Dr. Tyler; Captain America

"HAH! I eat these Democrats for breakfast. Dean thought I did a number on him in the primaries... wait until I unleash my trump card. ZELL! LOOK WHO I FOUND! "Reporting for duty, sir!" "I want you to destroy them." "Right away, sir." Meanwhile, at Dean headquarters... "YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! WE'VE GOT TO HIT THEM WITH A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE!" "Well, I do have an idea... ... ... "You rang?" "MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! EAT THAT, MILLER!!!!!! Will Fatty Moore be able to counter Rumsfeld's striking paw? What about the evil eye? Can Dean take the upper hand on Zell Miller once and for all? Find out... next time! To be continued...

Haha, nice job, Slapnuts. For once.

More analysis of Zell's lies by the DNC. http://www.democrats.org/news/200409020007.html

The first one's the only real angry one though.

If you can't understand that you're pulling clauses of this proposed FMA out of thin air--specifically the fact that it's only a basic definition and states can do as they wish--then I've been made obsolete. This thread is a self-parody of everything that is wrong with CE. Mike's been provided with solid evidence--PRIMARY SOURCES, even--that show the Federal Marriage Amendment is banning gay marriage. "MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES SHALL CONSIST ONLY OF A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN" There is nothing to argue here. There is no wiggle room there. There is nothing open to interpretation vis a vis some crafty constitutional interpretation. This is the epitome of partisan retardedness. Mike can't admit that he's wrong, that Bush is wrong, and that FMA is wrong. Instead, he pulls shit out of thin air, stating that this MUST BE WHAT THEY MEANT--even though it was never even remotely implied by FMA's authors--because that's what Mike says. This is why people hate CE.

Look. Seriously. There is no wiggle room there. The langauge is very clear. ONLY between a man and a woman. No state constitution shall be construed to say otherwise. Full faith and credit my ass--this is a ban. Stop being a moron and admit you've been wrong about this the whole time. Admit that you supported this amendment without reading it and you're trying to defend it because you don't want to admit that you're wrong. And let's move on. There are more important topics to discuss than this one. There is no chance for you to win this argument; you can't argue with fact. Seriously. There's no way to do it.

"MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES SHALL CONSIST ONLY OF A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHATCHU GONNA DO, BITCH?"

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" ... You can't make this shit up.

Is anyone besides Mike reading this and failing to see how the Amendment clearly and frankly spells out that marriage outside of a man and a woman will be outlawed for everyone? "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" This doesn't leave much wiggle room for states to say "Well, we allow gay marriage!" Unless they LEAVE THE UNION, they're IN THE UNITED STATES. If marriage in the United States--yeah, that includes all of the individual states--consists only of a man and a woman, the states cannot say "Well, we think it should be between any two adults!" You know why? Federalism. State constitutions cannot trump the federal constitution, and if this amendment passed, the federal constitution would clearly and vividly state that:

What part of "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" is so lost on YOU?

What is your major malfunction in not seeing the first sentence of this ban? Are any of our states exempted from being in the United States, and thus allowing them free reign over their marriage laws?

Double post, but I'll use it to say "good call" on giving Paul H. teh boot.

There was really no question as to what it would say. Mike's argument is simply a straw man to try and justify FMA by state's rights standards. FMA would disallow any state from choosing whether or not they accept gay marriage. It's VERY clear in its language. That's why Dick Cheney opposes it.

That'd be AWESOME... if that's what the amendment said.

Yeah, that scared me too, KKK...

Since Zell is supporting Bush-Cheney '04, it's more than material. It's hypocritical.

Basically.

Nor do you, and yet you keep posting.

Blitzer & co. dismember Miller's speech (my comments in italics)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/2/05830/98912

HAHA! Zell Miller makes Howard Dean look like the poster child for mental stability.

Mwahahahhahaha. WILLIS. MCGAHEE.

"ZELL MILLER DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE CONFUSED. ZELL MILLER DOESN'T FLIP FLOP. LOOK, DON'T MAKE ZELL MILLER FUCKING KILL YOU, COCKSUCKER. ZELL MILLER WILL KILL YOU LIKE ZELL MILLER KILLED CHRIS MATTHEWS. PUNK ASS BITCH."

Gee golly, it doesn't seem like ol' Zell had a problem with John's focus on defense in that speech, does it? He went out of his way to mention his committment to strengthening the military. He could've focused on domestic issues, but... ... Yes, that's right. "JOHN HAS WORKED TO STRENGTHEN OUR MILITARY!"