PDA

View Full Version : Will Queers still be allowed to 'Marry' ?



Pages : [1] 2

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:19 AM
New Christian Conservative SC Court and their views on Queers.

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:25 AM
Pretty sure Christians aren't going to condone 2 guys butt-fucking each other. (anybody really think Mayor Pete had a chance at being President)

Jarod
09-25-2020, 08:27 AM
Cant put that paste back in the tube.

CFM
09-25-2020, 08:29 AM
Pretty sure Christians aren't going to condone 2 guys butt-fucking each other. (anybody really think Mayor Pete had a chance at being President)

Mayor Pete not having a chance to be President had nothing to do with his chosen sexual orientation.

Jarod
09-25-2020, 08:30 AM
The Right will not do anything to excite the left. They do not really care who gets married, they care about making the rich richer, and if culture wars are necessary, they will pretend to fight them.

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:37 AM
Cant put that paste back in the tube.

Well. Let's see what happens. My Opinion:

Queers can 'Marry', ... but it can't be called that. It has to be called something different. Men and Women 'Marry'. Queers can have 'Civil Unions', 'Domestic Partnerships', 'Pairiages', something that signifies it as a 'Gay Marriage', distinct from a 'Real Marriage' between a Man and a Woman that can have biological children.

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:38 AM
Mayor Pete not having a chance to be President had nothing to do with his chosen sexual orientation.

So you would have voted for him? Interesting.

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:40 AM
The Right will not do anything to excite the left. They do not really care who gets married, they care about making the rich richer, and if culture wars are necessary, they will pretend to fight them.

The 'Right' is more than just the Jesus Freaks, but the Jesus Freaks wield a lot of Power, and Trump knows what his base wants.

Jarod
09-25-2020, 08:42 AM
Well. Let's see what happens. My Opinion:

Queers can 'Marry', ... but it can't be called that. It has to be called something different. Men and Women 'Marry'. Queers can have 'Civil Unions', 'Domestic Partnerships', 'Pairiages', something that signifies it as a 'Gay Marriage', distinct from a 'Real Marriage' between a Man and a Woman that can have biological children.

How are they going to legislate what they call it?

Jarod
09-25-2020, 08:43 AM
The 'Right' is more than just the Jesus Freaks, but the Jesus Freaks wield a lot of Power, and Trump knows what his base wants.

But if he gives it to them, they will calm down and stop voting. You gotta keep the fight going.

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:44 AM
How are they going to legislate what they call it?

How did the 'legislate' Civil Unions in the Past?

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:46 AM
But if he gives it to them, they will calm down and stop voting. You gotta keep the fight going.

:laugh: Apparently you have No Idea what the Jesus Freaks are up to. :|

Jarod
09-25-2020, 08:50 AM
How did the 'legislate' Civil Unions in the Past?

They will still call it marriage.

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:55 AM
They will still call it marriage.

Well, that's the beauty of it.

1. Queers will call it 'Marriage', and have the EXACT same Rights as any other married couple.
2. The Jesus Freaks will gladly point out it's NOT MARRIAGE, and be able to legally point out it's a 'Civil Union' (or what ever it's eventually called).

Both sides will 'Win'. Or at least claim one.

Jarod
09-25-2020, 08:57 AM
Well, that's the beauty of it.

1. Queers will call it 'Marriage', and have the EXACT same Rights as any other married couple.
2. The Jesus Freaks will gladly point out it's NOT MARRIAGE, and be able to legally point out it's a 'Civil Union' (or what ever it's eventually called).

Both sides will 'Win'. Or at least claim one.

They do that now...

BTW, most mainstream Churches allow same sex marriage.

Jack
09-25-2020, 09:02 AM
They do that now?

Jesus Freaks haven't accepted 'Gay Marriage'.
Biblical Law states Homosexuals are an abomination. So ... how can you, using 'Biblical Law', condone 2 guys butt- fucking each other?

Jarod. Why do you think putting a Christian Conservative on the Supreme Court is so important?

Jarod
09-25-2020, 09:07 AM
Jesus Freaks haven't accepted 'Gay Marriage'.
Biblical Law states Homosexuals are an abomination. So ... how can you, using 'Biblical Law', condone 2 guys butt- fucking each other?

Jarod. Why do you think putting a Christian Conservative on the Supreme Court is so important?

They do not have to condone it.

Damocles
09-25-2020, 09:10 AM
Jesus Freaks haven't accepted 'Gay Marriage'.
Biblical Law states Homosexuals are an abomination. So ... how can you, using 'Biblical Law', condone 2 guys butt- fucking each other?

Jarod. Why do you think putting a Christian Conservative on the Supreme Court is so important?

Why would Biblical Law be allowed to dictate the actions of folks that believe differently? You think it is "gross" (except in your fantasies) so you want to make it illegal? Your sky daddy is better so all law should be based on it?

Nonsense. We have a First Amendment that allows folks to believe differently than you, and act differently too.

Jarod
09-25-2020, 09:13 AM
Why would Biblical Law be allowed to dictate the actions of folks that believe differently? You think it is "gross" (except in your fantasies) so you want to make it illegal? Your sky daddy is better so all law should be based on it?

Nonsense. We have a First Amendment that allows folks to believe differently than you, and act differently too.

Do you support having a justice on the Supreme Court that thinks religious law should be used?

Damocles
09-25-2020, 09:27 AM
Do you support having a justice on the Supreme Court that thinks religious law should be used?

I support a SCOTUS of folks that are all Scalia clones.

CharacterAssassin
09-25-2020, 09:29 AM
New Christian Conservative SC Court and their views on Queers.

Yes, you'll be able to marry and still take your husband's cock up your ass.

The two really have nothing to do with each other, ya old queen.

Jack
09-25-2020, 09:31 AM
They do not have to condone it.

:laugh: They don't condone it. And are mandated by God to change it.
These are the same people that put 'In God we Trust' on our Currency and put 'Under God' in our Pledge.
I'm not sure you really understand the Christian Agenda, Jarod.

Jack
09-25-2020, 09:33 AM
Why would Biblical Law be allowed to dictate the actions of folks that believe differently? You think it is "gross" (except in your fantasies) so you want to make it illegal? Your sky daddy is better so all law should be based on it?

Nonsense. We have a First Amendment that allows folks to believe differently than you, and act differently too.

Why is the nomination and appointment of a Conservative Christian to the Supreme Court such a Big Deal?

