It didn't pass like the bill before. Now can we remove the leaders that over rode the peoples vote 2 years ago??? But here in California we are sheep and follow for the most part.. If someone cheats it's alright unless it is not the way they wanted it..

Sorry to sidetrack here:

Austin814, just to answer the question about Obama's birth certificate, a little google search found this (from a non-profit non-partisan website):

http://www.factcheck.org...08/born_in_the_usa.html

How about providing an authenitc complete and unedited copy of the LATimes Khalidi AV source as well...

There are a couple things to consider:

That Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, a half brother, and a half sister all say Obama was born in Kenya. In October, 2008, Berg announced that he had a recording of the grandmother talking about the birth and that she was in the birth room when it took place.

· That Obama was born on August 4, 1961 but his birth was not registered in Hawaii until August 8, 1961

· That there is not agreement in Obama’s family about what hospital in which he was allegedly born in Hawaii.

· a GOP research team sent to Mombosa, Kenya, found a certificate registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a maternity hospital indicating his birth to a Kenyan father and a U.S. mother.

· That if he was born in Kenya, he cannot be a U.S. citizen because the law stated that his mother would have had to have lived 10-years in the United States, 5 of which were after the age of 14. Since she was 18 at the time of Obama’s birth, she did not meet the residency requirements for passing U.S. citizenship to Obama.

· That when Obama’s mother married an Indonesian man and took Obama to Indonesia when he was 6-years old, he would have lost his U.S. citizenship and become Indonesian. Indonesia at the time did not recognize dual citizenship.

· That when Obama was registered to attend school in Indonesia, the registration form listed him as “Barry Soetoro” (his stepfather’s last name), listed him as Indonesian, and listed is faith as Islam.

· That according to the law at the time, Obama’s mother would have lost her U.S. citizenship by marrying an Indonesian and living in Indonesia. Four years later she returned to Hawaii and divorced her Indonesian husband. Berg said that she could have regained her U.S. citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the United States but that there is no record that she did. Therefore, Obama would not have been able to regain his own citizenship until the age of 18 and himself take an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Berg said there is no record of that ever happening. Berg concludes that not only may Obama not be eligible to be president, but that he may be an illegal alien.

· That Obama traveled to Pakistan at the age of 20 and traveled using an Indonesian passport. Had he regained his U.S. citizenship, according to Berg, he would have traveled using a U.S. passport.

Oh piss off you idiot.

I think the government has forgotten how the voting and election systems works. First we have a presedent elect that was not born in the US. Our constitution says the presedent must be a US born citizen. Now they will fake a birth certificate. Then look at proposition 8, there is a majority vote so the majority wins. Thats how it works. Will it work that way, no they will tie it up in court for ages and ignore the people's vote. It sure is looking a lot more like socialism already. Just wait 4 more years! (Did anyone else notice how closely the Obama posters resembled the Castro ones?)

Boycott - I am going to take my toys and GO HOME!!!

I can not see too many companies shaking in their boots about some loud mouths G & L's that make up at most 3-6% of consumers.. The only way it would impact them is if they were already purchasers off every company who supported 8.

So thats the problem 3-6% of the pop SCREAMING VICTIM and a big portion of the population feeling sorry for them.

The masses have spoken TWICE and this time we have over ruled the LIBERAL CA STATE JUDGES. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN A ONE WOMAN

What is funny is to look at who is carrying and focusing upon such stories and blowing such a disproportionately small group out of all proportion of their true impact and significance.

This coverage speaks more to the politics of the authors than it does to the issue itself. Think of that as you note who is featuring articles such as this.

Funny how you OK discrimination in this case whereas it is the basis of your anti-European propaganda.

numbers are funny things.. you claim G and L make up 3% - 6% of consumers but 47% of the state population voted NO on prop 8... To me that says that not just G and L are against it and that up to 47% of the state population could in fact enter into any proposed boycott... That is a big chunk of money.

I voted NO on prop 8 not in support of G and L's.. I voted NO because i seen in it the workings to reduce the rights of one specific class of peoples... to deny them the same rights as everyone else. We live in a society where noone is supposed to be discriminated against but to me this prop screamed of discrimination.

