McCain Iraq, Iran Policies Make Him Favored Candidate to Saudis
Hans Nichols and Janine ZachariaThu May 15, 5:07 PM ET
May 16 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain, who is trying to strike a distance from the policies of President George W. Bush, accuses Saudi Arabia of sponsoring insurgents in Iraq and condemns it for human-rights violations, including imprisoning people whose ``only crime is to worship God in their own way.''
That should make the prospect of a McCain presidency a nightmare for the Saudi rulers, who have enjoyed close ties to the Bush family. Instead, Saudis are privately rooting for the presumptive Republican nominee, discounting some of his rhetoric because he's the only candidate to promise to keep U.S. troops in Iraq and to deter Iran.
``The royal family and other elites would like to see McCain,'' Mai Yamani, a visiting scholar with the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, said yesterday in a telephone interview from London.
``He would keep the troops in Iraq, and that is their main worry, that the U.S. may withdraw or minimize its presence,'' said Yamani, whose father, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, was the kingdom's oil minister from 1962 to 1986. U.S. forces are needed to counter the spread of Iranian influence from Iraq, which many Saudis believe ``now is ruled by Iran,'' she said.
Oil Prices
Bush today will visit King Abdullah's horse farm to mark the 75th anniversary of U.S.-Saudi ties, which have been strained by what the Saudis view as mismanagement of the war in Iraq and soaring oil prices. Bush is set to discuss oil prices with the Saudis, the world's largest producer, during his visit.
As former Texas oilmen, Bush, 61, and his father, President George Herbert Walker Bush, 83, were both known quantities to the Saudis. McCain has no business experience, though the Saudis appreciate his military and national-security credentials.
The Saudis, like other Gulf Arabs, are comforted by McCain's repeated commitment to stay in Iraq. Campaigning in Columbus, Ohio, the Arizona senator said yesterday that he envisions a successful outcome to the war by 2013, when Iraq will be ``a functioning democracy.''
For the Saudis, that is preferable to the positions of either of the Democratic candidates -- Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York -- who both have vowed to undertake an Iraq withdrawal as one of their first acts in office, analysts said.
`Very Nervous'
``They are worried about any deal the Democrats may cut with Iran,'' said Henri Barkey, a foreign policy adviser to Obama and former State Department policy planner, who now heads the international relations department at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
The Saudis are preoccupied by Iranian influence in their region. The McCain campaign points to Obama's pledge to engage in direct talks with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as evidence that the Democratic candidate lacks the experience to become president.
``Unconditionally meeting Ahmadinejad would fatally undermine any chance that we have of building a coalition of Arab states willing and able to contain Iranian power,'' said Randy Scheunemann, a McCain foreign-policy adviser.
Obama, 46, is eager to debate Iran policy with McCain, said Denis McDonough, an Obama foreign-policy adviser.
`Status Quo'
``What's evident is the status quo as it relates to Iran, and which John McCain seems to support, has resulted in an expanded Iranian nuclear program and expanded Iranian influence,'' McDonough said.
McCain has encouraged the perception that he would restore the pragmatist tradition of the first President Bush, and resolve conflicts with Saudi Arabia behind closed doors.
A McCain administration would practice a policy of ``speak softly and press firmly,'' Scheunemann said.
McCain's signals to the Saudis, however, haven't been consistent. On the one hand, he said this month that his personal connections would allow him ``to manage our strategic relationship'' with the Saudis, while also pressuring them on other subjects.
McCain said May 6 aboard his campaign bus that he knows Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to U.S., ``very well,'' citing a 25-year relationship and the bond they share as former military pilots. McCain's campaign co-chairman, Tom Loeffler, is a registered lobbyist for Saudi Arabia, which earned his firm, the Washington-based Loeffler Group, close to $10 million in the last two years.
`They Know' McCain
The Saudis ``feel like they know John McCain,'' said Hady Amr, the director of the Brookings Institution's Doha Center.
At the same time, however, McCain has used some tough language toward Saudi Arabia. He has promised to bring more pressure on the country on human rights and has accused the Saudis of sponsoring the Sunnis who are attacking U.S. forces in Iraq. Last week, McCain lumped Saudi Arabia with Iran, Burma, Sudan and North Korea, describing them as nations that have imprisoned ``tens of thousands of people'' for their religious beliefs.
Wyche Fowler Jr., a U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1996 to 2001 who is now chairman of the Middle East Institute in Washington, said the criticism may not matter to the Saudis. Fowler met in Riyadh last month with senior Saudi officials, including King Abdullah.
``They are used to a certain amount of Saudi bashing every four years,'' he said.
So McCain has the endorsement of the people who sponsored the 9/11 hijackers. ;)
Fdubya247
John McSame hates America.
:yes:
Stonewall
I imagine the McCain approach is more favorable to the region. Considering that the Obama plan will lead to a complete meltdown in Iraq and the region thrown into a wider war.
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall I imagine the McCain approach is more favorable to the region. Considering that the Obama plan will lead to a complete meltdown in Iraq and the region thrown into a wider war.
Baseless.
Ignorant.
False.
Stumpy.
:crazy:
People who have never made a correct complex prediction in their lives should just shut the fuck up when feeling the urge to make proclamations....
chicagoirishtim
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall will lead to a complete meltdown in Iraq and the region thrown into a wider war.
what have the past 5 years been?
assmasterson
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall Considering that the Obama plan will lead to a complete meltdown in Iraq and the region thrown into a wider war.
Because everyone there now is dancing in the grass fields singing the praises of W.
:rolleyes:
acefree
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall I imagine the McCain approach is more favorable to the region. Considering that the Obama plan will lead to a complete meltdown in Iraq and the region thrown into a wider war.
Two days ago you said we should leave Iraq.
now you insinuate you disagree with leaving.
I know what your reply will be:
<Stonewall> " I never said exactly that. "
I know. you never say anything. all your posts are insinuation, inuendo, word games, and disingenuousness.
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by acefree Two days ago you said we should leave Iraq.
now you insinuate you disagree with leaving.
I know what your reply will be:
<Stonewall> " I never said exactly that. "
I know. you never say anything. all your posts are insinuation, inuendo, word games, and disingenuousness.
Careful, you're gonna get on NCStupid's shit-list for calling out his Sensai Stumpy.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall I imagine
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by acefree Two days ago you said we should leave Iraq.
stumpy "thinks" we should "leave all muslim lands"...except that is all the ones that we currently occupy. :jj:
actually he is just a racist
NC-Stern-Mark
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247 Careful, you're gonna get on NCStupid's shit-list for calling out his Sensai Stumpy.
:lol:
Nah, that was a very fair question.
I have questioned Stonewall on a lot of issues. Guess what? He will give you a answer and you go from there.
NC-Stern-Mark
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen stumpy "thinks" we should "leave all muslim lands"...except that is all the ones that we currently occupy. :jj:
actually he is just a racist
AcquiringSignal
Hey maybe McCain will a better hand holder and french kisser then GW Bush! Because our gas is still $4.00+ a gallon.
We know this is how Republicans do "backdoor" business.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark :lol:
Nah, that was a very fair question.
I have questioned Stonewall on a lot of issues. Guess what? He will give you a answer and you go from there.
no shit, forum-cop :rolleyes:
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
:)
NC-Stern-Mark
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen no shit, forum-cop :rolleyes:
I would suggest a nice warm soothing douche... :)
It will calm you.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark I would suggest a nice warm soothing douche... :)
It will calm you.
tell us all about it :rolleyes:
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stupid-Mark He will give you a answer and you go from there.
Exactly. You just go from there. Blindly accepting whatever delusional nonsense he spews.
:sleep:
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by acefree Two days ago you said we should leave Iraq.
now you insinuate you disagree with leaving.
I know what your reply will be:
<Stonewall> " I never said exactly that. "
I know. you never say anything. all your posts are insinuation, inuendo, word games, and disingenuousness.
We should leave Iraq.
Just because I believe the region will suffer when we leave that does not mean I believe we should stay.
I know usually people who say we should leave will then go on to say that everything will be better when we leave. As if telling the truth about this will then lead them to conclude we should stay in Iraq.
Me saying the opposite then creates confusion in peoples minds.
I'm one who believes madness will be the State of affairs region-wide in the middle east... and we should still leave.
The reason I believe that is because Iraq and even Afghanistan are wars that never-end. Especially for the U.S.. When we leave it will be bad but eventually a winner will emerge and then a sort of peace will be the norm. They will enjoy the peace of any Arab or Muslim country.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall We should leave Iraq.
yet you say mc same has a better plan for iraq
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen yet you say mc same has a better plan for iraq
Really? Where did I say that?
