07-27-2003, 04:22 PM
Wow. :rolleyes: Time for a reality check.
It matters not one bit what the bill actually says, any more than it matters what the US Constitution actually says. Our Canadian pal seems either blindly or willfully ignorant of the fact that all that WILL matter once this bill is passed, is what a whole host of hand-picked liberal judges SAY the bill contains in THEIR opinion.
I'm no fool, oh canadian pal of mine. I've been actively involved in American politics for nearly twenty years now. And again: it don't mean DICK what words you put down on paper, in any given piece of legislation. What DOES matter is the person who sponsors and introduces the bill, and what HIS plans and intentions are. Because as the Doc rightly pointed out, this bill is pure political revenge on the part of militant homosexual lobbyists. Both the ad genius donkey dude who sponsored the bill and all his donkey cronies who signed it know EXACTLY how politics works in this country. We are not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and haven't been ever since the era of the hard-left Earl Warren Supremely Stupid Court. We are a nation of couch-potatoes ruled chiefly by an unelected, unaccountable judicial oligarchy whose judicial philosophies are as far to the left as Ted Kennedy's kneecaps. The media laughably calls our current Court conservative haha even though not one real-life political or religious conservative I know or have met or whose writings I have read, agrees with that label. The only reason the media labels them conservative is so that the bulk of the couch-potato voters here will continue to give little or no thought to the types of judges who will be appointed by whichever candidiate they select as President. Most couch-potatoes are comfortable with anyone called conservative, regardless of what that person's actions, words, or voting record truly indicates.
But back to the point, so-called left-wing judges are simply arrogant elitists who have NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER for what words and ideas may or may not be contained on any given legal document. They have their little pet idealogical stances concerning abortion and THE!! ENVIRONMENT!! and overopulation and gay rights and blahblahblah already firmly set in their minds, and they will hand down rulings which are as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for example, the former ACLU puke vomited up onto the high-on-drugs Supreme Court by Bill Clinton, is as easy to figure out in all of her judicial responses as is a Gerry Trudeau character from DOONESBURY. During her first year or so on the Court I used my priviledges over at the American Center for Law And Justice (ACLJ) to examine dockets and briefs pertaining to every upcoming case headed before the High Court. I would then "guess" as to how Ruth Bader Ginsberg would rule, even BEFORE any of the evidence and arguments were presented. And whadday know, I nailed that *censored*'s rulings down pat 100%. Like all ACLU pukes, Ginsberg could care less about truth, and FAR less about her obligations and responsibilites as a judge. Bill Clinton put her there to insure that the secular left worldview would be one vote closer to total triumph with each and every new judicial case, and she's never yet dissappointed him I am sure. She's no more a judge than I am Napolean Bonaparte. She is a tyrant in a black robe, a judicial vampire steadily draining the lifeblood out of what little life remains in our Constitutional republic, and if the impeachment procedures were followed in accordance with the detailed instructions left to us by our Founders she'd be booted off the high court for high crimes and misdemeanors. Along with John Paul Stevens and those four other kneejerk leftwing dinosaurs still sadly fossilized before that famous marble wall upon which are inscribed the Ten Commandments (yes, the same Ten Commandments which that SAME COURT has repeatedly ruled as being "unconstitutional" in public buildings, mind you!!"
WHAT I AM SAYING IS: once that California cross-dress bill is passed into law all the radical gay-rights groups will begin filing trumped-up lawsuits against employers for "discrimination" right and left. And never mind any alleged religious exemptions or company dress policies, THEY WILL NOT BE HONORED by some, most, or all of California's judges. And THAT is political reality here in the good ol' U S of A, my canadian pal who CHEAPLY tossed the word "hate' around to try and demonize me and others for expressing logical, rational disagreement with current governmental policy regarding homosexual behavior... <_<
It matters not one bit what the bill actually says, any more than it matters what the US Constitution actually says. Our Canadian pal seems either blindly or willfully ignorant of the fact that all that WILL matter once this bill is passed, is what a whole host of hand-picked liberal judges SAY the bill contains in THEIR opinion.
I'm no fool, oh canadian pal of mine. I've been actively involved in American politics for nearly twenty years now. And again: it don't mean DICK what words you put down on paper, in any given piece of legislation. What DOES matter is the person who sponsors and introduces the bill, and what HIS plans and intentions are. Because as the Doc rightly pointed out, this bill is pure political revenge on the part of militant homosexual lobbyists. Both the ad genius donkey dude who sponsored the bill and all his donkey cronies who signed it know EXACTLY how politics works in this country. We are not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and haven't been ever since the era of the hard-left Earl Warren Supremely Stupid Court. We are a nation of couch-potatoes ruled chiefly by an unelected, unaccountable judicial oligarchy whose judicial philosophies are as far to the left as Ted Kennedy's kneecaps. The media laughably calls our current Court conservative haha even though not one real-life political or religious conservative I know or have met or whose writings I have read, agrees with that label. The only reason the media labels them conservative is so that the bulk of the couch-potato voters here will continue to give little or no thought to the types of judges who will be appointed by whichever candidiate they select as President. Most couch-potatoes are comfortable with anyone called conservative, regardless of what that person's actions, words, or voting record truly indicates.
But back to the point, so-called left-wing judges are simply arrogant elitists who have NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER for what words and ideas may or may not be contained on any given legal document. They have their little pet idealogical stances concerning abortion and THE!! ENVIRONMENT!! and overopulation and gay rights and blahblahblah already firmly set in their minds, and they will hand down rulings which are as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for example, the former ACLU puke vomited up onto the high-on-drugs Supreme Court by Bill Clinton, is as easy to figure out in all of her judicial responses as is a Gerry Trudeau character from DOONESBURY. During her first year or so on the Court I used my priviledges over at the American Center for Law And Justice (ACLJ) to examine dockets and briefs pertaining to every upcoming case headed before the High Court. I would then "guess" as to how Ruth Bader Ginsberg would rule, even BEFORE any of the evidence and arguments were presented. And whadday know, I nailed that *censored*'s rulings down pat 100%. Like all ACLU pukes, Ginsberg could care less about truth, and FAR less about her obligations and responsibilites as a judge. Bill Clinton put her there to insure that the secular left worldview would be one vote closer to total triumph with each and every new judicial case, and she's never yet dissappointed him I am sure. She's no more a judge than I am Napolean Bonaparte. She is a tyrant in a black robe, a judicial vampire steadily draining the lifeblood out of what little life remains in our Constitutional republic, and if the impeachment procedures were followed in accordance with the detailed instructions left to us by our Founders she'd be booted off the high court for high crimes and misdemeanors. Along with John Paul Stevens and those four other kneejerk leftwing dinosaurs still sadly fossilized before that famous marble wall upon which are inscribed the Ten Commandments (yes, the same Ten Commandments which that SAME COURT has repeatedly ruled as being "unconstitutional" in public buildings, mind you!!"
WHAT I AM SAYING IS: once that California cross-dress bill is passed into law all the radical gay-rights groups will begin filing trumped-up lawsuits against employers for "discrimination" right and left. And never mind any alleged religious exemptions or company dress policies, THEY WILL NOT BE HONORED by some, most, or all of California's judges. And THAT is political reality here in the good ol' U S of A, my canadian pal who CHEAPLY tossed the word "hate' around to try and demonize me and others for expressing logical, rational disagreement with current governmental policy regarding homosexual behavior... <_<