Discrimination?

Nonsense! If they want a civil contract to afford them the legal basis for distribution of property or civil access to assets or legal guardianship or civil unions, that is available.

It is not descrimination to define marriage as an institution defining a marriage between a man and a woman providing for the protection and provisions for the welfare of children.

But then, looking at the history of Europe, we can easily see why the evolution of such civil laws were developed - as Europe for centuries failed to provide for any provision regarding the welfare of the wife or children.

Take a bow.

And my reaction to Europe is in direct response to your and other's constant self-righteous attempts to blame the US for every evil in the world, while abdicating responsibility for the EU's complicity in so many of the world's problems where several countries in particular want to play both sides of each coin as they profiteer while whining that the US does not do more and yet complain each time the US does act.

And all because the US does not subject themselves to the same head up their @ss duplicitous 3rd rate countries who demand to be treated as major world powers and who think they are entitled to act as final arbitor of US foreign policy.

Especially when the last singificant international intervention of France was the 1989 sinking of the Greenpeace flagship in New Zealand who chose to protest France's irresponsible atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons! And Germany refuses to even assume responsibility for the maintenance and cost of its own defense! I know of 'entitled' teenagers who are more responsible! LOL!

You want input, then step up and assume the responsibility for contributing your share. Of course most of you weren't anywhere to be found to even address genocide in Bosnia in your own back yard. let alone issues anywhere else in the world.

Hey, we can have lots of fun with the absurdity of this entire situation. Why do you excude NAMBLA and others who say the breeders descriminate against them too.

Will the 'right' be extended only to human-animal unions or will it extend to animal-animal unions too? After all, according to PETA, animals are people too. LOL! And trees have feelings too. As we don't want to forget the folks who want to extend rights to plants as well. I only wish I was exaggerating! Hey, treat that philodendron with respect - that's my partner!

And is this simply for higher order animals or will you discriminate against the lower orders of animals as well?

After all, marriage is simply a civil agreement acknowledging a civil union, isn't it? Not to mention that it obligates others to provide compensation in ways that were never intended when the original laws were passed.

Bottomline:
Its interesting to watch as one group feels that a vote is a legitimate and sufficient method to redefine the legal definition of marriage, but these very same folks then deny that a vote is legitimate and sufficient to deny the the extension of the definition. An amazing double standard.

But then this is the group who abhors descrimination, as they themselves insist upon it by the very distinction of being homosexual is insufficient, and where they must redefine another word - gay.

But then even that is indsufficient as the lesbians must further descriminate by separating themselves from the 'gays'. So tell me, who insists on discrimination? Self-imposed descrimination! Certainly not the breeders!

Yup, those damned breeders, they sure do descriminate!

My question is, when did a group of people with a specific sexual preference become a CLASS of people. They want equal rights because of their SEXUAL ORIENTATION! When did society sink so low.

"And all because the US does not subject themselves to the same head up their @ss duplicitous 3rd rate countries who demand to be treated as major world powers"

3rd rate countries, eh?

Look who has their head up their arse now, you claimer of non-head-up-arseyness.

I agree about France, as they're known as the nation of Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys.

Try typing "french military victories" in to google and hitting "I'm feeling lucky".

Good luck moaning about the UK when it comes to moaning about the US.
We have reason to (as a people, not necessarily as a government).

Yup, most notably France and Germany, countries who demand to be treated as tier 1 world powers who have trouble dealing with their own problems.

And countries who depend on others to provide for their defense are hardly equivalent to the one who does. Deal with it.