If you want to discuss the Obama plan or the McCain plan, I'm all for that.
Lets try to have you stay away from telling me what I have said. Post a quote. It gets tiresome responding to things I have never said, never thought. If you must do that at least make sure you are correct.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall Really? Where did I say that?
I thought you said that in the thread last night. so that is not the case?
a. yes
b. no
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen I thought you said that in the thread last night. so that is not the case?
a. yes
b. no
No.
MLBoros72s
An epic battle of the informed versus the confused.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall No.
so you do believe that mc same has the better plan for iraq? :drool:
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen so you do believe that mc same has the better plan for iraq? :drool:
Not for me.
Any plan that is put into action will have a result.
The McCain plan does not get the result I want.
Neither does the Obama plan.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall Not for me.
Any plan that is put into action will have a result.
The McCain plan does not get the result I want.
Neither does the Obama plan.
so between the two - it makes no difference to you...great
that seems odd considering how frequently you criticize obama's position.
mingmen
where is the thread examining the syntax of mc same's position on iraq? I missed it again :drool:
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall I imagine the McCain approach is more favorable to the region. Considering that the Obama plan will lead to a complete meltdown in Iraq and the region thrown into a wider war.
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
Is there a point you are making?
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall Is there a point you are making?
your imaginings
zimmie
lmao.....how comical it is to listen to Obama supporters spewing this BS about his "plan". He has no plan, if he were to win the election, we're not going leaving Iraq, it's pure bullshit and you guys eat bowl after bowl of it and beg for more.
NC-Stern-Mark
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247 Exactly. You just go from there. Blindly accepting whatever delusional nonsense he spews.
:sleep:
Now you know that is not true because there have been issues where I have disagreed with Stonewall. The point is he will answer a legitimate question and you can then continue the debate/discussion if you so wish. Stonewall is an honest debater.
I also don't relentlessly ridicule someone because I don't agree with some of their positions. We are all entitled to a opinion. Everyone does not think alike and to become as frustrated over that as you seem to be, actually reaching a point where you feel a person is not entitled to say anything because you disagreed with something he said is not healthy for one's mind or a democratic society. :)
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark Now you know that is not true because there have been issues where I have disagreed with Stonewall. The point is he will answer a legitimate question and you can then continue the debate/discussion if you so wish. Stonewall is an honest debater.
I also don't relentlessly ridicule someone because I don't agree with some of their positions. We are all entitled to a opinion. Everyone does not think alike and to become as frustrated over that as you seem to be, actually reaching a point where you feel a person is not entitled to say anything because you disagreed with something he said is not healthy for one's mind or a democratic society. :)
why don't you shut the fuck up with your pitiful projection. pay attention and you may learn something
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie lmao.....how comical it is to listen to Obama supporters spewing this BS about his "plan". He has no plan, if he were to win the election, we're not going leaving Iraq, it's pure bullshit and you guys eat bowl after bowl of it and beg for more.
I think he has to pull out. There is no doubt that the enemy in Iraq will step up attacks if Obama does not pull out. They would know he will just need a push.
NC-Stern-Mark
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen why don't you shut the fuck up with your pitiful projection. pay attention and you may learn something
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stupid-Mark The point is he will answer a legitimate question and you can then continue the debate/discussion if you so wish. Stonewall is an honest debater..... I also don't relentlessly ridicule someone because I don't agree with some of their positions.
You'd have to be a complete fucking moron to believe that, given all the evidence.
StoneTroll is a PROVEN LIAR.
He is ridiculed because he continues to spew DEBUNKED bullshit, much like VaCunt. There are plenty of people I don't agree with on every issue that I do not "ridicule". I even "like" them.
For you to think Stumpy is an "honest debater" is just more evidence that your judgment is absolute dogshit.
:shake:
NC-Stupid-Mark
Confused Member Meltingdown
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247 You'd have to be a complete fucking moron to believe that, given all the evidence.
StoneTroll is a PROVEN LIAR.
He is ridiculed because he continues to spew DEBUNKED bullshit, much like VaCunt. There are plenty of people I don't agree with on every issue that I do not "ridicule". I even "like" them.
