[Smash255]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Recessions and Depressions tend to do that, but they're better off than VT, and had plenty of boom times so that people could have saved money for bad times, if they were wise. But VT never had a good economy, and it's getting worse in VT. High taxes make it harder to get by when you're unemployed or underemployed. By the time all is said and done VT will be worse than those areas, the job losses are piling up and VT was already worse off...

Most of these areas have had higher unemployment than Vermont all along.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by yikesamillion

Oh bravo!

Ask the citizens of Vermont that are scattered among the mountains and the forests to vote on this issue in the next election. Same-sex marriage will be defeated by the Vermont voters the same way it has been in all the other states.

Homosexuality is an abomination against God and nature, and homosexual marriage will be null and void in the many other states that have banned it.

Most of all, arrogant leftist judges that rule from their benches and shun the Constitution should not be tolerated by anybody, regardless of anybody's personal opinion's about same-sex marriage.

Just because you disagree with a judge doesn't exactly imake the a leftest. Hell half of the judges involved have been appointed by conservative Republicans. the rest of this clap trap shouldn't be dignified with a response...

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Smash255

Most of these areas have had higher unemployment than Vermont all along.

Where? Those states have poor areas and areas that are well off. Jobs were available, but there's an insidious welfare culture in some of those states; many people prefer living off the system than working. You couldn't say Atlanta, GA during the good economy was worse off than VT, economically and as far as job availability is concerned. Now I wouldn't want to live in most of those areas but that's beside the point.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Smash255

Just because you disagree with a judge doesn't exactly imake the a leftest. Hell half of the judges involved have been appointed by conservative Republicans. the rest of this clap trap shouldn't be dignified with a response...

Civil unions were forced on the state by left-leaning judges. That's a fact. The people voted against homosexual marriages/unions, the judges forced it on the state. If this homosexual marriage thing were voted on today it would also lose.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Where? Those states have poor areas and areas that are well off. Jobs were available, but there's an insidious welfare culture in some of those states; many people prefer living off the system than working. You couldn't say Atlanta, GA during the good economy was worse off than VT, economically and as far as job availability is concerned. Now I wouldn't want to live in most of those areas but that's beside the point.

the job market there was generally comparable, and once you get into metro Atlanta the col differences between VT & there drop considerably compared to other portions of the state.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Civil unions were forced on the state by left-leaning judges. That's a fact. The people voted against homosexual marriages/unions, the judges forced it on the state. If this homosexual marriage thing were voted on today it would also lose.

I was talking about overall, CA, MA, IA, many of those judges were appointed by conservative Republican Governors. As for as a vote I think it would pass. It barely failed in California, and Vermont is further left than CA.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Smash255

I was talking about overall, CA, MA, IA, many of those judges were appointed by conservative Republican Governors. As for as a vote I think it would pass. It barely failed in California, and Vermont is further left than CA.

No, I wouldn't say those states had conservatives appointing judges. Those are all very liberal states, and even the Republicans there are really liberals, mostly.

Put to a vote it would fail in VT. CA is more liberal than VT.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

No, I wouldn't say those states had conservatives appointing judges. Those are all very liberal states, and even the Republicans there are really liberals, mostly.

Put to a vote it would fail in VT. CA is more liberal than VT.

Wilson (who was liberal at first but became more conservative during his tenure), Branndtad and Romney weren't all that liberal...

As far as CA, the Bay area, is perhaps more liberal than VT, but California also has areas such as Orange county, San diego county (outside of the city itself) the valley, which is much more conservative than anywhere in VT. While the Bay area might be more liberal, California as a whole isn't as liberal as Vermont.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Smash255

Wilson (who was liberal at first but became more conservative during his tenure), Branndtad and Romney weren't all that liberal...

As far as CA, the Bay area, is perhaps more liberal than VT, but California also has areas such as Orange county, San diego county (outside of the city itself) the valley, which is much more conservative than anywhere in VT. While the Bay area might be more liberal, California as a whole isn't as liberal as Vermont.

I think CA's more liberal laws on almost every subject speak for themselves.

Romney is no conservative.

[yikesamillion]

Originally Posted by Smash255

Just because you disagree with a judge doesn't exactly imake the a leftest. Hell half of the judges involved have been appointed by conservative Republicans. the rest of this clap trap shouldn't be dignified with a response...

Just because a judge was appointed by a conservative Republican does not make the judge a conservative Republican; and it does not mean that an appointed judge with conservative leanings judge will remain conservative as the years go by.

Have a look at the agenda of Supreme Court justices over the years. Dwight Eisenhower appointed associate justice Brennan. He was one of the most liberal judges the court ever had.

President Ford appointed John Paul Stevens, an associate judge that was considered the swing-vote of the court for many years until he became decidedly more liberal.

Mr. Reagan appointed Sandra O'Connor, a judge with conservative tendencies that became much more liberal with age.

It has to be the the powerful feeling these judges are overcome with when they are given the authority to rule. Legislating from their benches on societal issues like marriage is certainly stepping over the line.