Dare I mention Italy? Beautiful countryside, nice people, and some fine food - OK, thats the end of the compliments...but not to worry, they are busy burning the huge mounds of undelivered mail... ;-)

Funny how you all but agree and yet you claim to disagree. ;-)

Heck, even the UK is not all that excited about being a part of the EU! ;-)

I really don't have a problem with the many of the former Soviet victims who understand the value of freedom and may still have a few years to catch up with independent democratic rule, or the UK, despite its weird way of talking and doing so many things. I mean, driving on the left side of the road...and the cuisine...and , dare I say it, you need an infusion of new blood into the gene pool judging from the appearance of too many of the women...geesh! ;-) ;-)

(And tell me, why does a man speaking with a British accent sound sophisticated, but a woman sounds so...well...not... ;-)) )

(And tell me, why does a man speaking with a British accent sound sophisticated, but a woman sounds so...well...not... ;-)) )

I'm guessing that's your personal bias poking through again. The British female voice is extremely prominent for use as phone operator recordings, loudspeaker announcements, commercials, hell, even in movies as the "computer" or "self-destruct" voice-over.

You're thinking too much "Eliza Doolittle" and too little "Emma Clark".

I'm thinking in terms of the norm versus the exception! ;-)

Yeah, so thinking of the female British accent in terms of a car or other mechanical device talking to me, as opposed to a person, let alone a woman, is a compliment! ;-)

Your generalization is like saying everyone from the United States sounds like they were born in Boston.

...or Arkansas.

Again, Eliza Doolittle vs. Emma Clark. In my experience (admittedly metropolitan), most British women sound more like Emma than Eliza.

Need I explain the definition of a "generalization"?

And you want to cite exceptions - facts the generalization by definition intentionally ignores! Duh!

Not to mention a fair bit of hyperbole tossed in for humor?

You disappoint me, you're better than this...

And I thought we had lost the folks confused over the meaning of "monopoly" back at the last thread... ;-)

So you intended it to be an offensive generalization?

Ah...

In that case, kudos! People need to be offended more often.

Wow.

So because a bunch of people voted a certain way (largely for emotional/fanatical, non rational reasons), the minority should bow down to them?

Wonder how that would have worked out just over 230 years ago had we tried that route instead of fighting for rights instead of beliefs.

Obviously, you support it. Why? God? Religion? ...or is there actually some semblance of actual thought involved regarding the economics of the situation?

It is not descrimination to define marriage as an institution defining a marriage between a man and a woman providing for the protection and provisions for the welfare of children.

But if it's two women or two men, screw the welfare of the children? I hope that was just badly worded....

Oh geesh!

Now we have to explain the source of the VAST majority of humor!

What constitutes the majority of humor? Slapstick? Wiley Coyote? The 'funniest' home videos? The 3 Stooges? and the list goes on ad nauseum...

Some guy goes to be knighted and his pants fall down.

We don't laugh at the successes - we laugh at the incongruous failures - we laugh at OTHER'S misfortune!

Offensive? Sure if you take it with absolute seriousness! Are you going to lecture us now on how unethical is it to enjoy Roadrunner cartoons?

Get a clue! ...The nature of generalizations and humor... Geesh, you are way off today! Did you miss the appointment with your therapist yesterday? ;-)

No need for a therapist.

What started as merely an attempt to remove your largely incorrect assessment of the British female, on the chance it to some degree was meant in seriousness, was once again taken wildly out of context.

As they say...there is nothing new under the sun.

Technically, two women and two men cannot have kids as the necessary pieces are missing. Of course Science can resolve this but this was not a factor many years ago and people are set in their ways.

Am I saying this is right? No, but again it was voted on and the majority chose, they can wait until next time like everyone else has to when their proposal fails.

Marriage for the most part is about religion and the state, since religion looks down upon same sex marriages its not completely out of left field that this vote did not get the results that were desired.

But to not get something after a majority voted for it - defeats the whole process we have used since we became the US. Does this mean that we should continue to fight that Obama won when a lot of people wanted Mccain?

IF we continued to fight over every choice because the smaller group feels they got cheated, we would never get anything done.

Another interesting thing about this was they expected since Obama would most likely be our next president that it would not pass. It turns out the majority of people who voted for Prop 8 were Latino and African American.

http://www.washingtonpos...06/AR2008110603880.html

Arkansas irks me because they can't ever read what their own state is called.

Arkensaw my arse.

Loyd Grossman, though, tops the lot for awful accents.

