Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This proves it, Schwazenegger is as fascist as Hitler

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 09:28 AM
Original message
This proves it, Schwazenegger is as fascist as Hitler
http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_052084723.html

Key words:

"It's time for the city to stop traveling down this dangerous path of ignoring the rule of law. That's my message..."

The spirit of law is flexible and humane.

The rule of law is Hitler shit, nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
glarius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. Schwarzenegger's law.."You can only grope people of the opposite sex!"
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. And only if you're a male with big muscles who prefers pumping to
you know... :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mojo2004 Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. But when is Kerry gonna take a stand....
Edited on Sat Feb-21-04 10:05 AM by mojo2004
Shrub and muscle boy have taken a stand against these marriages, is Kerry gonna say anything? Kerry's stated position is the same as shrub and Arnold, gay marriage no, civil unions yes. Here is a perfect opportunity for Kerry to show what kind of leader he is gonna be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Welcome to DU! But,
I have the feeling the repukes are contriving to get this to be a legitimate issue because they'd outright lose on everything else.

Couldn't this rush to marriages have waited until 2005 or so?

I'm gay. I can wait. I can't even get a date!

More importantly, the world runs on politics. Bush is using this as a means to boost support for himself.

Given how Nader's the judas goat despite a slew of other issues in Election 2000... will gays become the next victims by the Democrats after Election 2004 is over? It's just a thought...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mojo2004 Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. It could have and should have waited, but...
Edited on Sat Feb-21-04 10:23 AM by mojo2004
with everything going on, there is gonna be a huge push for a Constitutional Amendment to stop it. I am just afraid there is gonna be a huge anti-gay movement if more people don't speak out now to stop it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. gay people have been waiting
all this wait until this right time or that right time -- there is no right time waiting to do the right thing.
this is about equal under the law -- this is not radical or extreme -- radical is doling out marriage to only certain people who pass other certain peoples smell test as legitimate.
right now is the right time -- just as rosa parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus because she was too damn tired to give a shit any more.
now is the right time.
there was always going to be an ugly struggle over this issue -- but we shall over come.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
7. The media & republican meme on SF is that people are breaking the law.
It's really amazing how coordinated the effort is to cast this situation as one of lawlessness.

People getting married are being thrown together in the public conscience with rapists, murderers and pedophiles.

Certainly, this is no worse -- in the pantheon of lawlessness -- as a speeding ticket IF IT WERE against the law.

The fact is, it's NOT against the law. The city of SF has made an administrative ruling that this can happen. It is the law. Where the city and state law conflicts, it's up to the courts to decide what the law really is. Until they resolve it there are two laws, and no law violators. It's up to a court of law to decide what the law is from the moment forward from the decision. And you can't punish people retroactively, so what's going on now clearly isn't agains the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. I might agree if SF had enacted legislation to permit it
but this is not the case, only a mayor saying it is OK with him if the law is broken.

It is breaking the law, make no mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
8. Ah-nold demonstrated what he really thinks of the rule of law
when he violated those campaign funding rules last year.

Or when he violated his visa way back when.

Or...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. As the governor, wouldn't you expect him to support the existing law?
We expected that from the government of Alabama when judge Moore was breaking the law, why not from Arnold?

Does he ever say that he supports the law? He did not write the law, I believe it was voted on by the people of the state.

Do you think the people of the state of California are Nazis too?

I don't agree with the law, but it's not hard to see why the governor would say that he will enforce it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. Didn't we discuss this topic on DU ad nauseum?....
Sure wish some people would respond to the original threads rather than make new ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-04 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. so arnie... which is the bigger threat to the "sanctity of marraige"
philandering, groping, and doing it publically so your wife has to deal with the public shame and demonstrating to your children how sacred YOU take your wedding vows making them more likely to do the same (or tolerate it) when they grow up? Or a committed couple who happen to be of the same sex?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 24th 2024, 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC