygamy won't be legal is because the liberal justices aren't "that" liberal to where they would allow it YET. I think it would also make a mockery of their ruling which they could never allow.

Also:

But for marriage contracts to cover multiple partners, a lot more would have to change. If there's a divorce, who gets custody of whose child? Who gets to make medical decisions for who? Are there limits on employer benefits for spouses? Can everyone immigrate together? If someone dies without a will, who's next of kin?

Basically every right that the government bestows on two married people straight or gay would have to be redefined.

Not to mention less than a handful of people support it and it only ever comes up in terrible slippery slope arguments. Literally can never think of a slippery slope argument where I am like you know they are right I do believe that some minor event is going to lead to some major event that makes no sense like marrying your car.

 

[SWUtigers]

This is what troubles me. People are voting for Hillary because they think she is Bill. If you want to vote for Hillary because of her, then fine, but if you are voting for her because she is Bill Part 2, then that is proof what is wrong with our electorate.

Personally I think many are voting for her because they think it's time to have a female in office. Nevermind one's qualifications we need a vagina in office!

 

[bwhwc]

Since I don't seem to have a party any more I will ask, who do fiscally conservative but socially liberal folks vote for now? I have always voted GOP but I am sick of the social agenda that keeps anyone of substance from getting elected. Libertarian?

 

[ChiefTiger]

Since I don't seem to have a party any more I will ask, who do do fiscally conservative but socially liberal folks vote for now? I have always voted GOP but I am sick of the social agenda that keeps anyone of substance from getting elected. Libertarian?

Depends on the person, but most likely Libertarian. You might want to consider going over to isidewith.com. It might give you some good insight. The Libertarian party/movement is growing a lot. A lot of former Republicans tired of antiquated social policies, and a lot of former Democrats tired of far too much spending have moved over.

 

[bwhwc]

Depends on the person, but most likely Libertarian. You might want to consider going over to isidewith.com. It might give you some good insight. The Libertarian party/movement is growing a lot. A lot of former Republicans tired of antiquated social policies, and a lot of former Democrats tired of far too much spending have moved over.

Thanks, will check that out. I have a feeling the group I fall into is growing at a rapid rate.

 

[CMTiger15]

yes it is unfortunately

Tax dollars at work boys...now let's go back to seeing how much free stuff we can give the government moochers with our tax money..

 

[ChiefTiger]

Thanks, will check that out. I have a feeling the group I fall into is growing at a rapid rate.

I am hopeful that in the not so distant future a viable third party will emerge. It would be great for it to be the one that simply believes in freedom.

 

[Ron Munson]

I am hopeful that in the not so distant future a viable third party will emerge. It would be great for it to be the one that simply believes in freedom.

Likely not going to happen, at least in the national level, which is sad. The two party system has divided this country and it continues to get worse as people are pushed further to the right/left.

I have noticed many people claim to be libertarian, but when you really look at their ideologies, they are very liberal.

Libetarians are small government, less taxes, don't care about abortion, gay marriage or things like that, stop playing world police, etc.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul, even though they are listed as Republicans, are fairly close to being Libetarians.

In sum, we do need a third party, but I don't see it happening. If republicans could stop focusing on gay marriage and abortion, and just keep to fiscal issues, they could easily wim a national election.

 

[ChiefTiger]

Likely not going to happen, at least in the national level, which is sad. The two party system has divided this country and it continues to get worse as people are pushed further to the right/left.

I have noticed many people claim to be libertarian, but when you really look at their ideologies, they are very liberal.

Libetarians are small government, less taxes, don't care about abortion, gay marriage or things like that, stop playing world police, etc.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul, even though they are listed as Republicans, are fairly close to being Libetarians.

Ron Paul is closer than Rand. Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is probably the best example. I have actually had a different experience with libertarians. But maybe it is because I seek them out. I find that most are pretty true to form.

In sum, we do need a third party, but I don't see it happening. If republicans could stop focusing on gay marriage and abortion, and just keep to fiscal issues, they could easily wim a national election.

