53
   

New York New York!

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 11:40 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
I read it with interest, Osso.
Where did it say that there "Wasn't any bribe involved "??

I did not see that part.





David
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 02:08 am
An honest Republican politician, who votes his conscience, even when it goes against party wedge issue doctrine. How refreshing.

Quote:

Friday night’s 33-29 margin of victory for same-sex marriage in New York came courtesy of a small handful of last-minute conversions by Republican state senators. One of them was Roy McDonald, a sixty-four-year-old who represents Saratoga and comes from what he described as “a blue-collar background.” ... He was tired, he said of Republican and Democratic politics, and of media “blowhards.”

"You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, **** it, I'm trying to do the right thing."



Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/06/gay-marriage-waffling.html#ixzz1QMpoW7Nt


You da man, Roy.
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 03:07 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
You da man, Roy.

Smile

Quote:
"You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, **** it, I'm trying to do the right thing."


So sane, so civilized!
That's great to see.
Good onya, Roy!
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 05:36 am
@msolga,
Quote:
**** it, I'm trying to do the right thing."

I SMELL TEE SHIRT!!
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 05:48 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Way to weasel there, David.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 06:33 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
A conscientious, scrupulous n dispassionate criminal prosecutor 'd
be interested in WHERE the "more than $1 million dollars" ended up.


From your own source, the money ended up in the lobbying campaign. I assume lobbying campaign to support gay marriages. I didn't see any mention of any money going to any of the republican senators who supported the bill.


Quote:
them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 10:05 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Just because Republicans who are big donors lobby does not mean they are pushing bribes. Good gravy, David, they are Republicans.

If everyone who lobbied was not allowed to try to convince others, none of us could be discussing opinions here.

JPB
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 11:59 am
@OmSigDAVID,
There was no bribe. They ponied up $$$ to a lobbying group, not the Senators, and told the Senators that they'd make sure the Senators didn't lose political capital if they voted their consciences rather than their political pocketbooks. Politics is money - there's no doubt about it - but telling someone you've got his political back does not a bribe make.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 11:59 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

You're welcome to present a constitutional argument why same sex marriage must be banned at any time.

You're blushing.

A
R
T


No thanks, I think I'll just try to get a conservative judge to make up some nonsense about the law is already unconstitutional like you do when conservatives pass laws.
farmerman
 
  7  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 03:08 pm
@Brandon9000,
Amendment 14 section2 of the US Constitution spells it out
Quote:

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.


Doesnt say"except couples in single sex relationships", It says ALL PERSONS
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 06:07 pm
@farmerman,
And how, exactly, would a law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman violate anything in that amendment? Such laws apply equally to everyone. They do not give any individual the right to do something which is denied to another individual. The 14th Amendment doesn't say that everyone gets to do what he wishes.

Parenthetically, it is my suspicion that if you gave your interpretation to the 19th century legislators who introduced the amendment they would tell you that that is absolutely not what they had in mind.

Go ahead and celebrate your legal victory in New York and don't thing about the fact that liberals disenfranchised millions of your fellow citizens in other jurisidictions who voted contrary legislation into law.
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 06:17 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
would a law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman violate anything in that amendment?
Well, it apparently alreadu is. That limited efinition is denying the gay couple of rights of inheritance, insurance, visitation by family members only and several hundred other benefits and privliges that just dont seem to matter to you.

Quote:
it is my suspicion that if you gave your interpretation to the 19th century legislators who introduced the amendment they would tell you that that is absolutely not what they had in mind.

Not true, I dont think they ever gave it a thought. But they also , even after abolishing slavery, had over 100 years of descrimination according to color.
SAo, the 13th Amwendment abolishes slavery but no rights and privileges were guaranteed to blacks until the end of the Jim Crow laws.
Also, the framers never saw the birth of automatic handguns, but they pass muster under 2A no?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 08:54 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
Just because Republicans who are big donors lobby does not mean they are pushing bribes.
Good gravy, David, they are Republicans.

If everyone who lobbied was not allowed to try to convince others,
none of us could be discussing opinions here.
The facts r unclear. Our knowledge is incomplete.
From what we have, I don 't see that we can figure out
whether the Senators sold their votes or not.

From my personal perspective,
men of the male gender r physically repugnant (including myself).
I cannot understand Y anyone 'd want to touch one,
but that is none of my business.
Everyone has as much right to his or her own opinion.
Its a matter of personal preference.
Its a matter of Individual rights,
the same as your right to choose your favorite color.
Its not a matter of democracy.


LET THE RECORD INDICATE that when I studied the statutory law
and the common law of NY (the NY Domestic Relations Law),
I felt sick to my stomach at reading the notion
that something as low and abhorrent as a government
pretended to have jurisdiction to interfere in our personal relations
concerning marriage, even to determing WHO can get married
(but I had to admit that there was so much, fighting -- such fiendish,
diabolical strife between spouses that thay needed impartial referees).

ANYWAY: America is supposed to be
"the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave";
that is not just a SONG. Its supposed to be our way of life.
Accordingly, I believed then and now that marriage shoud be
fully libertarian, such that "consensus facit legum"; i.e.,
it shoud be 1OO% governed by the contracts that the parties
themselves devise, whose terms the courts shoud mechanically apply.
Everyone shoud be free to "screw the pooch" if the pooch is willing.
Ergo, I advocate 1OO% laissez faire freedom of marriage, including
any number of parties thereto n all genders, under any conditions.
The courts shoud be divested of any jurisdiction to interfere
beyond the contractally expressed intentions of the parties.





David
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 01:50 am
@farmerman,
Just a small interruption to your thread, if I may, jcboy.

But ... (& I'm certain I'm the only one ... this comment received 4 thumbs up!) I haven't a clue what you meant by this comment, farmer.
But felt too much of a dummy to ask before ...
I figure it's a result of cultural differences, right?
But, what does this comment mean? Confused
I would be grateful if someone could briefly explain & then we can quickly return to the thread subject.
Thank you in advance.

Quote:
I SMELL TEE SHIRT!!
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 05:06 am
@msolga,
I sometimes engage in ejaculations of glee or anger that, while substantive to my way of thinking, are obscure and not communicative to others.
When I said "I SMELL TEE SHIRT", I meant that the statement made by the tie breaking Senator in NY , which was, something like'
"**** IT,IM JUST TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING"

Something like that.
I felt that this phrase could be printed on Tee shirts in NY state and sold as a remembrance of this historic vote.THats all,

I actually dont derive any fun from going around snelling tee shirts but I could see how that could have been so interpreted.

my bad.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 05:07 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Well said sir.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 06:04 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Well said sir.
U r too kind.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 06:39 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Also, the framers never saw the birth of automatic handguns, but they pass muster under 2A no?
Yes, the same as electric printing presses and High Definition television.
D.C. v. HELLER 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 06:41 am

I think revolvers r better than automatics.





David
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 06:51 am
@OmSigDAVID,
youve made that point abundantly clear several times DAve.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » New York New York!
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/11/2021 at 05:44:53