Posts made by mhorndisk

Duh… Yea. Quit trying to turn freedom into slavery, by asking for permission to do things that you already have the lawful right to do by using the easy way out because it sounds legally easier and you just don't understand words or definitions or how to open a dictionary. You are destroying our freedoms, and ending our nation. I will not put up with people like you putting our freedoms and our birthright on the line and ending our Constitution because you "just don't get it."

@royalcrown89:

@mhorndisk:

@royalcrown89:

So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?

Not the case at all. What I am saying is that the government has no say in what is a "legitimate marriage," because marriage is a religious institution. What people do not understand is that they can have a contract where you are the caretaker in case of tragic things like this, but the problem is that no one understands the law. Don't try to make me look bad just because of your ignorance of the law.

So let me get this right, you want people to have to go out of their way and bring in lawyers (spend lots of money) to create a contract to become someone's "caretaker" instead of being able to get married and automatically having the right to be your spouse's caretaker without spending high amounts of money on lawyers and courtroom costs to become the caretaker of someone you love? Your argument is wholly irrational. When I got married in late 2015, I didn't have to hire lawyers to draw up a contract that made me in control of my husband's medical decisions if he were to somehow be unable to make those decisions. By the law of my state, I automatically have that right–-and not his family members---since I am his spouse. Had gay marriage not been legalized, I would have to go through hell to get that right. The same would go for his social security and insurance benefits if something were to happen to him, they come to me and not his parents. And the government has been determining which marriages are legitimate because there have been serious legal concerns related to caretaking, social security, etc. prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015.

What you are IGNORING is the basic concepts. You are basically promoting the idea that we should be placed on a plantation of slavery where we have to beg for permission instead of acting out our free will and promoting our human rights. It's pathetic. You never needed any of that socialist security to begin with. The only reason you THINK you would have to go through hell is because you have no understanding of individual rights and instead think on the level of group rights and group think, hive mind, borg, and sheepfulness. You have no idea how the Constitution works and instead discard it in the trash when it comes to individual rights. I DO NOT NEED PERMISSION TO DO WHAT IS ALREADY LAWFUL TO DO. Period. You want to promote the idea that we all need to get on our knees and beg for permission for a LICENSE to marry. It's sickening how far off you guys are. You want us all to get on our knees and beg for permission because you don't understand what legal words ACTUALLY mean. Get an education and quit trying to make the free people follow your fascist cake baking crap and lead us into slavery where we literally have to beg for permission for our birthright freedoms.

You can thumbs down me all you want, but without words to state why I'm wrong, it means NOTHING. It just means your feelings are in disarray. Good luck to you in the real world.

@royalcrown89:

So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?

Not the case at all. What I am saying is that the government has no say in what is a "legitimate marriage," because marriage is a religious institution. What people do not understand is that they can have a contract where you are the caretaker in case of tragic things like this, but the problem is that no one understands the law. Don't try to make me look bad just because of your ignorance of the law.

@DAVLEN:

Oh dear the Republican dilemma. There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
When  Director Comey said a week before the election last year he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, the candidate Trump went into overdrive in his praise of the FBI Director. 'He has guts' he exclaimed to his adoring supporters, 'courage, a great move.'
Now when Comey declares to the House enquiry on Russian involvement in the election and Trump teams possible connection, the investigation was continuing, Trump fires him. Oh Donald Donald, starting to get too close to home.
Plus the FBI have filed a warrant with the Grand Jury to investigate colleagues of Flynns emails and other communications'.
This will not go away.

No, that's not True. The facts are:

1. Comey stated on record that Hillary DID send CLASSIFIED information to Anthony Weiner who was unauthorized, which is a felony.

2. Comey stated THREE times that there was NO evidence of Russian collusion (You guys just keep dreaming this garbage up).

3. Comey admitted Hillary used BLEACH BIT to try to HIDE evidence during an investigation.

4. Comey covered for Hillary to affect the outcome of the election, the FBI is not supposed to be political.

THAT is why Trump FIRED his ASS! Buh-BYE! Thank God!

@royalcrown89:

This has really gotten to a disgusting level of corruption and cover-up. Just when it seemed like the Russian cloud was going away, a new storm is developing. This is about to get very interesting and very ugly. I see a Nixon repeat on the horizon.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-fired-fbi.html

Did you not READ Trump's letter to Comey? Thanking Comey for exonerating him THREE times saying there was no case and no evidence and no investigation into the Russia collusion claims because it was RIDICULOUS!? Get over it! DAMN. I'm so tired of hearing about Russia when there is no evidence. What there is evidence of is bleach bit and you guys voted for that witch when she literally sent classified information to people who were not authorized to have it. DAMN. How fucking stupid are you? I'm so sick of this shit. He said she was GUILTY, but not recommending charges. He was playing both sides because he KNEW Trump was going to win. Trump gave him some time, and then he went before Congress and lied. Get a life and quit being a dumb bitch.
 Flaming "dumb bitch".