I agree with this. The Republicans need to back off of their antiquated social policies. And they need to tackle immigration with some sense. The majority of the Hispanic vote would be theirs if they did. Those two things would result in a landslide presidential victory.

 

[Ron Munson]

Ron Paul is closer than Rand. Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is probably the best example. I have actually had a different experience with libertarians. But maybe it is because I seek them out. I find that most are pretty true to form..

Many young voters (18-30) i have seem claim to be libertarians, but when they start talking about their ideologies, they are big liberals. I have noticed many on this board, and the MB, who claim to be libertarians, but they are extremely liberal when it comes to big government and fiscal issues.

However, I have come across many who are true Libetarians. But these liberals just need to admit they are liberal.

 

[ChiefTiger]

However, I have come across many who are true Libetarians. But these liberals just need to admit they are liberal.

Definitely. I'm not sure why it is cool to claim to be something you're not. Maybe they think more people will listen to them?

 

[Ron Munson]

Definitely. I'm not sure why it is cool to claim to be something you're not. Maybe they think more people will listen to them?

That, and I think some people are embarrassed of party affiliation. I also think some people just don't have a clue what the party stances are of the Libetarian party.

Just look in Washington. Every senator that has claimed to be an independent usually always Caucuses with the Democrats.

 

[scartiger]

It is a little juvenile and embarassing. Just seems very unprofessional on a topic that is split in America. We cant just make a decision and move on without acting childish. This is the leader of our country. Just poor taste.

Got one thing wrong he is President but he is no leader in no way. Iceheart probably plugged the lights in.

 

[iceheart08]

This is what troubles me. People are voting for Hillary because they think she is Bill. If you want to vote for Hillary because of her, then fine, but if you are voting for her because she is Bill Part 2, then that is proof what is wrong with our electorate.

im glad you and @SWUtigers have such a handle on the democratic electorate. you guys must know ALOT of people.

 

[One Fingerd Fist]

So what does this mean to the man who wants to marry his car, or thinks it is his right to be able to marry 15 women now?

15 is a good year. High school kids shouldn't have a monopoly on it.

 

[One Fingerd Fist]

Soooooooooo.......

Other than technologically speaking, what we are discussing is ........what?
That our country, society, is better than it was 'back then'?

Dual race standards were and are despicable. Fact. We could go ad infinitum on that

But our (inner) cities are not safe, our children cannot play in their own yards (much less down the street), our national government spends way more than it takes in and growing, the family unit is distraught if not disrupted or dead, most/too many? people are upside down in debt, everything you care about: homes, cars, even stuff in the back of your pickup, must be locked down, we continue on the road of technology 'dehumanizing' us (watch people and their pad, ipods, or cell phones........is it really necessary) and you guys are focusing on one decision?

So how have we progressed as humans? More relative morality? That trumps everything else?

All these can be fixed by individuals making good life decisions.

 

[ddot7]

has it ever been lit up to honor...let's say...our troops?

I could care less about the gay marriage It doesnt effect me in anyway...whether I agree with it or not...it is irrelevant. The White House should not have been lit up as a controversial flag. It is funny how SC removes a flag because it has multiple meanings and is considered controversial but the white house is lit up as another flag that has also created controversy. One controversy is OK and one is not...

It is offensive to some (again I could care less) just as the confederate flag is offensive to some therefore our government should not have done this

"Controversial flag"? GTFOH. Offensive to some? So the US is supposed to honor bigots?

Some of you act like homosexuality is oppressive and gay rights are somehow preventing you from living your lives freely.

 

[nmerritt11]

"Controversial flag"? GTFOH. Offensive to some? So the US is supposed to honor bigots?

Some of you act like homosexuality is oppressive and gay rights are somehow preventing you from living your lives freely.

I have zero issue with homosexuality...anyone that knows me knows that. If you show me where I said anything negative about homosexuality I'll stand down. Zero issue with what people do behind close doors.

But it is still a controversial issue...and this was still a political agenda lighting the white house up as a gay pride flag. sorry if you don't agree.

 

[SWUtigers]

im glad you and @SWUtigers have such a handle on the democratic electorate. you guys must know ALOT of people.