DO NOT MIX BOSTON AND LONDON ACCENTS EVER.

"as Europe for centuries failed to provide for any provision regarding the welfare of the wife or children."

Good argument! However completely out of context and simply one to highlight the merits of Islam, which institutionalized this concept in its origins.

As for the rest: Pathetic. Yawn...

"Germany, countries who demand to be treated as tier 1 world powers"

Well you placate them by letting them think they have some power. They'll only end up trying to bite your ankles again otherwise :)

"Italy[...] they are busy burning the huge mounds of undelivered mail... ;-)"

I don't doubt that for a minute.
Either there is a large black hole around the border of Italy that only sucks up mail, or they're burning it.

I'm fairly confident the latter is more likely to be true.

"Heck, even the UK is not all that excited about being a part of the EU! ;-)"

I don't want to be a part of it at all. Bring back the empire! *ahem*

"despite its weird way of talking and doing so many things"

Hah! Again: Hah! You cads and bounders out in America single-handedly ruining our language! Cheeky beggar.

I never did bother to find out why we drive on the left. I probably should some time.

What's even more interesting (if you're bored and fancy reading a little) is to look up Dagen H and the surprising lack of chaos that changing the side of the road you drive on in Sweden created.

"And tell me, why does a man speaking with a British accent sound sophisticated, but a woman sounds so...well...not."

Heh. There's as large a diversity of accents in Britain (we're including Scotland and Wales in this, seeing as your wrote Britain) as there is in the whole of the US. If you listen to a scouse man "sophisticated" isn't one of the words you're going to think of.

d*** Van Dyke couldn't even master one of them.

Hugh Laurie wanders over to America and the people interviewing him for the role of House can't even tell he's not American.

As for the cuisine.
Now, now.
Roast dinners, Yorkshire puddings, Chicken Tikka Masala (yes, that was invented by the Brits), clotted cream, Cornish Pasties, Bakewell tarts, and that's just off the top of my head.

And last, but by no means least: Ale.
None of that watery s*** you class as beer in America for me, thank you very much :P

You can't mess with that list :P

I think I'll leave it there. I've happily offended most races including my own.

I'm actually glad you decided to check in to this thread because I was just thinking about something and would be interested in your POV:

As you may have heard, Melissa Etheridge has threatened to withhold approximately $500,000 of personal income taxes which she will supposedly owe the state of California, claiming that if the state denies her the same full rights as any other tax-paying resident, then she should not have to pay her fair share of taxes.

If she does this, of course California will pursue her in court. But what I'm thinking is that she could claim that Proposition 8 violates her right to "equal protection", which would then raise the bar to the constitutional level.

Hypothetically, she could go all the way to the Supreme Court and win on the grounds of "equal protection", thereby rendering any and all state laws which restrict the rights of tax-paying citizens based on their sexual preferences unconstitutional; and making all these "referendums" moot.

It's an interesting thought, no ?

"IF we continued to fight over every choice because the smaller group feels they got cheated, we would never get anything done."

What distinguishes this case from others you list is that an intolerant majority is discriminating against a minority in a cause that makes no practical difference to them.

Do you happen to have statistics about education levels of Prop 8 backers?

Interesting thought indeed...

As I understand it, however, the SCotUS has already stated that this is an issue the states themselves must decide individually.

As such, Melissa can move or spend some time in the state penn. if she goes through withholding state taxes.

People have the right to live in the states that share their viewpoints. People have the right to try and change their states point of view. People have the right to do *really* stupid sh*t to get there, but they get to also accept the consequences if the majority of the folks in that state disagree with them.

The whole issue is absurd, IMO. Talk about letting religion and politics mix...what a CF.

Technically, two women and two men cannot have kids as the necessary pieces are missing.

Adoption has been around for ages.

No, but again it was voted on and the majority chose, they can wait until next time like everyone else has to when their proposal fails.


It is a constitutional amendment. Can you name *one* that has *ever* been overturned?

Marriage for the most part is about religion and the state, since religion looks down upon same sex marriages its not completely out of left field that this vote did not get the results that were desired.