Damocles
09-25-2020, 09:36 AM
Why is the nomination and appointment of a Conservative Christian to the Supreme Court such a Big Deal?

If they plan to take an Oath to uphold the constitution then break that oath to make you feel bad about your homosexual fantasies then I would, as a constitutional conservative, fight such a nominee. If they take their word to their God seriously and uphold folks' right to believe differently than they do, I'm good with such a nominee.

Jack
09-25-2020, 09:37 AM
Yes, you'll be able to marry and still take your husband's cock up your ass.

The two really have nothing to do with each other, ya old queen.

If that really is the case, the 'Left' is just overreacting to the nomination of this Christian Conservative Woman.
I'm guessing when you see a sign that says "Work will make you Free', ... you really believe it.

Jack
09-25-2020, 09:39 AM
If they plan to take an Oath to uphold the constitution then break that oath to make you feel bad about your homosexual fantasies then I would, as a constitutional conservative, fight such a nominee. If they take their word to their God seriously and uphold folks' right to believe differently than they do, I'm good with such a nominee.

To Christians ... 'God's Law' is over 'Man's Law'.

Damocles
09-25-2020, 09:43 AM
To Christians ... 'God's Law' is over 'Man's Law'.

That's why the Oath is taken "so help me God"... If you take your relationship to this God seriously, then your Oath would mean something and you would uphold the rights enumerated in the constitution, even if you really want to feel guilty about your homosexual fantasies you would know that other folks have a God-given right to believe in a different religion than yours and therefore act differently than you.

Jack
09-25-2020, 09:50 AM
That's why the Oath is taken "so help me God"... If you take your relationship to this God seriously, then your Oath would mean something and you would uphold the rights enumerated in the constitution, even if you really want to feel guilty about your homosexual fantasies, you would know that other folks have a right to believe in a different religion than yours and therefore act differently than you.

The Christian Agenda is to spread 'Christian Sharia Law' (Biblical Law), no matter what it takes. You can fool yourself, or you can try to fool others. There's a reason the Christian Conservatives are rushing through with this nomination. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the Supreme Court for a generation to come.

Why are Secular Humanists so against this?

Damocles
09-25-2020, 09:51 AM
The Christian Agenda is to spread 'Christian Sharia Law' (Biblical Law), no matter what it takes. You can fool yourself, or you can try to fool others. There's a reason the Christian Conservatives are rushing through with this nomination. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the Supreme Court for a generation to come.

Why are Secular Humanists so against this?

I am not. Just being a Christian would not be the reason to vote for or against a nominee. How has she ruled on such issues in the past? (And the idea that all Christians all are the same in ideology is as absurd as saying that all white folks are the same).

Truth Detector
09-25-2020, 09:52 AM
New Christian Conservative SC Court and their views on Queers.

Calling them "queers" makes you look stupid.

Truth Detector
09-25-2020, 09:53 AM
The Right will not do anything to excite the left. They do not really care who gets married, they care about making the rich richer, and if culture wars are necessary, they will pretend to fight them.

So you're okay with JackOFF calling them queers? :palm:

Jack
09-25-2020, 09:55 AM
I am not. Just being a Christian would not be the reason to vote for or against a nominee. How has she ruled on such issues in the past? (And the idea that all Christians all are the same in ideology is as absurd as saying that all white folks are the same).

"‘The dogma lives loudly in you’: Dianne Feinstein’s grilling of Trump SCOTUS frontrunner for her devout catholicism goes viral"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-diana-feinstein-ruth-bader-ginsburg-b512741.html

"A place on the court is a lifetime position and if a justice is appointed by Mr Trump, it would likely give the court a Conservative super majority that could stand for decades."

Arks&sparka
09-25-2020, 09:57 AM
The 'Right' is more than just the Jesus Freaks, but the Jesus Freaks wield a lot of Power, and Trump knows what his base wants.

Des Moines during his campaign but his campaign was he spotted holding a pride flag?

https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/carlo-allegri-donald-trump-lgbt-flag-2016-presidential-election.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1600&h=900&crop=1

Trump is the only President I've ever seen do this during the campaign. Barack Obama said during his campaigns that marriage should be between a man and a woman Hillary Clinton said it when she was running against him. As it stands now Trump is the first person that has run for president openly supported LGBT people in his campaign.

Also there are a lot of Jesus freaks on the Democrat side. To say that it's a strictly Republican thing is really to be willfully ignorant of reality.

Jarod
09-25-2020, 10:06 AM
:laugh: They don't condone it. And are mandated by God to change it.
These are the same people that put 'In God we Trust' on our Currency and put 'Under God' in our Pledge.
I'm not sure you really understand the Christian Agenda, Jarod.

I understand that that is the agenda of some Christians. My point is that just because it is legal does not mean they condone it.

Jarod
09-25-2020, 10:06 AM
Des Moines during his campaign but his campaign was he spotted holding a pride flag?

https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/carlo-allegri-donald-trump-lgbt-flag-2016-presidential-election.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1600&h=900&crop=1

Trump is the only President I've ever seen do this during the campaign. Barack Obama said during his campaigns that marriage should be between a man and a woman Hillary Clinton said it when she was running against him. As it stands now Trump is the first person that has run for president openly supported LGBT people in his campaign.

Also there are a lot of Jesus freaks on the Democrat side. To say that it's a strictly Republican thing is really to be willfully ignorant of reality.

Yes, Trump himself has said that marriage amongst homosexuals yes settled law. It’s one of the few issues I agree with him about.h

Arks&sparka
09-25-2020, 10:28 AM
Yes, Trump himself has said that marriage amongst homosexuals yes settled law. It’s one of the few issues I agree with him about.h

He's the only one I've ever seen do that.

I was in highschool in the late 90s I was in the Catholic Church. I was also deep in the closet. Things have changed a lot since then.

Sure some Bible beaters still exist but they are the Fringe.

Minister of Truth
09-25-2020, 10:37 AM
New Christian Conservative SC Court and their views on Queers.

They'll be allowed to same-sex marry.

Jack
09-25-2020, 10:51 AM
They'll be allowed to same-sex marry.

That's blasphemy. Infidels like yourself will be burned at the Stake. (May God have Mercy on your Soul) :(

Legion
09-25-2020, 02:27 PM
The Right will not do anything to excite the left.

Except replace RBG? :rofl2:

Legion
09-25-2020, 02:28 PM
He's the only one I've ever seen do that.

I was in highschool in the late 90s I was in the Catholic Church. I was also deep in the closet. Things have changed a lot since then.

Sure some Bible beaters still exist but they are the Fringe.

I don't recall any leftists criticizing Islamists for their views on homosexuality.

Arks&sparka
09-25-2020, 03:11 PM
I don't recall any leftists criticizing Islamists for their views on homosexuality.

No they don't. In fact I've been called islamophobic for pointing out that Islam prescribes my death. I guess I'm naziphobic for the same reason.

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 03:14 PM
Pretty sure Christians aren't going to condone 2 guys butt-fucking each other. (anybody really think Mayor Pete had a chance at being President)

The gays will probably be safe until things get bad enough that the Right needs to use them as a scapegoat again.

Minister of Truth
09-25-2020, 03:42 PM
The gays will probably be safe until things get bad enough that the Right needs to use them as a scapegoat again.

I prefer to scapegoat Marxists, because, they deserve anything bad that happens to them.

Legion
09-25-2020, 03:42 PM
The gays will probably be safe until things get bad enough that the Right needs to use them as a scapegoat again.

When did that happen?

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 03:44 PM
I prefer to scapegoat Marxists, because, they deserve anything bad that happens to them.

Scapegoating anyone is basic.
And Marxists aren't bad people like Fascists, they're just wrong. Collective ownership is a bad idea, but I wouldn't say it's immoral.

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 03:48 PM
When did that happen?

It has happened a lot throughout Western history. The most recent example in America was probably when Bush was running for reelection. He relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage.
Looking back it's kinda funny, since that would never work today. Today's Moderates are pro-choice and support gay rights.

Minister of Truth
09-25-2020, 03:48 PM
Scapegoating anyone is basic.
And Marxists aren't bad people like Fascists, they're just wrong. Collective ownership is a bad idea, but I wouldn't say it's immoral.

It is both wrong and immoral. They have also killed exponentially more people than fascists.

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 03:51 PM
It is both wrong and immoral. They have also killed exponentially more people than fascists.

How is it immoral?

And no, the Soviets and the Maoists didn't have collective ownership.

Minister of Truth
09-25-2020, 03:52 PM
How is it immoral?

And no, the Soviets and the Maoists didn't have collective ownership.

The right to property is a natural right. It shouldn't be a mystery to people who live in America.

In Communist societies, you don't actually get to own anything for yourself.

Legion
09-25-2020, 03:53 PM
It has happened a lot throughout Western history. The most recent example in America was probably when Bush was running for reelection. He relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage.

Then you should be able to cite numerous examples with provenance.

Why are you limiting your ambiguous claim to "Western history"?


The most recent example in America was probably when Bush was running for reelection. He relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage.

"Probably"?

Legion
09-25-2020, 03:54 PM
The right to property is a natural right. It shouldn't be a mystery to people who live in America.

In Communist societies, you don't actually get to own anything for yourself.

Looting is justified, according to some folks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z4glUEqqs4

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 03:55 PM
The right to property is a natural right. It shouldn't be a mystery to people who live in America.

So this is a big misconception. Socialists believe in personal property, they don't believe in private property. Personal property is the things you own, while private property is the means of production.
So in a Socialist society, I can't just walk into your house and leave with your TV. However, if you own a business and hire me, I now own part of that business.

Minister of Truth
09-25-2020, 03:58 PM
So this is a big misconception. Socialists believe in personal property, they don't believe in private property. Personal property is the things you own, while private property is the means of production.
So in a Socialist society, I can't just walk into your house and leave with your TV. However, if you own a business and hire me, I now own part of that business.

There is no such difference, so, socialists are full of shit as per always. In practice, however, socialists have been bad at actually respecting the faux difference.

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 04:08 PM
Why are you limiting your ambiguous claim to "Western history"?

Because in countries outside of the West, homophobia is a lot more common. It's just in the West that we've mostly moved past it, though the establishment will still use it as a political tool here and there.


"Probably"?

Well it's possible there is a more recent example. But off the top of my head, the most recent one was Bush's reelection.

Doc Dutch
09-25-2020, 04:08 PM
New Christian Conservative SC Court and their views on Queers.Doesn't matter. They still have to rule based upon the Constitution. Dred Scott was a mistake that won't be repeated meaning SCOTUS won't remove freedoms. Besides, it's a 14th Amendment issue.

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 04:10 PM
There is no such difference, so, socialists are full of shit as per always. In practice, however, socialists have been bad at actually respecting the faux difference.

That's a huge difference! Socialists believe people should be allowed to own property, just not the means of production. You were saying that Socialists don't want people owning any property.

Legion
09-25-2020, 04:13 PM
Because in countries outside of the West, homophobia is a lot more common. It's just in the West that we've mostly moved past it, though the establishment will still use it as a political tool here and there. Well it's possible there is a more recent example. But off the top of my head, the most recent one was Bush's reelection.

So you give the histories of Islamic, African, and Asian societies a pass because their "homophobia is a lot more common"?

And you have no verifiable examples of something you claimed "has happened a lot throughout Western history", apparently


It has happened a lot throughout Western history. The most recent example in America was probably when Bush was running for reelection. He relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage.

Let's see your proof that "Bush relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage."

Legion
09-25-2020, 04:16 PM
And Marxists aren't bad people like Fascists.

Is that so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity_under_communist_regimes

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 04:20 PM
So you give the histories of Islamic, African, and Asian societies a pass because their :"homophobia is a lot more common"?

Oh, FFS! I'm not giving them a pass, snowflake. I'm saying that homophobia doesn't reemerge in those societies for political reasons because it's always there.


And you have no verifiable examples of something you claimed "has happened a lot throughout Western history", apparently

Did I not give you the Bush example?


Let's see your proof that "Bush relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage."

:laugh:

Did you not live through this period? I'm positive that you're older than me.
https://www.cato.org/blog/did-gay-marriage-bans-help-bush-win-2004

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 04:20 PM
Is that so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity_under_communist_regimes

Which of those countries had collective ownership?

Doc Dutch
09-25-2020, 04:28 PM
That's a huge difference! Socialists believe people should be allowed to own property, just not the means of production. You were saying that Socialists don't want people owning any property.Is that so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity_under_communist_regimes

I fully support walling off Greensboro every year for an annual Nazis/KKK vs the Commies and Socialists Turkey Shoot.

