Speakeasy forum

General discussion

This would be funny

by Bo Boggs / February 24, 2004 5:58 AM PST

If it weren't so close to the truth. (or maybe it is funny because it is so close to the truth.

From The President's speech to the governor's convention:
'The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions: For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA.

For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts.'

For the full text:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112280,00.html

And some more background on John Kerry:
'Now, Kerry and others will tell you that Vietnam Veterans Against the War was a group dedicated to advancing the interests of American servicemen - protecting them, bringing them home, helping them. The group's protest against the National Guard Association demonstrates that this claim is revisionist history with a vengeance. '

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/18679.htm

Bo

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: This would be funny
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: This would be funny
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re:This would be funny -- so he's a politician...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 24, 2004 8:06 AM PST
In reply to: This would be funny

Hi, Bo.

Interesting you'd post this on the day Bush reversed his 2000 electoral stance against an amednment banning gay marriage -- they had a tape of him sayiong just that on the NBC Nightly News tonight!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Seriously, Dave.......
by Del McMullen / February 24, 2004 8:52 AM PST

I'm with the 'leave it to individual States' group, but I have a lingering concern. So, a 'marriage' takes place in a State where it is legal, and the 'couple' moves to a State where it is illegal, what happens if a legal question arises in the new state ? Seems to me that without a 'federal' guideline, this could be a continuing problem tying up courts forever, and the individuals directly involved in limbo forever.

With respect to Bush 'reversing' himself, how many of us seriously considered the probability of gay marriages 2, 3, or 4 years ago.

Collapse -
State by state...
by Dick White / February 24, 2004 12:10 PM PST
In reply to: Seriously, Dave.......

Del, we already have that sort of problem with marital "things" that are legal in one state but not in another - specifically I'm thinking of common law marriages. In some states, living together for a certain number of years and presenting the consistent appearance of being married is sufficient to create a legal marriage, which then gives each spouse all the same rights as if they had gone to the courthouse or church, such as property rights in divorce and or death. Other states might not allow that to occur within that state but will recognize the legitimacy of it when it occurred in a state that allows it.

This situation always reminds me of a funny story a law professor told us in b-school. Here in Va, we don't have common law marriage. There was a couple who lived together for a long time but for whatever their reasons, they never married. As sometimes happens, he took a fancy to a sweet young thang and split. She screamed "alimony" and he said "no marriage ever officially occurred, so bye-bye." Her lawyer then pointed out to the judge that they had regularly vacationed at a campground in Pa for many years and presented themselves up there as Mr/Mrs. Since Pa. allows common law marriage, that's where they were "married" for the purposes of the Va. "divorce." She won.

dw

Collapse -
Re: Seriously, Dave.......
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 24, 2004 12:25 PM PST
In reply to: Seriously, Dave.......

Hi, Del.

>>With respect to Bush 'reversing' himself, how many of us seriously considered the probability of gay marriages 2, 3, or 4 years ago.<<
Actually, I have a problem with homosexual religious marriages. But civil marriage is another issue entirely... And that's a new position for me -- even six months ago I was more leaning towards civil unions -- but after all, that's what a civil marriage (vs. Church wedding) really is!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re:Re: Seriously, Dave.......
by Del McMullen / February 24, 2004 12:51 PM PST

From my point of view, if one is conscientious to his religious belief, the same reason that would provoke disapproval of a religious ceremony would stand to provoke disapproval of a civil ceremony.

This is one area of human behavior that I feel is no business of the government's, local or Federal. However, with the exception of one State, all other States and the Federal Government are based on common law, the opinion/voice of the majority.

Any law enacted, via statue or constitutional amendment, is/would be done via majority vote, and I can live with that. That's what this country is all about.

Collapse -
Re: Seriously, Dave.......
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 24, 2004 9:59 PM PST

Hi, Del.

>>Any law enacted, via statue or constitutional amendment, is/would be done via majority vote, and I can live with that. That's what this country is all about.<<
Yes and no. If you read "The Federalist Papers," you'll see that the Founding Fathers were very conscious of the problem of a "majoritarian dictatorship." The Bill of Rights was almost incorporated into the original constitution, but a majority at the Convention felt that was a digression from the document's purpose of establishing a form of government. However, several states refused to ratify the Constitution until there was a "gentlemen's agreement" that the Bill of Rights would be proposed as Ameendments by the first Session of Congress, which is exactly what happened. Those Amendments were intended to prevent a majoritarian dictatorship.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Yes and no, Dave.......
by J. Vega / February 24, 2004 1:06 PM PST

Yes and no, Dave. If two people get a marriage license, they could go to a judge, a JP, or some "peacher-type" and have them perform a ceremony. TUsually the person who performs the ceremony signs the license, and it goes to the license authority, who issues the certificate of marriage and records it the the state records. In my case, the person who performed the ceremony sent it in, and the official copy of the certificate of marriage came back by mail.
If we had just gone to a preacher-type and done the ceremony, the state would have never known about(or probably even have recognized) the marriage nor have issued and recorded that certificate. Doing whatever ceremony with a marriage license lights-off significant legal things.

Collapse -
I considered the issue.
by Dan McC / February 24, 2004 11:06 PM PST
In reply to: Seriously, Dave.......

And it was more than 4 years ago. I haven't reversed myself.

Dan

Collapse -
From the speach
by SteveGargini / February 24, 2004 1:27 PM PST
In reply to: This would be funny
We still face thugs and terrorists in Iraq who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the advance of liberty. They know that a free Iraq would be a major defeat in the cause of terror. This collection of killers is trying to shake the will of America and the civilized world.
They don't know us very well. America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins


neither will Speakeasy !!!!!
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?