Marriage can be carried out by a justice of the peace. It *cannot* be religious in the eyes of the government as such because that would fly in the face of the separation of the two institutions.

But to not get something after a majority voted for it - defeats the whole process we have used since we became the US.

How so? The Nation is a Republic, not a Mob-Rule Democracy. Look at the election prior to last. The majority voted for the "other guy". The electoral college elected Bush.

IF we continued to fight over every choice because the smaller group feels they got cheated, we would never get anything done.

So we should deny them their right to protest and their right to continue to try and work for change?

Another interesting thing about this was they expected since Obama would most likely be our next president that it would not pass. It turns out the majority of people who voted for Prop 8 were Latino and African American.

??? Doesn't enter into it AFAIC. And you should know better than to give me links to the Washington Post. :p

DO NOT MIX BOSTON AND LONDON ACCENTS EVER.

O M G...

Why on earth would you even suggest such a thing? Do you hate all life as we know it??

Yeah, I was really mulling this over regarding the issue of Constitutional vs. States' Rights, and I certainly see your points as being valid, especially since, as of today, Ms. Etheridge is free to move to Connecticut, where they will be happy to perform her same-sex marriage ceremony and take her half-million of taxes.

And I certainly do agree with you concerning the whole issue being absurd.

Thanks for the intelligent reply.

It's not a preference.

It all works out, one way or another.

They can live in Conn, they can work for change elsewhere. Nothing wrong with that, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences for any ill-conceived methods of protest...

Thanks for the intelligent reply.

Yeah, you must be thinking of someone else. I don't do that. ;)

Sure it is. The question is whether it's a biological, mental, or religious preference.

My fav is blood pudding.... yummy! ;-))

Always instructive to watch as you declare 'pathetic' that which you can't debate or challenge.

Expecially when the real source of my so-called 'anti-Euro' opinion is actually the arrogance of @sswipes like you who offer no substantial information yet consistently whine as they blame everyone else, and notably the US, for their own and everyone else's problems.

Poor baby...waaaaaaaaaaa...

In a word, "YES!" Minorities lose all the time in this country. Our government is supposed to represent the will of the people, the majority of the people. Didn't you learn that in 12th grade government class when you had to take the test on the Constitution to graduate? Or did you think that only applies when the minority is someone who believes differently from you? I'm in the minority now since Obama has been elected. I say the people who voted for him did so out of mostly emotional reasons. Should I go to court to demand that it overturn the election because I don't like how the majority voted? They'd laugh me right out the door. Will you contribute to my court cost so I can file suit? I doubt it.

At this point, your only options are to admit that this minority game can be played on both sides or start telling me I'm a prude. Either way, it shows the weakness in your position.

So, "straight" is a biological preference?

Then try a dictionary.

That's actually one of the primary argument of homosexuals for a long time.

Ummm... yes..?

"Always instructive to watch as you declare 'pathetic' that which you can't debate or challenge."

Not really. I am just one in a long list of BN members who don't take your anti-EU (or other) rants more serious than a slight nuisance (rollseyes kinda thing, ya know...).

You idiot still didn't even manage to pinpoint me. Couldn't blame you for not bothering if it wasn't for the ridiculous personal attacks making you look pathetic.

"It is a constitutional amendment. Can you name *one* that has *ever* been overturned?"

Wasn't it alcohol related (another US superior moral complex)? Twice??? :))

I didn't think that was an amendment.

...but you are right, it was.

So that's 230 years and two amendments.

Hmm....

*laughing*

No, dolt.

"Straight" is the slag term given to those whose sexual preferences fit within traditionally assigned gender roles.

A man liking a woman, however, *could* be a biological preference. It could also be a choice, religious or otherwise.

Wow.

We're not a "mob rule" democracy, dimwit. We're a Republic.

...or didn't you learn that in 12th grade?

The government doesn't exist to morally control it's citizenry.

Or did you think that only applies when the minority is someone who believes differently from you?

I take it you *completely* missed my other post about minorities rights to work for change?

What, because a vote turned out to be not in their favor, they have to shut up?