Gear up, boys! $$300 entry fee for participants and $100 PPV fee for those who want to watch on wall-to-wall cameras of the action!!!! All proceeds go to local charities and Americans supporting a Free America.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article237007024.html
Long before the Charlottesville car attack in 2017 and the Charleston church shooting in 2015, there was the Greensboro Massacre.

On Nov. 3, 1979, Klansmen and America Nazis arrived at a “Death to the Klan” protest held by members of the Communist Workers Party at a public housing complex in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Guns were drawn. When the chaos cleared, five anti-Klan demonstrators between the ages of 25 and 36 were dead and at least 10 more were injured, according to historical record.



FWIW, I strongly doubt either of you two keyboard kommandos would ever show up.

Legion
09-25-2020, 04:30 PM
Oh, FFS! I'm not giving them a pass.


Yes, you are.


Did I not give you the Bush example?


No. You expressed an opinion.



https://www.cato.org/blog/did-gay-marriage-bans-help-bush-win-2004

That's another opinion, and the writer doesn't confirm what you claimed.

Here's the full text:

Dan Balz writes in the Washington Post, as many reporters have this week,

In 2004, Republicans used ballot initiatives barring same‐​sex marriage to spur turnout among their conservative voters. That strategy helped then‐​President George W. Bush win reelection.

But did it? I argued in 2006 that it didn’t:

It’s true that states with such initiatives voted for Bush at higher rates than other states, but that’s mostly because the bans were proposed in conservative states. In fact, Bush’s share of the vote rose just slightly less in the marriage‐​ban states than in the other states: up 2.6 percent in the states with marriage bans on the ballot, up 2.9 percent in the other states.

Political scientist Simon Jackman of Stanford has more here (pdf). He concludes that the marriage referenda tended to increase turnout but not to increase Bush’s share of the vote. And in a county‐​by‐​county analysis of Ohio, he found no clear relationship between increased turnout, support for the marriage ban, and increased support for Bush.

Matthew Dowd made the same point yesterday:

Speaking from experience as the chief strategist in 2004 for President Bush, I saw in close detail how little gay marriage could influence turnout of conservatives or evangelicals. In 2003 and 2004, we did a series of public opinion tests on different messages related to the micro targeting project that would cause voter groups to turn out more in President Bush’s favor. We tested social issues as well as messages related to the economy, national security, taxes and the size of the federal government. Not a single social issue (which included gay marriage) fell on the effectiveness scale in the top eight messages.

Further, in analyzing the election returns in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential race an interesting set of data was revealed. In states that had gay marriage amendments on the ballot including key target states, there was no statistical difference in turnout of conservatives from states that did not have these amendments on the ballot. Gay marriage had no effect on turnout even among the most conservative potential voters in both the data before Election Day and the returns on Election Day.

Other senior officials from the 2004 Bush campaign confirm: It wasn’t gay marriage that brought social conservatives to the polls, it was national security and the war on terror.

At any rate, as Balz noted, the politics of gay marriage have changed for sure, in Ohio and elsewhere.

This was your claim:


He relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage.

So, once more, you have no verifiable evidence to prove your assertion, and it appears that you either didn't read the source opinion article you cited, or didn't understand it, or...you were hoping I wouldn't discover that it doesn't support your argument.

Legion
09-25-2020, 04:32 PM
Which of those countries had collective ownership?

Evasive, aren't you?


Marxists aren't bad people like Fascists.

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 04:35 PM
Evasive, aren't you?

I'm saying that none of those countries were Marxist. Think I'm wrong? Tell me which ones had collective ownership.

Minister of Truth
09-25-2020, 04:37 PM
That's a huge difference! Socialists believe people should be allowed to own property, just not the means of production. You were saying that Socialists don't want people owning any property.

I don't give a fuck what lunacy those deplorables believe. The means of production is property. Also, socialists clearly don't want people owning any property, because, they always end up controlling it, or worse.

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 04:37 PM
That's another opinion, and the writer doesn't confirm what you claimed.

My claim was that Bush used homophobia in his reelection campaign. The writer is saying that's not what brought people to vote for Bush, but is still acknowledging Bush's anti-gay strategy. So Balz is agreeing with me.

Legion
09-25-2020, 04:38 PM
I'm saying that none of those countries were Marxist.

You're evasive, and disingenuous.

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 04:38 PM
You're evasive, and disingenuous.

#projection

None of those countries had Marxist governments.

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 04:41 PM
I don't give a fuck what lunacy those deplorables believe. The means of production is property. Also, socialists clearly don't want people owning any property, because, they always end up controlling it, or worse.

The means of production is a form of property. Socialists believe people should be allowed to own property, except for this one specific type of property.

And no, the Soviets and Maoists still weren't Socialists.

Legion
09-25-2020, 04:47 PM
My claim was that Bush used homophobia in his reelection campaign. The writer is saying that's not what brought people to vote for Bush, but is still acknowledging Bush's anti-gay strategy. Balz is agreeing with me.

This was your claim:


He relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage.


The writer is saying that's not what brought people to vote for Bush, but is still acknowledging Bush's anti-gay strategy. Balz is agreeing with me.

"Balz" is cited in the article you attempted to pass of as "evidence" for your claim that "Bush relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage" saying "In 2004, Republicans used ballot initiatives barring same‐​sex marriage to spur turnout among their conservative voters. That strategy helped then‐​President George W. Bush win reelection."

Do you understand the difference between your claim that "Bush relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage" is a fact, and the opinion of "Balz, who said, "That strategy helped then‐​President George W. Bush win reelection"?

The author of the the article you attempted to pass of as "evidence" for your claim that "Bush relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage" plainly states "Bush’s share of the vote rose just slightly less in the marriage‐​ban states than in the other states: up 2.6 percent in the states with marriage bans on the ballot, up 2.9 percent in the other states."

Additional, he cites Simon Jackman, who concluded, "the marriage referenda tended to increase turnout but not to increase Bush’s share of the vote", and quotes Matthew Dowd, who said, "Speaking from experience as the chief strategist in 2004 for President Bush, I saw in close detail how little gay marriage could influence turnout of conservatives or evangelicals. In 2003 and 2004, we did a series of public opinion tests on different messages related to the micro targeting project that would cause voter groups to turn out more in President Bush’s favor. We tested social issues as well as messages related to the economy, national security, taxes and the size of the federal government. Not a single social issue (which included gay marriage) fell on the effectiveness scale in the top eight messages. Further, in analyzing the election returns in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential race an interesting set of data was revealed. In states that had gay marriage amendments on the ballot including key target states, there was no statistical difference in turnout of conservatives from states that did not have these amendments on the ballot. Gay marriage had no effect on turnout even among the most conservative potential voters in both the data before Election Day and the returns on Election Day."

