T1B

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:18 am**

Believe the Heupel wrote:Sorry, champ. The people of Alabama fully fund my legal education. Pretty sweet gig-when you're smart, you can get schools to pay you to go there.

And you're really proud of this??

lol

The school pay you to go there?

You just said the people of Alabama are paying it.

You know, the hard working taxpayers - like ... War Wagon type people.

Paying the freight so we can get another lawyer sloshing around in America's muck.

Gee, how great is that?

We need more lawyers like we need a hole in the head, dipshit.

Slice the U.S. lawyer crop in half and we'd be much better off.

Wagon may not be able to pass a bar exam, but he does an honest day's work and he's got the good sense to know that two buttfuckers do not equal a marriage.

I'd trust his judgement over yours any day of the week.

... unless he's blasted on piss beer - 'sup, Van?

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:22 am**

poptart wrote:... 'sup, Van?

I'm sorry, 'tart, but I ran him.

Didn't you get the memo? I swear I had Head Office CC that thing ages ago.
Fuckin' suits...always getting the paperwork lost...

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:04 pm**

88 wrote: he's just a very intelligent guy

Link?

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:43 pm**

Believe the Heupel wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:With WW's logic, a heterosexual Judge would have the same conflict. Perhaps a bisexual Judge would be ok?
Cock-craving judge has something to gain. Hetero judge does not.
Nice of you to admit that "protection of traditional marriage" isn't a legitimate state interest.

Agree with your overall conclusion, but disagree with the reasoning somewhat.

I do believe that protecting the institution of marriage is a legitimate state interest (although an argument can be made that the institution of marriage is slowly dying, but that's a topic for a different thread and a different intellectual discipline -- sociology rather than law). What I fail to see is how excluding homosexuals from engaging in marriage is rationally related to that legitimate state interest.

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:56 pm**

88 wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:In the 1960s, a substantial majority of the states prohibited inter-racial marriages, many even made it a crime. You know what happened after that. Was there a problem in the process that led up to the Loving decision? How is this different?
The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were added soon after the Civil War (1865, 1868 and 1870, respectively). The 13th abolished slavery. The 14th prohibited the States from making or enforcing any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. And, the 15th prohibited the Congress and the States from denying or abridging the right of citizens of the United States to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

One could reasonably take the position that Loving was wrongly decided. The 14th Amendment does not expressly address marriage or race. And, the US Supreme Court had previously determined in Pace v. Alabama (1883) that anti-miscegenation statutes were constitutional under the Court's separate but equal analysis. But I disagree with that view.

Loving was a criminal case. The State of Virginia indicted, convicted and then sentenced a black man and his white wife to one year in jail, with the jail time suspended for 25 years on the condition that they leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. The Court ruled that the Virginia criminal statute violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process requirements. And I agree, because the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were unquestionably enacted to end slavery and legal discrimination on the basis of race. And the criminal statute at issue in Loving involved a prohibited racial classification.

No one can fairly argue that the 14th Amendment ever related to homosexuality.

The Fourteenth Amendment relates to state-based discrimination in any form. As for the historical dissertation, you certainly are aware that under Equal Protection jurisprudence, race-based discrimination is subjected to much tougher scrutiny than is discrimination against homosexuals.

When will you address my polygamy analogy?

An argument could be made that anti-polygamy statutes originated as a form of religious discrimination, as polygamy was practiced almost exclusively among Mormons. As long as polygamy involved informed consent among adults, perhaps an argument can be made that, from a Constitutional standpoint, polygamy should be allowed.

That having been said, as I understand it, as a practical matter polygamy in the modern day, at least as practiced by outlaw sects such as FLDS, involves underage females who do not give anything remotely related to informed consent. See, e.g., http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4629320 That's a far cry from what we're talking about with respect to homosexual marriage.

