Vertigo

1. I believe our society and courts have changed since 1872 when this was brought up. Don't you? I don't believe our courts today would rule the same as they did 140 years ago. Today's courts would more than likely state that voting is indeed a "privilege and immunity" of being a citizen. 2. Human rights > states rights

What it comes down to is I'm not cool with states making laws that deny freedoms for one group but allows those freedoms to another group. A 12 year old does have rights... but that doesn't make them a consenting adult, does it?

If you want to marry your brother and he is an adult, go for it. A 12 year old is not a legal adult and cannot enter into a legal contract, which a marriage is. - Very bad argument on your part there, might as well have been bringing up the stupid dog or toaster argument. What if the church is ok with having a gay marriage? What then? Not ALL churches are opposed. So one church can now dictate to another church they can't have a gay marriage there? How about we let the churches that allow gay marriages to do so and the churches opposed to opt out? Who said anything about the State dictating to the church? The church doesn't own the word marriage. Marriage is a man made invention (much like religion in general) and preceded the church by thousands of years.

I disagree. I think it does fall under the 14th- here's why: The courts have ruled that under the Equal Protection Clause, laws that infringe a fundamental right on the basis of racial or ethnic identity have to meet a very high “strict scrutiny” standard that requires that they be “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” government interest. Laws that make distinctions on the basis of gender are generally required to meet a weaker, but still stringent “exacting scrutiny” standard, that requires the government to show they serve an “important” government interest. In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court ruled laws banning interracial marriages were unconstitutional. In his decision Justice Warren wrote: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." One could easily apply gender in place of race in that ruling. /thread derail

Especially underage ones. She was 17 when this video was taken.

He did?

Which is what the President has been proposing all along... so you're saying the R's leverage is to force Obama to do what he wanted to do in the first place?

Not when inflation is figured in... and if it does increase in price it's because of government intervening in its market causing artificial price increases. For example, in 1989 the Ruger SP101 cost $495. Today it sells for $639. Adjust for inflation and the 1989 model would run you $884 in 2012 dollars.

lol No. Sorry if taken as such.

Probably the smartest thing you've done in your life.

That's because the Senate is defaulting to the Budget Control Act to set spending levels and appropriations. No it didn't. That was a satirical take on what the Republicans believed Obama's budget was. The president's budget was thousands of pages, the budget submitted was only a couple of pages long. It was a stunt to get slag in the news cycle and to get people like you to swallow it up.

He called for a vote on his bill, then when told he would be given a vote he wanted to change the rules so that it would only pass with 60 votes (not the 51 needed). The reason he did this is because they DID have the votes to pass his bill, but now he wants to filibuster it because the Dems want it. This is the kind of bullshit that goes on in D.C. that leads us to being in the situation we're in and why Congress' approval rating is in the toilet. Skip to 00:30

Ugh. Mitch McConnell filibusters his own bill to lift the debt ceiling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGo8E3shaIQ

Is the way it SHOULD work, but doesn't.

Just making a tongue in cheek joke. Correlating the audience here with mafia thugs collecting on a debt. Wasn't being serious.

Well we do have the thugs to force the issue... many of them frequent this board.

Before the U.S. defaults on its debt (hypothetically)... what are the chances we would enforce collection on the foreign debts we hold? As of Jan 2011 we held some $6 Trillion in foreign nations debt. Shouldn't we be forcing them to pay us, so we can pay our bills? Yes we'd lose the diplomatic leverage of holding that debt, but wouldn't that be less of an impact than going under?

Even funnier if you make smacking your lips sounds while watching this.

This Chili? or this Chili?

Nah- that was a pretty weak. Here's some examples of what he COULD have said: "What do you care about his head when your face is buried in his crotch?" or "They're holding those geese like Vertigo was holding their dicks earlier- one in each hand" Those would have been line drives to center.

Yet all you managed was a bunt.

Worst photographer ever, He cut your heads out of the picture.

They own less than 8% of our total debt.