That has absolutely nothing to do with this.

@raphjd:

Many of the rights/privileges granted under marriage can only be granted by the state, not a contract between 2 parties; such as the "marital confidentiality" clause in most states and federal government.

The UK has that also, but only for marriage.  Not even civil partnership had it because it's a marriage only right.

You are not aware/not grasping the severity of the situation I am speaking about. I am not speaking of PRIVILEGES granted by the government. I am speaking about RIGHTS you already have as a birthright. The government cannot give you a license to rape murder or steal, because that would be UNLAWFUL. They can therefore deem something legal, but ONLY if it is already lawful. They can ONLY give you a license to do things that are ALREADY LAWFUL to do (NOT RAPE MURDER OR STEALING). When you apply for a LICENSE, you have to APPLY, and the LEGAL definition of APPLY means to BEG FOR PERMISSION. Why would you BEG FOR PERMISSION to do something you already LAWFULLY have the right to do? This is a whole study between what is Legal VS Lawful.

The point is that you are begging for permission to do something harmless ie get married that you can already do just to make a point when in reality it is devastating to the freedom and the future of the human race and places you on your knees (not in a good way). It's ridiculous that anyone with wisdom and common sense would do such a thing, but our world is plagued by ignorance, so it is no surprise. I know this goes against everything we all have grown up to fight for, but we were deceived. The lawyers have devised word trickery to make us submit to their delusion of liberty instead of freedom.

Say we agree to get married under Common Law, and we both sign with our blood and agree to certain things. It's in blood. It's still a  contract. The government deliberates ONLY on CONTRACT law, the UCC. So regardless, if you get the government involved, the agreement will still be upheld. You NEVER needed them unless you are incompetent.

I AM saying that LEGAL marriage is bad for everyone. People don't understand the difference between legal and lawful in regard to many things. This is all getting us deeper into the Matrix of the government, which literally has no lawful authority over marriage, period. Regardless if some think it has more than the two parties or the community involved. All it takes is two people and their God and neither the community nor the government has any say whatsoever. It is a covenant, like the covenant between David and Jonathan in the Bible. There literally is no authority who can determine their right to make such a covenant besides themselves, and that's the point behind a Common Law Marriage. And regardless of whether or not you think other parties might be involved, the point is that CONTRACTS between the two people OUTRULE ANY government or community say so. If I make a private contract with you, the government and the community have no say in it.

Sorry, I know that was too DEEP for most of you ignorant LIBTARDS to actually understand - CONCEPTS of legal philosophy and logic. Just give me more of what I love - oh me poor persecuted self!!! I'm a victim and how dare you!?!

Intentions drive gay people to demand equality ie gay marriage. Intention leads to greater harm than good when in ignorance. The heart is never in the right place in ignorance.

When Bill Clinton passed the Defense of Marriage Act claiming marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman, the Supreme Court defined it as a union between a man, a woman, and the government in Van Koten vs Van Koten.

That means it's a THREE party union. Common Law Marriage as opposed to a legal marriage, already existed and defined marriage as a union between two people and their God under Religious Freedom, and gays were already getting married under this system.

A Legal Marriage is not a Common Law Marriage. A legal marriage makes the government like "god," giving the government the ability to determine who gets the money, the kids, and the estate in a divorce, when you could have just had a contract without them.

Many think this is a social justice issue, but it all comes down to private contracts that would make the government obsolete on this. This whole charade is a money-making business leaching on the ignorant for the legal industry.

You can't force society to accept you, and why would you want to? You can only be professional. You can't empty the Pacific Ocean with a paper cup.

You need a license to marry, and license means to beg for permission. You need a license to hunt, fish, drive, practice law or medicine, and marry, among other things. You cannot be license to rape murder or steal.

That's precisely why you never NEEDED a license to marry, because you were never raping murdering or stealing. The word apply means to beg for permission, why would you beg for permission to do something you already had the lawful right to do?

You're systematically popularizing the idea that trading your rights for mere privileges is superior because you think you're emptying the Pacific Ocean with a paper cup and going to force society to accept you.

This is something I will NEVER accept and for non-religious reasons. It's pathetic that you guys can be so stupid and not think too deep it's an embarrassment.

@vaylon:

I have heard lots of progressives condemn the Berkeley conflicts as wrong. All depends on which news station you watch. Fox won't show both sides of a story and sometimes msnbc won't either. CNN seems to show more balance.

LOL You're brainwashed! CNN balanced??? OMG wow you really have issues. I hate calling people stupid, but that is very fucking dumb statement.

@alibix:

Le Pen wants to ban adoption and marriage of gay people. This is much closer to Muslims than Macron. How could a gay person vote for someone closer to backwards Islamic beliefs?

Because you're too stupid to understand anything. You act like intention is everything while failing completely to understand how the world actually works. Too stupid to understand Maritime Admiralty Law and how you are actually becoming more like a slave every day because you are trading in your rights for privileges because you think you're going to change society fruitlessly like emptying the Pacific with a paper cup. You have no idea what a legal marriage is distinguished from a common law marriage. One is two parties and the government, the other is two parties and God. And the one with the government as the third party makes the government God, deciding who gets the kids, who gets the alimony, the estate, and all the goodies. The lawful one gives the person's freedom of religion the right to determine those things. But you will never understand those things because you only care about promoting the idea of being a pathetic victim and trying to change the world through some lame misunderstanding.

Libtards only care about group rights. They have no distinctiveness, no individual qualities, no precision. It's all borg, all hive, all sheep mentality. This is subliminal pandering like a horse being led with a carrot. Of course a transgender person will entail all the rights of an individual, but when you start speaking about transgender rights, you start to disassociate from the family unit and start thinking instead of blood family but mentality driven false family ideologies.

You don't speak for me. You are not my family. You can only speak for yourself. Rosie O'Donnell does not speak for me. Madonna does not speak for me. Michael Moore does not speak for me. Colbert does not speak for me. Obama does not speak for me. Ellen does not speak for me. YOU do not speak for me. I am an individual and only I speak for me. I don't care about group rights. That's pandering and group think like sheep and trying to box everyone into a victimhood mentality like OH you're one of us! I'm not one of you. I'm distinct you stupid bitches. I'm my own person, and I am not boxed into your little concept of what a gay person or your idea of a gay family is. Honestly you're just too stupid for me to want to associate with. You can literally go fuck yourself and get beheaded by ISIS since you love them so much and act like they're such wonderful people - go get it. I don't care.

It's all good Raphjd. Trump is the President because of us. We're the future, we're the game changers. These liberals think with their feelings, we think with logic. They may think they have good intention and that is enough, but we know it's misguided. They constantly act like victims because they have a syndrome and it works on the feeble minded as a form of manipulation. They're just not smart enough to get it, and that's ok. We're winning, they're losing, and that's really all that matters. They supported a total loser criminal who was exposed for her emails and they want to blame Russia for what she herself said in those emails that was totally criminal. Who cares if they can accept the Truth or not? They're nuts, so it doesn't matter.

@royalcrown89:

The impeachment is going to be so sweet to watch. Gonna have my wine ready  :cheers:

Wow, this is SO retarded. He said she said and you guys believe it as a fact? Embarrassing is what all of you who believe this fake news are.

It's EMBARRASSING that you Queens will sit there and claim Trump is affiliated with the KKK when the KKK hates Jews and Trump is one of their biggest supporters. Obama had HORRIBLE relations with Israel, wouldn't even RECOGNIZE the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he came to the US. Obama is more in line with the KKK's HATRED of the Jews than Trump ever could be. Are you REALLY that fucking dumb? Don't you dare accuse Trump of being in league with the KKK and playing that race card. This post is appalling and ridiculous and you should be ashamed of yourself for being a fucking idiot for posting it.

Because we REALLY BELIEVE that YOU are the REAL RACISTS! That's why. Because you perpetuate the STEREOTYPE that ALL Mexicans are poor and HELPLESS. It's ALWAYS the victim card! Just come to the border and show your damn ID! It isn't really that hard. Even if you are seeking asylum for some rape stuff you have to have a birth certificate, so no excuses for the "They can't afford an ID crap." The ones that come over the border illegally as opposed to the ones that come over and show their ID don't have a criminal record to hide. Quit acting like little babies and trying to make illegals a protected class of people that don't have to follow the same laws as everyone else, as though they're ABOVE all the laws that everyone else has to follow! It's really that fucking simple.

I'm sick of you stupid queens making excuses for illegal behavior as though it should be a class above all the legal immigrants who followed the damn laws just because you're jealous of Trump. Just admit it. The KKK never donated to Trump and they hate him because he is a supporter of Israel, and they HATE Jews. Period. Get over that shit now. Trump supports Israel, his daughter married a Jew, the KKK hates Jews. It's a total opposite and the fact that you keep perpetuating this nonsense is totally fucking dumb. Get over it. Trump is our President and there's nothing you can do about it.

A lot of people in France like Le Pen, (not because she's a woman which is good) but a lot of them like Macron. I think they just would like to see him naked. He's a globalist who wants the French people to bow down to the elite and take it up the ass, and many gays sadly find that appealing because he appeals to the victimhood class. He's a banker and has no interest in the people of France.