Ever heard of google? Seems YOU don't have a grasp of the Dem electorate. By the way this took all of 3 minutes.

http://m.eonline.com/news/645493/je...ite-house-run-it-s-time-for-a-woman-president


http://www.bustle.com/articles/7563...the-time-for-a-woman-to-be-americas-president

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/...-s-time-for-a-woman-in-white-house-1.10246286

 

[CU1TruTiger4Life]

Likely not going to happen, at least in the national level, which is sad. The two party system has divided this country and it continues to get worse as people are pushed further to the right/left.

I have noticed many people claim to be libertarian, but when you really look at their ideologies, they are very liberal.

Libetarians are small government, less taxes, don't care about abortion, gay marriage or things like that, stop playing world police, etc.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul, even though they are listed as Republicans, are fairly close to being Libetarians.

In sum, we do need a third party, but I don't see it happening. If republicans could stop focusing on gay marriage and abortion, and just keep to fiscal issues, they could easily wim a national election.

This

 

[iceheart08]

Ever heard of google? Seems YOU don't have a grasp of the Dem electorate. By the way this took all of 3 minutes.

http://m.eonline.com/news/645493/je...ite-house-run-it-s-time-for-a-woman-president


http://www.bustle.com/articles/7563...the-time-for-a-woman-to-be-americas-president

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/...-s-time-for-a-woman-in-white-house-1.10246286

come on SWU. you guys are making generalizations about why people will be voting for hillary, just as you did for obama. an article from bustle, a jennifer lopez quote, and a random collection of 200 Hillary supporters does not a scientific poll make.

Point is, again, if you guys want to pigeon hole democratic voters, and make assumptions about why we are going to vote for a particular candidate, your party is going to get killed on a national stage.

 

[Ron Munson]

im glad you and @SWUtigers have such a handle on the democratic electorate. you guys must know ALOT of people.

It is called following the news and reading. It is not thay hard to look at polling.

I take you as a fairly smart person, but you are blinded by your own ideology. And yes I realize there are plenty of people on both sides who are as far as they can get to the right or the left, and aren't interested in any one else's opinion, or even considering other views.

 

[RUBDROC]

You cant change the definition of marriage. This is all political. .....NOT constitutional. Judicial activism run rampant.

 

[iceheart08]

You cant change the definition of marriage. This is all political. .....NOT constitutional. Judicial activism run rampant.

honestly, what does this even mean? are you telling us you are a better arbiter of the constitutionality of a thing than the supreme court?

 

[iceheart08]

It is called following the news and reading. It is not thay hard to look at polling.

I take you as a fairly smart person, but you are blinded by your own ideology. And yes I realize there are plenty of people on both sides who are as far as they can get to the right or the left, and aren't interested in any one else's opinion, or even considering other views.

please find me a poll that tells us that democrats are only voting for hillary because she is a woman. or because she is married to bill. or because democrats "give people stuff". like i said above, there are literally millions of reasons people will be voting for hillary. its naive, and dangerous for the republican party to assume its one of these superficial reasons listed above.

i dont know what ideology you are referring to that has blinded me. i consider myself a liberal pragmatist and i'd imagine I am much more pro-business than most on this board would believe. in the real world, im liberal, but im not nearly as liberal as it seems when compared to you guys.

Finally, its ironic that your telling me im the one blinded by my own ideology when its you guys who have consistently made excuses about why you lose national elections. That your ideology is so right that there must be some spurious reason people arent voting for you, like Mitt's 47% comment, or because hillary is a woman, or barack was black, etc... Its wrong and dumb.

 

[stigers91]

So, if someone is bi-sexual can they now marry a man and a woman?

 

[SWUtigers]

its naive, and dangerous for the republican party to assume its one of these superficial reasons listed above.

I'm not assuming anything. I literally googled "time for a woman president" and it was the first 3 links. Discount this faction of Dem electorate all you want but there ARE people out there that think that. Just as were people voting for Obama solely based on his skin color. Samuel L Jackson comes to mind.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1271797