For you to think Stumpy is an "honest debater" is just more evidence that your judgment is absolute dogshit.
:shake:
NC-Stupid-Mark
Confused Member Meltingdown
Show one time that I have been debunked.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall Show one time that I have been debunked.
your attempted linking of "State Interest" to the debate over the current CA marriage law dust-up
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall Show one time that I have been debunked.
your claim that you don't support Mc Same's mideast policy more than Obama's mideast policy
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen your attempted linking of "State Interest" to the debate over the current CA marriage law dust-up
I showed how the States view the State Interest in regard to marriage laws as they exist. Sorry if you could not handle that but that is not debunking me.
I do not support McCain's policy over Obama's. If I did I would say that and destroy any argument that you could produce against it. You act as if I am somehow holding back... That is funny.
One of these days you'll have to develop an argument of your own instead of just commenting on others and trying to twist what others say.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall I do not support McCain's policy over Obama's. If I did I would say that and destroy any argument that you could produce against it.
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I imagine the McCain approach is more favorable to the region. Considering that the Obama plan will lead to a complete meltdown in Iraq and the region thrown into a wider war.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall I showed how the States view the State Interest in regard to marriage laws as they exist.
and why did YOU bring up State Interest in the conversation?
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I imagine the McCain approach is more favorable to the region. Considering that the Obama plan will lead to a complete meltdown in Iraq and the region thrown into a wider war.
And I stand by that. The McCain approach is more favorable to the region.
You have, instead of asking me, just taken that to mean that I think the McCain approach is more favorable.
I have said over and over again that we should leave all Muslim Lands. What part of that are you hung up on? What part don't you understand?
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen and why did YOU bring up State Interest in the conversation?
I brought it up because the marriage laws came up as to reasoning. I explained it was not simply a contract but the State had an Interest. That Interest being procreation.
I explained it to you in that thread. Yet, you are confused still. Deliberately so.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall And I stand by that. The McCain approach is more favorable to the region.
You have, instead of asking me, just taken that to mean that I think the McCain approach is more favorable.
what distinction are you making here?
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by skipdrums
Marriage in the eyes of the law is a binding contract between two adults. Why can't two adults of the same sex get married? What difference does sex make?
Same-sex marriage bans are by definition, DISCRIMINATORY.
stumpynutz:
Marriage is, as far as the State goes a way to ensure or facilitate offspring. That is the State interest in the institution of marriage.
It is more than a simple contract. One of the complaints of those against gay marriage is that it will change the definition of marriage to the one you have described. Just a contract...
Now how did "State Interest" come up in regard to reasoning? :p
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen what distinction are you making here?
I have made a distinction between my own view of what is better vs the view of what is better for the Middle East.
Me saying that something is better for someone else does not mean it is better for me.
The Middle East will break down when we pull out of Iraq. That would be bad for Kuwait and Jordon and Saudi Arabia, places like that. But, it would be better for the U.S. if we did pull out.
Do we understand yet? Still confused?
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall You have, instead of asking me
I keep asking and you keep contradicting yourself
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall I have made a distinction between my own view of what is better vs the view of what is better for the Middle East.
so how do you feel about a "wider war". it is inconsequential to you?
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall Me saying that something is better for someone else does not mean it is better for me.
so between Mc Same and Obama - the plans are exactly equal to you?
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen Quote: Originally posted by skipdrums
Marriage in the eyes of the law is a binding contract between two adults. Why can't two adults of the same sex get married? What difference does sex make?
Same-sex marriage bans are by definition, DISCRIMINATORY.
stumpynutz:
Marriage is, as far as the State goes a way to ensure or facilitate offspring. That is the State interest in the institution of marriage.
It is more than a simple contract. One of the complaints of those against gay marriage is that it will change the definition of marriage to the one you have described. Just a contract...
Now how did "State Interest" come up in regard to reasoning? :p
I brought it up. The State Interest in marriage Laws would seem a normal topic when discussing marriage laws. Don't you think?
Either way you have not debunked me simply because I had shown the State Interest behind marriage laws. How does that debunk me considering that I was correct with the info even if you think it was unnecessary to bring up. People bring up things all the time to consider and doing so does not mean you are debunked. Unless the info is false.
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen I keep asking and you keep contradicting yourself
Show it.