The article concludes with "Other senior officials from the 2004 Bush campaign confirm: It wasn’t gay marriage that brought social conservatives to the polls, it was national security and the war on terror."

Your claim is unproven.

Legion
09-25-2020, 04:49 PM
#projection None of those countries had Marxist governments.

You're evasive, and disingenuous.

Doc Dutch
09-25-2020, 04:51 PM
Evasive, aren't you?

Is he?

Doc Dutch
09-25-2020, 04:52 PM
You're evasive, and disingenuous.

Is he really? Aren't you too?

Doc Dutch
09-25-2020, 04:55 PM
Your claim is unproven.
Is it?

Are these friends of yours?
https://assets.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/no-slug/d49809d0146c7dbdcfbc5e25d90c63a7.jpg

Minister of Truth
09-25-2020, 05:26 PM
The means of production is a form of property. Socialists believe people should be allowed to own property, except for this one specific type of property.

And no, the Soviets and Maoists still weren't Socialists.

They controlled the means of production, which fits the socialists' own insufficient definition of property. Again, in practice, socialists do not support property rights.

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 05:47 PM
This was your claim:





"Balz" is cited in the article you attempted to pass of as "evidence" for your claim that "Bush relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage" saying "In 2004, Republicans used ballot initiatives barring same‐​sex marriage to spur turnout among their conservative voters. That strategy helped then‐​President George W. Bush win reelection."

Do you understand the difference between your claim that "Bush relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage" is a fact, and the opinion of "Balz, who said, "That strategy helped then‐​President George W. Bush win reelection"?

The author of the the article you attempted to pass of as "evidence" for your claim that "Bush relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage" plainly states "Bush’s share of the vote rose just slightly less in the marriage‐​ban states than in the other states: up 2.6 percent in the states with marriage bans on the ballot, up 2.9 percent in the other states."

Additional, he cites Simon Jackman, who concluded, "the marriage referenda tended to increase turnout but not to increase Bush’s share of the vote", and quotes Matthew Dowd, who said, "Speaking from experience as the chief strategist in 2004 for President Bush, I saw in close detail how little gay marriage could influence turnout of conservatives or evangelicals. In 2003 and 2004, we did a series of public opinion tests on different messages related to the micro targeting project that would cause voter groups to turn out more in President Bush’s favor. We tested social issues as well as messages related to the economy, national security, taxes and the size of the federal government. Not a single social issue (which included gay marriage) fell on the effectiveness scale in the top eight messages. Further, in analyzing the election returns in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential race an interesting set of data was revealed. In states that had gay marriage amendments on the ballot including key target states, there was no statistical difference in turnout of conservatives from states that did not have these amendments on the ballot. Gay marriage had no effect on turnout even among the most conservative potential voters in both the data before Election Day and the returns on Election Day."

The article concludes with "Other senior officials from the 2004 Bush campaign confirm: It wasn’t gay marriage that brought social conservatives to the polls, it was national security and the war on terror."

Your claim is unproven.

#deflection

The author agreed with my point that Bush used homophobia in his campaign. You won't address this point because you can't stand being proven wrong. :laugh:

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 05:48 PM
They controlled the means of production, which fits the socialists' own insufficient definition of property. Again, in practice, socialists do not support property rights.

Nope, Socialism is not the government controlling the means of production. It's collective ownership of the means of production. What countries like China had was much more similar to State Capitalism.

Doc Dutch
09-25-2020, 05:49 PM
Nope, Socialism is not the government controlling the means of production. It's collective ownership of the means of production. What countries like China had was much more similar to State Capitalism.

Which is precisely why it doesn't work above the village/tribal level.

Legion
09-25-2020, 05:50 PM
The author agreed with my point that Bush used homophobia in his campaign.

No, he didn't. Even the WaPo opinion writer didn't agree with your claim.


He relied completely on the culture war with the two main issues being abortion and gay marriage.

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 05:52 PM
You're evasive, and disingenuous.

#projection

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 05:55 PM
Which is precisely why it doesn't work above the village/tribal level.

Sure. But the point is Socialism doesn't lead to mass murder like Fascism. And Socialists aren't bad people, like Fascists. Socialists are just incorrect.
One of the reasons America is in its current situation is because of this "both sides" fallacy.

AProudLefty
09-25-2020, 05:55 PM
New Christian Conservative SC Court and their views on Queers.

Sure why not? Strange, weird and odd people have always been allowed to marry.

Doc Dutch
09-25-2020, 05:59 PM
Sure. But the point is Socialism doesn't lead to mass murder like Fascism. And Socialists aren't bad people, like Fascists. Socialists are just incorrect.
One of the reasons America is in its current situation is because of this "both sides" fallacy.

Tell that to all the Russians and Chinese killed in the name of Socialism and Communism not to mention South Americans, Vietnamese, Koreas and those in the ME.

AProudLefty
09-25-2020, 06:06 PM
Tell that to all the Russians and Chinese killed in the name of Socialism and Communism not to mention South Americans, Vietnamese, Koreas and those in the ME.

That wasn't even true Communism. Karl Marx would have recoiled in horror.

Doc Dutch
09-25-2020, 06:10 PM
That wasn't even true Communism. Karl Marx would have recoiled in horror.

It's all part of human nature. That's one reason why Communism, Socialism and Utopias don't work: there's always those who are corrupted by power and pervert the system. Another reason is limited resources in a world that is short on resources.

StoneByStone
09-25-2020, 06:41 PM
Tell that to all the Russians and Chinese killed in the name of Socialism and Communism not to mention South Americans, Vietnamese, Koreas and those in the ME.

Nope, we already debunked this.

Doc Dutch
09-25-2020, 06:49 PM
Nope, we already debunked this.

A bunch of millennials sitting around in a drum circle smoking pot and beating each other off is not a valid debunking.

The fact remains there is not a functioning, viable socialist state in existence. If there is, please post it.

It's not Sweden or Canada.