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:16 pm**

poptart wrote:
Believe the Heupel wrote:Sorry, champ. The people of Alabama fully fund my legal education. Pretty sweet gig-when you're smart, you can get schools to pay you to go there.
And you're really proud of this??

I am not buying this. Just because you're smart? How old are you?

You have to have met some other criteria for getting a free education.

Poor, minority?

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:32 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:You know....it's right next to that one that says people have the right to AK47's.

Uhm, that would be the "Second."

Wait a minute here. Weren't you the one saying that Art. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't give citizenship to "anchor babies," because it was intended to give citizenship to freed slaves?

You do know that at the time the Second Amendment was drafted, the most sophistocated firearms in existence were muskets that had to be reloaded after every shot, don't you? (And btw, while we're discussing historical context, the first major wave of immigration hit the U.S. prior to the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment.)

The fact that you personally may like the Second Amendment and dislike the Fourteenth Amendment (sidenote: as a practical matter, the Fourteenth is what gives the BoR much of its teeth, in that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth incorporates most of the BoR and makes those rights applicable to the States as well, but I've no doubt that a "big BoR guy" such as yourself already knew that) doesn't give you license to read the Second one way and the Fourteenth another. Sorry, dude, you don't get to have it both ways.

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:43 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote: You do know that at the time the Second Amendment was drafted, the most sophistocated firearms in existence were muskets that had to be reloaded after every shot, don't you?

Good job kicking your own ass by pointing out the fact that the 2nd amendment clearly prohibits the government from interfering with the private ownership of the most sophisticated firearms in existence.

Next....

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:54 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Wait a minute here. Weren't you the one saying that Art. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't give citizenship to "anchor babies," because it was intended to give citizenship to freed slaves?

I don't recall making any such statement. Must be confusing me with someone else.

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:40 pm**

88 wrote:Tough crowd. If BtH was a 5-star quarterback, the southern states would be fighting each other over who gets to pay for his college. But since he's just a very intelligent guy who could someday earn a living serving the people of a southern state and paying taxes on a potentially substantial income, you guys think its a waste.

:?

I can't say I like the idea of the state taking money from Joe to pay for Tom's kid's college, regardless of what he is studying.

Is that liberty?

And no offene to you, 88, because I don't doubt that you do good work as a lawyer - but as a country, we need a WHOLE lot less litigation and a WHOLE lot more PRODUCING.

WORKING.

If BtH was studying, say .. engineering, I could stomach it easier.

Even so, philosophically, I'm not in favor of "the state" (which is a fancy way of saying THE PEOPLE) funding someone's education.

Pay your own freight.

Posted: **Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:23 pm**

Semi-off topic, but I got a kick out of this.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:09 am**

Terry in Crapchester wrote: I do believe that protecting the institution of marriage is a legitimate state interest (although an argument can be made that the institution of marriage is slowly dying...

Yeah, divorces can be messy from what I've seen.

What happens when fags get divorced? Guess there won't be any child custody battles so at least they have that going for them.

:lightbulb:

BtH wants to be a divorce lawyer.

What I fail to see is how excluding homosexuals from engaging in marriage is rationally related to that legitimate state interest.

Among other things you fail to see since your legal mind is as sharp as the cucumber your wife shops for at the local farmers market.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:18 am**

trev wrote:I am not buying this. Just because you're smart? How old are you?

You have to have met some other criteria for getting a free education.

Poor, minority?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You are a fucking retard. Full stop.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:21 am**

War Wagon wrote: Among other things you fail to see since your legal mind is as sharp as the cucumber your wife shops for at the local farmers market.

Whoa...Wags...I think you're out-of-bounds with that remark, pal.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:56 am**

Believe the Bullshit ponders future opportunities

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:42 am**

Screw_Michigan wrote:
trev wrote:I am not buying this. Just because you're smart? How old are you?

You have to have met some other criteria for getting a free education.

Poor, minority?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. You are a fucking retard. Full stop.

Shut up, Twirp. No one is talking to you.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:07 am**

trev wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again. You are a fucking retard. Full stop.
Shut up, Twirp. No one is talking to you.

Melt much? Have you never heard of academic scholarships?

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:20 am**

Academic scholarships don't come a dime a dozen.

How old is BTH?

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:32 am**

War Wagon wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:What I fail to see is how excluding homosexuals from engaging in marriage is rationally related to that legitimate state interest.
Among other things you fail to see since your legal mind is as sharp as the cucumber your wife shops for at the local farmers market.

Alrighty, then . . .

As Denzel Washington's character used to say in the movie Philadelphia . . .

Explain it to me like I'm 4 years old. Exactly how is excluding homosexuals from engaging in marriage rationally related to the legitimate state interest of preserving the institution of marriage?

Take your time.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:22 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Explain it to me like I'm 4 years old. Exactly how is excluding homosexuals from engaging in marriage rationally related to the legitimate state interest of preserving the institution of marriage?

They can't get married because they can't go poo poo because someone put a fist in their bootyholes.

EEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWww

They're four. That will do for them.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:28 pm**

The law school scam blogs are pretty funny and sad at the same time.

http://butidideverythingrightorsoithought.blogspot.com/

I hope BTH will make more than the $10/hr offered by this company.

http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/lgl/1882954368.html

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:37 pm**

poptart wrote:
88 wrote:Tough crowd. If BtH was a 5-star quarterback, the southern states would be fighting each other over who gets to pay for his college. But since he's just a very intelligent guy who could someday earn a living serving the people of a southern state and paying taxes on a potentially substantial income, you guys think its a waste.
:?

I can't say I like the idea of the state taking money from Joe to pay for Tom's kid's college, regardless of what he is studying.

Is that liberty?

And no offene to you, 88, because I don't doubt that you do good work as a lawyer - but as a country, we need a WHOLE lot less litigation and a WHOLE lot more PRODUCING.

WORKING.

If BtH was studying, say .. engineering, I could stomach it easier.

Even so, philosophically, I'm not in favor of "the state" (which is a fancy way of saying THE PEOPLE) funding someone's education.

Pay your own freight.

You really are a blind fool.

Publicly funded universities have contributed, and still contribute, in huge ways to state and local economies, by attracting brainpower and businesses, and serving as technology hubs.

I'm not sure, but that may be why all of the states in the union have public university systems.

Could be just a liberal conspiracy, but don't let the facts get in the way of your ideology.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:41 pm**

I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would be opposed to someone attending college on an academic scholarship. Rack Frozen Sooner.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:43 pm**

Mace wrote:I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would be opposed to someone attending college on an academic scholarship. Rack Frozen Sooner.

They're card-carrying Republicans who despise "elitists" and their educations. What do you expect?

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:11 pm**

Mace wrote:I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would be opposed to someone attending college on an academic scholarship. Rack Frozen Sooner.

Academic scholarships are great. I just wish they were more available to white boys who has parents that hold jobs and pay taxes.

My son has a 4.4 gpa, and probably won't get any free money for school.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:55 pm**

trev wrote:
Mace wrote:I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would be opposed to someone attending college on an academic scholarship. Rack Frozen Sooner.
Academic scholarships are great. I just wish they were more available to white boys who has parents that hold jobs and pay taxes.

My son has a 4.4 gpa, and probably won't get any free money for school.

Have him start sucking dick and taking it in the ass. Doors will open everywhere for him. So I've heard.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:16 pm**

trev wrote:My son has a 4.4 gpa, and probably won't get any free money for school.

Tough shit. Too bad your son grew up in an age of grade inflation. Tell him to get in fucking line.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:45 pm**

S_M, I'm positive you could never keep up with his schedule and regiment.