You not understanding is on you, it is not a contradiction on my part.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall I brought it up. The State Interest in marriage Laws would seem a normal topic when discussing marriage laws. Don't you think?
Either way you have not debunked me simply because I had shown the State Interest behind marriage laws. How does that debunk me considering that I was correct with the info even if you think it was unnecessary to bring up.
you brought it up to argue that the State Interest had bearing on this law. which it does not
you have been debunked :p
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen so how do you feel about a "wider war". it is inconsequential to you?
It's not inconsequential but the alternative to that is America stays in Iraq to prevent it. Stays for generations.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall Show it.
You not understanding is on you, it is not a contradiction on my part.
Which part of the following quote do you disagree with:
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I imagine the McCain approach is more favorable to the region. Considering that the Obama plan will lead to a complete meltdown in Iraq and the region thrown into a wider war.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall It's not inconsequential but the alternative to that is America stays in Iraq to prevent it. Stays for generations.
I am asking if either of those is preferred by YOU.
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen you brought it up to argue that the State Interest had bearing on this law. which it does not
you have been debunked :p
I brought it up for the reason I stated I brought it up. That marriage in the law was not just a contract. There was a State Interest.
Your "Gotcha" mentality, is old and tiresome. You have never debunked me. When I am wrong I happily admit it because then I have learned something. You on the other hand stand by your idiocy as if it is something to defend and cherish.
:)
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall I brought it up for the reason I stated I brought it up. That marriage in the law was not just a contract. There was a State Interest.
which is unrelated to the discussion. see how that works? nice try but no one claimed that the state had no interest in marriage and you have still not established that the state has any interest in the law that was struck down
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen I am asking if either of those is preferred by YOU.
I believe the Obama plan would be better for getting to my stated goals. But, I think he could do it in a better way and actually plan for it rather than accidentally stumble into it. Obama's plan will do more than he believes it will... He's just going to do things the hard way, he could end up at the same result with a better starting plan. The problem is Obama does not seem to understand what his plan will actually do.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall Your "Gotcha" mentality, is old and tiresome.
Irony
i·ro·ny
b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall I believe the Obama plan would be better for getting to my stated goals.
which you believe to be in conflict to what is best for the region?
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen which is unrelated to the discussion. see how that works? nice try but no one claimed that the state had no interest in marriage and you have still not established that the state has any interest in the law that was struck down
Many times in a thread things are brought up which might be "unrelated". Not that I think discussing the rationale for marriage laws is unrelated to a discussion on marriage laws. I think those two fit perfectly.
You are so interested in getting a win that you don't realize you lost long ago.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall Many times in a thread things are brought up which might be "unrelated".
especially when you get involved and begin promoting your reich wing agenda
is our children learning?
:)
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen which you believe to be in conflict to what is best for the region?
In the immediate future, yes.
Eventually all wars end. The conflict that develops after the U.S. leaves Iraq, that will end too and then there will be a "peace" and the U.S. will have been gone for quite some time.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall You are so interested in getting a win that you don't realize you lost long ago.
do you admit that state interest has no bearing on the issue of whether the CA law should stand?
a. yes
b. no
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall In the immediate future, yes.
Eventually all wars end. The conflict that develops after the U.S. leaves Iraq, that will end too and then there will be a "peace" and the U.S. will have been gone for quite some time.
what? :p :crazy:
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen especially when you get involved and begin promoting your reich wing agenda
is our children learning?
:)
It was I who created that thread, remember?
I realize that reality is a tough thing for you to handle if that reality bumps up against what you want to be true, but me showing the State Interest behind marriage laws really is not a big deal. Really it is not. You just did not like it. You did not like that truth.
I feel your pain...
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall It was I who created that thread, remember?
I realize that reality is a tough thing for you to handle if that reality bumps up against what you want to be true, but me showing the State Interest behind marriage laws really is not a big deal.
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall The question was in regard to the State in regard to marriage.
Simply because some married do not have children does not mean that the State must disregard their justification of marriage laws. Why they have marriage laws. They have them because it is a State Interest to create families who will create offspring. Outside of that there is no reason for States to have marriage laws at all.
When did that become the question? And how is "State Interest" the answer to it? No one asked you what the state interest in marriage was.
:)
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall It was I who created that thread, remember?