Jack
09-25-2020, 07:17 PM
The gays will probably be safe until things get bad enough that the Right needs to use them as a scapegoat again.

Sure. Everything is fine. Just stay calm. Trump is in charge. What could go wrong?

Jack
09-25-2020, 07:22 PM
Doesn't matter. They still have to rule based upon the Constitution. Dred Scott was a mistake that won't be repeated meaning SCOTUS won't remove freedoms. Besides, it's a 14th Amendment issue.

"Dred Scott was a mistake "
How could it be a 'mistake'? If the Supreme Court makes a decision, it must be in accordance with the Constitution.
Are you now claiming 'Roe/Wade' was a 'mistake'?

Jack
09-25-2020, 07:34 PM
Sure why not? Strange, weird and odd people have always been allowed to marry.

Really?
I think for the last ... 10,000 years, Queers have been persecuted.
Only recently have people accepted the notion that 'Queers are born that way'.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=LLP2an96-brafJW_-cdVxhkw&v=2E8MhqiyLTA

AProudLefty
09-25-2020, 07:37 PM
"Dred Scott was a mistake "
How could it be a 'mistake'? If the Supreme Court makes a decision, it must be in accordance with the Constitution.
Are you now claiming 'Roe/Wade' was a 'mistake'?

It went against the 14th and the concept that all men are created equal.

AProudLefty
09-25-2020, 07:37 PM
Really?
I think for the last ... 10,000 years, Queers have been persecuted.
Only recently have people accepted the notion that 'Queers are born that way'.


It's a joke based on the word "queer".

Jack
09-25-2020, 07:38 PM
It went against the 14th and the concept that all men are created equal.

Anything in the 14th about 'Abortion'?

Jack
09-25-2020, 07:40 PM
It's a joke based on the word "queer".

Yes. Thanks for pointing that out.

AProudLefty
09-25-2020, 07:42 PM
Anything in the 14th about 'Abortion'?

Talking about the Dred Scott case. But funny you should ask that because it all comes down to the definition of Life.

Flash
09-25-2020, 07:50 PM
Well. Let's see what happens. My Opinion:

Queers can 'Marry', ... but it can't be called that. It has to be called something different. Men and Women 'Marry'. Queers can have 'Civil Unions', 'Domestic Partnerships', 'Pairiages', something that signifies it as a 'Gay Marriage', distinct from a 'Real Marriage' between a Man and a Woman that can have biological children.

There won't be any changes.

37 states + D. C. had already legalized same sex marriages before the court decision. On what basis could the decision be challenged today?

countryboy
09-25-2020, 07:52 PM
They do that now...

BTW, most mainstream Churches allow same sex marriage.

They do? Name them.

Jack
09-25-2020, 07:54 PM
Talking about the Dred Scott case. But funny you should ask that because it all comes down to the definition of Life.

Pretty sure most of us know that 'life' begins when sperm enters the egg.

The actual Argument is, ... when can the Host terminate that Life ... and does she need consent of the Donor.

Jack
09-25-2020, 07:55 PM
There won't be any changes.

37 states + D. C. had already legalized same sex marriages before the court decision. On what basis could the decision be challenged today?

Biblical Law.

Flash
09-25-2020, 07:55 PM
It went against the 14th and the concept that all men are created equal.

All men created equal is not in the Constitution and does not apply. The 14th does have the equal protection clause (same principle).

Jack
09-25-2020, 07:57 PM
They do? Name them.

Thank You. (It's sad how many on the 'Left' are unaware of the 'Christian Agenda')

Legion
09-25-2020, 07:57 PM
Only recently have people accepted the notion that 'Queers are born that way'.

You may have. I haven't.

Flash
09-25-2020, 07:58 PM
Biblical Law.

The Constitution prohibits religion from being used to make government decisions.

Biblical law also prohibits sex outside of marriage. Are we going to enforce that?

Flash
09-25-2020, 07:59 PM
You may have. I haven't.

At what age did you choose women over men?

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:01 PM
The Constitution prohibits religion from being used to make government decisions.

Biblical law also prohibits sex outside of marriage. Are we going to enforce that?

Any reason 'Christians' want to put 'The Ten Commandments' in every Courthouse?

Flash
09-25-2020, 08:01 PM
Pretty sure most of us know that 'life' begins when sperm enters the egg.

The actual Argument is, ... when can the Host terminate that Life ... and does she need consent of the Donor.

Roe v. Wade was based on when the baby is viable.

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:04 PM
Roe v. Wade was based on when the baby is viable.

--->"Roe v. Wade was based on when the Baby is viable."<---

I rest my case.

Flash
09-25-2020, 08:08 PM
Any reason 'Christians' want to put 'The Ten Commandments' in every Courthouse?

To express their Christian (and Jewish) principles.

But, as you know, there is no secular purpose in making that decision and that is why it is unconstitutional.

Flash
09-25-2020, 08:09 PM
--->"Roe v. Wade was based on when the Baby is viable."<---

I rest my case.

That is why the baby can be aborted the first six months.

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:10 PM
To express their Christian (and Jewish) principles.

But, as you know, there is no secular purpose in making that decision and that is why it is unconstitutional.

--->"To express their Christian (and Jewish) principles."<---
I agree. (Do you think it has 'meaning' in a Judicial setting?)

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:18 PM
That is why the baby can be aborted the first six months.

Jack: "Pretty sure most of us know that 'life' begins when sperm enters the egg. The actual Argument is, ... when can the Host terminate that Life ... and does she need consent of the Donor."
Flash: "Roe v. Wade was based on when the baby is viable."

So we both agree 'Life' (the baby) begins at conception.

Flash: "That is why the baby can be aborted the first six months."
Jack: And we both agree that the 'baby' (Life) can be killed at the discretion of the Host.

Flash
09-25-2020, 08:18 PM
--->"To express their Christian (and Jewish) principles."<---
I agree. (Do you think it has 'meaning' in a Judicial setting?)

It is a religious document. Just because 2-3 of the commandments relate to secular laws does not give it a secular purpose--well established by court decisions.

Flash
09-25-2020, 08:20 PM
Jack: "Pretty sure most of us know that 'life' begins when sperm enters the egg. The actual Argument is, ... when can the Host terminate that Life ... and does she need consent of the Donor."
Flash: "Roe v. Wade was based on when the baby is viable."

So we both agree 'Life' (the baby) begins at conception.

Flash: "That is why the baby can be aborted the first six months."
Jack: And we both agree that the 'baby' (Life) can be killed at the discretion of the Host.