He doesn't aspire to because a janitor, sorry you can't relate.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:55 pm**

trev wrote:He doesn't aspire to because a janitor,

The more I read your efforts, the more I support anything coming from your loins that can maintain a 4.4 GPA earning a scholarship.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:07 pm**

I know it's shocking. I admit that.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:17 pm**

Sirfindafold wrote:
trev wrote:
Mace wrote:I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would be opposed to someone attending college on an academic scholarship. Rack Frozen Sooner.
Academic scholarships are great. I just wish they were more available to white boys who has parents that hold jobs and pay taxes.

My son has a 4.4 gpa, and probably won't get any free money for school.

Have him start sucking dick and taking it in the ass. Doors will open everywhere for him. So I've heard.

Would it help if he took dark_skin tonic, so he would look like you too?

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:27 pm**

trev wrote:
Mace wrote:I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would be opposed to someone attending college on an academic scholarship. Rack Frozen Sooner.
Academic scholarships are great. I just wish they were more available to white boys who has parents that hold jobs and pay taxes.

My son has a 4.4 gpa, and probably won't get any free money for school.

There are lots of scholarships available but you have to fill out the applications. My son will be a junior at Iowa this fall and has had a total of $4,000 in scholarships thus far. Not enough to cover the entire cost of his education but it certainly helps. He also has Direct Student loans through the university and I'm hoping he'll graduate with less than $20,000 of debt. The rest of the cost is coming out of my pocket and his.....and both of his parents work and pay taxes. He had a job at one of the dining halls last semester and is currently applying for part-time jobs in Iowa City..in addition to also working at the school.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:28 pm**

trev wrote:Academic scholarships don't come a dime a dozen.

How old is BTH?

If you're smart enough they do. One of my best friends in HS got a free ride to Columbia because he is a god damned brainiac. It can be done. But you have to be elite.

BTW, if your son has a 4.4 GPA, that's nice. But it's probably on a scale of 1-5.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:34 pm**

BSmack wrote:
trev wrote:Academic scholarships don't come a dime a dozen.

How old is BTH?
If you're smart enough they do. One of my best friends in HS got a free ride to Columbia because he is a god damned brainiac. It can be done. But you have to be elite.

BTW, if your son has a 4.4 GPA, that's nice. But it's probably on a scale of 1-5.

They also prefer to judge your intelligence, and reward it, based on high SAT or ACT scores rather than GPAs.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:05 pm**

He got a 31 average on the ACT and a 33 in Math. They also want a student to be a well rounded
individual, not just a brainiac.

I'm not worried about it because he's probably going to a California University which
isn't all that expensive compared to private school.

I was just noting that BTH claimed he got a full ride and that is pretty difficult to
get for an average white boy.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:09 pm**

With a 31 on his ACT, he should have no problem getting scholarships.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:13 pm**

UC Campuses are now up to about $24K or $25k per year if you include all expenses with room and board. Still not the equivalent of a top tier private school, but a lot more painful than it used to be.

My daughter was offered $20K per year by USC but that would have only brought it down to about $30K+. And she wasn't that enthused by USC.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:18 pm**

trev wrote:I was just noting that BTH claimed he got a full ride and that is pretty difficult to
get for an average white boy.

It's because he's not average like your son. Your delusion of a conspiracy to prevent white males from getting scholarships is laughable and pathetic. I actually pity you.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:20 pm**

Mace wrote:With a 31 on his ACT, he should have no problem getting scholarships.

My son was a very high achiever in High School. He didn't even get accepted at most of the schools he applied to, much less scholarships. Admittedly, he set his sights pretty high, but there are not too many academic scholarships available unless you're dirt poor or want to go to college somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Maybe he was looking in the wrong places.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:28 pm**

Exactly Mikey.

There are small scholarships, which he'll apply for and probably get. But any significant academic scholarships and my son is in the same boats as Mikey's.

I would bet money BTH did not get a free ride on academics alone.

By the way, (this will shock the libs) but I am all for helping the disadvantaged student. I just think it goes a little too far in the other direction.

T1B

Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....

Re: Round 2 of the Prop 8 Fight goes to....