I realize that reality is a tough thing for you to handle if that reality bumps up against what you want to be true, but me showing the State Interest behind marriage laws really is not a big deal. Really it is not. You just did not like it. You did not like that truth.
I feel your pain...
I am just trying to establish the relevance of your argument...but I think we can now agree that it was nothing more than your attempt at deflection from a ruling that you don't like.
is our stumpy learning?
:)
mingmen
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen do you admit that state interest has no bearing on the issue of whether the CA law should stand?
a. yes
b. no
I don't know. I have not read the CA Supreme Court decision and I am not sure how they dealt with it. Certainly by ruling the law unconstitutional they dismissed whatever got in their way in doing so.
That however has no bearing as to the State Interest in regard to the marriage law as it stood and the exchange I had with that other individual was not in regard to CA specifically but marriage laws in general in the States. At least that is how I responded to it. We at that point in the thread had been all over the place in that thread.
Generally when a Court is deciding a case in regard to a law they will have to consider the State Interest. In marriage Laws the rational basis test is the norm.
In affirmative action cases, the State violating the 14th Amendment, strict scrutiny is applied to the State Interest. If the State Interest is great enough than the 14th Amendment can be violated. They must show a compelling State Interest in doing so.
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen is our stumpy learning?
:)
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen I am just trying to establish the relevance of your argument...but I think we can now agree that it was nothing more than your attempt at deflection from a ruling that you don't like.
is our stumpy learning?
:)
It was my argument in regard to a specific post about the reasoning behind marriage laws and them not being merely contracts to the State, but that the State had an Interest.
Fdubya247
:drool:
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall It was my argument in regard to a specific post about the reasoning behind marriage laws and them not being merely contracts to the State, but that the State had an Interest.
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall If the State has no interest in procreation then the State should get out of the marriage business.
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen It was my argument in regard to a specific post about the reasoning behind marriage laws and them not being merely contracts to the State, but that the State had an Interest.
If the State has no interest in procreation then the State should get out of the marriage business.
Yes, as the conversation in regard to the State Interest proceeded, then we got into more things. But the original reason I brought it in was in regard to what is the State Interest behind the marriage law. It is not simply a contract.
When are you going to "debunk"?
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall When are you going to "debunk"?
Every retarded assertion you've ever made in this forum has been debunked dozens of times. Ask anyone (except your fawning Stupid Apprentice, PNStupid).
You are a fucking delusional nutjob, thus lucidity and reality is usually beyond you.
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247 Every retarded assertion you've ever made in this forum has been debunked dozens of times. Ask anyone (except your fawning Stupid Apprentice, PNStupid).
You are a fucking delusional nutjob, thus lucidity and reality is usually beyond you.
That sounds good. As with everything else you are wrong.
:)
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall That sounds good. As with everything else you are wrong.
:)
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
That is a funny picture... however it is old, make a new one.
:)
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall That is a funny picture... however it is old, make a new one.
:)
If you don't put in the effort why should I?
Carry on regurgitating the same debunked nonsense and psychotic ravings over and over again!
It doesn't make you look pathetic or crazy at all!
:hw:
NC-Stern-Mark
Put the dynumbic duo of Fdumbya and dingmen together in a thread and this is what you get. :rolleyes:
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark Put the dynumbic duo of Fdumbya and dingmen together in a thread and this is what you get. :rolleyes:
HAHAHAHAHAA
:)
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark Put the dynumbic duo of Fdumbya and dingmen together in a thread and this is what you get.
Way to embarrass yourself the entire evening, douche!!!
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall Yes, as the conversation in regard to the State Interest proceeded, then we got into more things. But the original reason I brought it in was in regard to what is the State Interest behind the marriage law.
yes, stupid - why did YOU bring that up?
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall That sounds good. As with everything else you are wrong.
:)
from you that is high praise
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark Put the dynumbic duo of Fdumbya and dingmen together in a thread and this is what you get. :rolleyes:
you have yet to address any issue at all.
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by StoneTroll HAHAHAHAHAA
This website is not affiliated with the Howard Stern Show. It is produced by fans for fans. We share no connection with Howard Stern, Sirius Radio, On Demand, CBS Broadcasting, E! TV or Infinity Broadcasting.
All posts and attachments are the responsibilities of their owners and not of this site.
