It simply boggles the mind that this woman has any credibility whatsoever in matters pertaining to intelligence. Her top donors are pretty heavily vested in taking in the money of the American people. She's proven beyond a reasonable doubt whose interests hold sway over her actions.
Feinstein is a staunch supporter of the U.S Surveillance State (USSS).
How comfortable her life must be as one of the richest members of the Senate. Living proof that you can buy and sell anything.
Yeah, between the lines, sure. I just figured it was worthy of its own print AND I get to type "fuck". Win/win. There's too much "between the lines" as it is.. Give it to me straight man.. "We are the NSA and we collect fucking everything.". Surely that rips away any willfully ambiguous bullshit, no?
I'm a fan of the last paragraph of the article. I might've ended it with "Representative Peter King is a fucktard." though.
"There are many ways to care for America, most of which involve challenging the powers that be. King is one of those "powers," and his love of his country is the most insincere of all. His "love" asks for subservience from its countrymen, rather than accountability from its leaders. These leaders can make our country stronger, but that means they have to stop crippling their constituents and diluting their rights. We need courage, not bombastic flag-waving from a man so blinded by irrational hate he can't even see his own hypocrisy. Representative Peter King is a fucktard."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Love is not Marriage
"Society decided that marriage is between a male and a female, not "religion"."
That's just it, Michael, Society, like religion, doesn't get to decide. To imply that two people get "different"rights because they are a male/male pair vs a female/male pair is denying individuals' their rights. Neither the government nor religion can be allowed to deny rights, or worse, give rights to some and not to others. (re: marriage)
What you've been saying all along is "I'm am part of the Society that wishes to deny rights to individuals because those rights belong *solely* to parties that I /We deem more appropriate. Intolerable.
Marriage, between two consenting adults, is an unalienable right. Which, by-they-by, might happen to be precisely why attempts at defining it are not meeting constitutional muster. The civil aspect of what privileges those rights entail are legal rights. The "contest" is to merge them and completely and irrevocably integrate the two : The right to marry shall be recognized and all of those so married shall be equal with regards to their legal status .
When one attempts to determine or establish that one married couple receives more benefit than another you, thereby, deny some basic premise of individual liberty and equality. Which, in essence, effectively terminates religious eligibility to integrate with this government in this matter.
"Society" and "Majority" are of little consequence here thanks to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
There is only conflict here because you're insisting that your definitions trump someone else's. Everyone has a right to couple up and be recognized. Marriage, i in the eyes of the state, is between two people. In other words religion(s) are no longer the defining characteristic of matrimony, people are.
I can't make you see that and don't mind if you don't see that but that is root.