For the first six months of pregnancy. After that a state can prohibit abortion if they choose; unless the mother's life is in danger and then it can be allowed later.

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:21 PM
It is a religious document. Just because 2-3 of the commandments relate to secular laws does not give it a secular purpose--well established by court decisions.

Why have a stone Monument of the 'religious document' sitting on public property in front of a Courthouse?
The implication is that 'Religious Law' is a consideration at the Courthouse.

Jack
09-25-2020, 08:24 PM
For the first six months of pregnancy. After that a state can prohibit abortion if they choose; unless the mother's life is in danger and then it can be allowed later.

Yes. That is what the Law says now.
Any guess what the 'Law' will say after the Christian Conservatives take over the Supreme Court?

Flash
09-25-2020, 08:30 PM
Yes. That is what the Law says now.
Any guess what the 'Law' will say after the Christian Conservatives take over the Supreme Court?

Not many changes. The may approve some of the restrictions like requiring doctors to have admitting privileges. Medical science may have made advances in viability which may change the trimester guidelines. But I don't think they will overturn Roe. The conservatives have expressed strong support for precedent. If they overturn Roe, it will go back to the states to make laws and abortion was already legal for most of the population before Roe.

Jack
09-25-2020, 09:09 PM
Not many changes. The may approve some of the restrictions like requiring doctors to have admitting privileges. Medical science may have made advances in viability which may change the trimester guidelines. But I don't think they will overturn Roe. The conservatives have expressed strong support for precedent. If they overturn Roe, it will go back to the states to make laws and abortion was already legal for most of the population before Roe.

I guess the 'Left' is making a mountain out of a molehill over this Supreme Court appointment. Great to know nothing much will change. (place skeptical emoji here)

Flash
09-25-2020, 09:17 PM
I guess the 'Left' is making a mountain out of a molehill over this Supreme Court appointment. Great to know nothing much will change. (place skeptical emoji here)

Both sides try to predict major changes as a scare tactic. History shows us major dramatic changes seldom occur.

The SC cannot just decide to hear a case about something. They have to wait for a relevant case to come to them from the lower courts. If someone tried to challenge abortion it would most likely be thrown out by the lower courts because the SC already ruled on that issue in 1973.

Jack
09-25-2020, 09:22 PM
Both sides try to predict major changes as a scare tactic. History shows us major dramatic changes seldom occur.

The SC cannot just decide to hear a case about something. They have to wait for a relevant case to come to them from the lower courts. If someone tried to challenge abortion it would most likely be thrown out by the lower courts because the SC already ruled on that issue in 1973.


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh:

Keep telling yourself that.

"Dominion theology (also known as dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on their understandings of biblical law. Extents of rule and ways of achieving governing authority are varied. For example, dominion theology can include theonomy, but does not necessarily involve advocating Mosaic law as the basis of government. The label is applied primarily toward groups of Christians in the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology

Lightbringer
09-25-2020, 10:40 PM
New Christian Conservative SC Court and their views on Queers.

Who cares?

You care?

Why?

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 06:49 AM
A bunch of millennials sitting around in a drum circle smoking pot and beating each other off is not a valid debunking.

The fact remains there is not a functioning, viable socialist state in existence. If there is, please post it.

It's not Sweden or Canada.

Yes, because no country today has collective ownership. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, East Germany, and so on didn't have collective ownership either.

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 06:53 AM
Sure. Everything is fine. Just stay calm. Trump is in charge. What could go wrong?

"What the hell do you have to lose?"

*three years later*

Ohhh....

Jack
09-26-2020, 07:22 AM
"What the hell do you have to lose?"

*three years later*

Ohhh....

Yeah. No shit! :(

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 07:41 AM
"Dred Scott was a mistake "
How could it be a 'mistake'? If the Supreme Court makes a decision, it must be in accordance with the Constitution.
Are you now claiming 'Roe/Wade' was a 'mistake'?

https://www.britannica.com/event/Dred-Scott-decision
Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 07:46 AM
Yes, because no country today has collective ownership. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, East Germany, and so on didn't have collective ownership either.

Sooooooo Socialism works, but it's never really been tried? Got it. More Pie in the Sky from the far Left.

https://i.imgflip.com/4g604b.jpg

Jack
09-26-2020, 07:53 AM
https://www.britannica.com/event/Dred-Scott-decision
Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

So ... the Supreme Court CAN fuck up. (I was afraid of that) :(

CharacterAssassin
09-26-2020, 08:23 AM
If that really is the case, the 'Left' is just overreacting to the nomination of this Christian Conservative Woman.
I'm guessing when you see a sign that says "Work will make you Free', ... you really believe it.

LOL! Enjoy getting legally fucked up the ass by your husband, old queen!

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 08:50 AM
So ... the Supreme Court CAN fuck up. (I was afraid of that) :(

Yes, but two factors should be considered:

Anything Human can be fucked up, so it's a given that even SCOTUS can fuck up.

The Dred Scott decision was rendered by six Justices in 1857, only 68 years after it, and the entire US Government, was first formed. 68 years is the same time between today and the Korean War in 1952. Dred Scott was 163 years ago. Now there's nine Justices and our government has learned a few things along the way. Some good, some bad, but mostly good.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-first-supreme-court
The Judiciary Act of 1789 is passed by Congress and signed by President George Washington, establishing the Supreme Court of the United States as a tribunal made up of six justices who were to serve on the court until death or retirement. That day, President Washington nominated John Jay to preside as chief justice, and John Rutledge, William Cushing, John Blair, Robert Harrison and James Wilson to be associate justices. On September 26, all six appointments were confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Jack
09-26-2020, 10:15 AM
Yes, but two factors should be considered:

Anything Human can be fucked up, so it's a given that even SCOTUS can fuck up.

The Dred Scott decision was rendered by six Justices in 1857, only 68 years after it, and the entire US Government, was first formed. 68 years is the same time between today and the Korean War in 1952. Dred Scott was 163 years ago. Now there's nine Justices and our government has learned a few things along the way. Some good, some bad, but mostly good.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-first-supreme-court
The Judiciary Act of 1789 is passed by Congress and signed by President George Washington, establishing the Supreme Court of the United States as a tribunal made up of six justices who were to serve on the court until death or retirement. That day, President Washington nominated John Jay to preside as chief justice, and John Rutledge, William Cushing, John Blair, Robert Harrison and James Wilson to be associate justices. On September 26, all six appointments were confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Mmmmm ... call me 'Overly Fearful'. I get a little nervous when the Jesus Freaks get near any 'Knobs, wheels, buttons, or levers of Power'. :(

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 10:23 AM
Mmmmm ... call me 'Overly Fearful'. I get a little nervous when the Jesus Freaks get near any 'Knobs, wheels, buttons, or levers of Power'. :(

I get a little nervous when any group, regardless of politics and/or religion, start fucking with our Constitution.