*laughing*

...and you *didn't* vote for Obama? You seem like his type. If they don't agree with you, shut them up...

At this point, your only options are to admit that this minority game can be played on both sides or start telling me I'm a prude. Either way, it shows the weakness in your position.

How about I simply ignore the rhetoric, stick my original assertion that they, along with any other "minority" have a right to protest and work for change.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Equating the fact that you voted for McCain and Obama won with gays rights being evicerated via prop 8 is not even remotely the same. It is not about 'not liking' how people voted. 2 weeks ago, I had the right to get married. If you voted for prop 8, you took that right away from me. Did you think that gays would quietly go away. YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN. This is far from over. Besides do you think the will of the people is always correct. What about the will of the people regarding segregation? The majority was for it. Does that mean that the governement should have not intervened to squash that idea? Of course not. The same applys here. Your own govornor has publically come out and told us to NOT STOP FIGHTING until we win. It is unfortunate for you but the Supreme Court is going to shove this down your throats and mandate equal treatment. You'll resent it at first and probably even try to recall them but I promise it won't be so bad. Stop kicking and screaming the whole time and it won't hurt so much.

Did you hear about that nutcase GAY radio talk show host on KGO in San Fransicko? Charles Karel Bouley cussed up a storm of nasty "F" words and called for the murder of Joe the Plumber, on the Saturday before the election. This fool got himself fired with that foul language. He no longer has the use of a 50 thousand watt transmitter heard all over Kalifornia, that could have been used to orchestrate mass demonstrations against the Mormon Church and his other enimies...

yeah that's right. just because people voted for something doesn't mean the government should have to do what they wanted! This is bull

Punishing companies located in Utah because a church is active there would be just as ridiculous as refusing to do business in California because everyone there is a movie star. It's absurd. Then again, there has to be some way to punish the people for voting the "wrong" way. Whatever happened to freedom of choice, the choice to vote and have that vote mean something? Oh wait! The court can overturn that because the voters don't know what's good for them. :( Those silly voters. They're smart enough to vote for our president but can't possibly make a reasoned choice on this issue. So maybe the court should consider overturning California's presidential vote too, just to make sure the right thing is done by all.

In related news Melissa Etheridge will no longer pay taxes, so that works out for the best...

Not to mention "Fall Out Boy's Pete Wentz has said that he believes that California residents were "intimidated" into voting for Proposition 8: "Many people were intimidated on this issue due to the scary misleading communications on the other side."

Scary indeed.

ROFLMAO

ROFL misleading communications?

It was pretty obvious what happened, so does this mean then everyone that voted for Mccain can do the same thing, or is it only when a small group of people feel its unjust?

Of course not!

Only the self-righteous liberals are able to chastise anyone for pointing out their own behavior as they excuse themselves and hold others accountable.

Remember "I did not have sex...." and the meaning of "is"?

But then the liberals, who routinely use the government and the rule of law to social engineer what OTHERS do and believe, seem to suddenly get religion and claim to be libertarians (yup, BIG government libertarians LOL!) of the moment whenever they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

LOL!

The folks who lost can gripe all they want. They lost.

And the social policies of a few activist companies really don't matter either.

None of this has anything to do with technology.

This is so stupid! What ever happened to the age where we voted and the majority ruled and that was respected? What happened to the day when people on opposing sides of an issue still acted with civility and respect towards one another? I understand that this is a sensitive issue. But why must everybody be filled with such anger over it?

"Everyone" isn't. Just the 'oh so tolerant' who claim folks should have the right to choose - as long as you agree with them.

...And what has become readily apparent - it wasn't a vote and a choice as an election might lead you to believe.

Rather it was a demand and you are not entitled to an opinion if you happens to differ with their 'opinion'.

Not much difference in that respect between the left wing 'liberals' and the religious right wing 'liberals' who both believe that it is the legitimate role of government to use the rule of law to social engineer belief and behavior and who both deny others the legitimacy to disagree.

Just wait for the oh so liberal Democrats use the Unfairness Doctrine to go after talk radio as Tom Brokaw has already so ridiculously claimed they should!