Jarod
09-26-2020, 12:37 PM
They do? Name them.

Anglican
Episcopal
Alliance of Baptists
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Unitarian Universalist Association
Unity Church

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 01:39 PM
Sooooooo Socialism works, but it's never really been tried? Got it. More Pie in the Sky from the far Left.

https://i.imgflip.com/4g604b.jpg

#strawmanning

I never said Socialism works.
And Venezuela failed because of American sanctions.

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 01:55 PM
#strawmanning

I never said Socialism works.
And Venezuela failed because of American sanctions.

Thank you for admitting you don't believe Socialism works. It's a start. :D

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 01:57 PM
Thank you for admitting you don't believe Socialism works. It's a start. :D

I've said that before. My only argument here is that, while Socialists are wrong, they're not immoral people like Fascists. The "both sides" argument is being used to legitimize Fascism.

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 02:01 PM
I've said that before. My only argument here is that, while Socialists are wrong, they're not immoral people like Fascists. The "both sides" argument is being used to legitimize Fascism.

The "both sides" argument is used to legitimize Socialism as you just did because, son, Socialists are both wrong and immoral...if you believe mass murder is immoral, that is.

How many human beings were killed under the USSR and PRC? The DPRK? The Khmer Rouge?

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 02:09 PM
The "both sides" argument is used to legitimize Socialism as you just did because, son, Socialists are both wrong and immoral...if you believe mass murder is immoral, that is.

How many human beings were killed under the USSR and PRC? The DPRK? The Khmer Rouge?

Nope, remember? We already debunked this.

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 02:12 PM
Nope, remember? We already debunked this.

Nope, you never did. You just keep posting "we debunked this" with no links, no references, no facts, no proof and certainly no list of who "we" are.

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 02:23 PM
Nope, you never did. You just keep posting "we debunked this" with no links, no references, no facts, no proof and certainly no list of who "we" are.

Socialism involves collective ownership. None of the countries that called themselves "socialist" actually had collective ownership, so they were not Socialists. But because you're a Centrist, you have to commit the "both sides" fallacy.

Legion
09-26-2020, 02:29 PM
Nope, remember? We already debunked this.

When was that, supposedly?

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 02:29 PM
Socialism involves collective ownership. None of the countries that called themselves "socialist" actually had collective ownership, so they were not Socialists. But because you're a Centrist, you have to commit the "both sides" fallacy.
ROFLMAO. Kid, when you grow up maybe you'll learn that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's why socialism or "collective ownership" doesn't work above the village/tribal level.

https://i.imgflip.com/4g604b.jpg

Legion
09-26-2020, 02:31 PM
Socialism involves collective ownership. None of the countries that called themselves "socialist" actually had collective ownership, so they were not Socialists. But because you're a Centrist, you have to commit the "both sides" fallacy.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpics.me.me%2Fbut-its-okay-because-it-wasnt-real-socialism-you-tryagain-14507682.png&f=1&nofb=1

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 02:33 PM
ROFLMAO. Kid, when you grow up maybe you'll learn that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's why socialism or "collective ownership" doesn't work above the village/tribal level.

We just established this. Like minutes ago.

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 02:39 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpics.me.me%2Fbut-its-okay-because-it-wasnt-real-socialism-you-tryagain-14507682.png&f=1&nofb=1

Conversely, there's this:

https://i.imgflip.com/4ge6r8.jpg

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 02:40 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpics.me.me%2Fbut-its-okay-because-it-wasnt-real-socialism-you-tryagain-14507682.png&f=1&nofb=1

That's such a fallacy. It's not that these countries tried Socialism and it failed. It's that they didn't try it in the first place.

Legion
09-26-2020, 02:42 PM
That's such a fallacy.

Is it?


It's not that these countries tried Socialism and it failed. It's that they didn't try it in the first place.

Do they know that?

Legion
09-26-2020, 02:42 PM
We just established this. Like minutes ago.

Did you? Where?

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 02:44 PM
We just established this. Like minutes ago.

When you come off your acid trip, get back to me and you and I can talk.

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 03:20 PM
When you come off your acid trip, get back to me and you and I can talk.

Being a Centrist doesn't make you smart. You'll be stupid no matter what you call yourself.

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 03:48 PM
Being a Centrist doesn't make you smart. You'll be stupid no matter what you call yourself.

Thank you, sir, for proving why more Americans shouldn't vote for Democrats, a party that supports lies, bullying and elitism.

countryboy
09-26-2020, 03:52 PM
Anglican
Episcopal
Alliance of Baptists
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Unitarian Universalist Association
Unity Church

The ELCA took up the matter, but ultimately voted it down. That is nowhere near "most mainstream churches". Can't you ever be honest?

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 03:54 PM
Thank you, sir, for proving why more Americans shouldn't vote for Democrats, a party that supports lies, bullying and elitism.

I'm not a Democrat. The fact that you would assume that just shows how dumb you are.

Legion
09-26-2020, 04:53 PM
The ELCA took up the matter, but ultimately voted it down. That is nowhere near "most mainstream churches". Can't you ever be honest?

Have you examined his record?

Legion
09-26-2020, 04:54 PM
I'm not a Democrat.

So you say.

Legion
09-26-2020, 04:55 PM
Thank you, sir, for proving why more Americans shouldn't vote for Democrats, a party that supports lies, bullying and elitism.

How dare you assume her gender!


I'm a girl.

Or so she/he says. :dunno:

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 04:59 PM
I'm not a Democrat. The fact that you would assume that just shows how dumb you are.

So you voted against Hillary too? Who did you vote for in 2016...or did you? What party do you support?

Legion
09-26-2020, 05:38 PM
So you voted against Hillary too? Who did you vote for in 2016...or did you? What party do you support?

What makes you think she/he will tell you the truth?

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 06:38 PM
What makes you think she/he will tell you the truth?

It's a process. If you were as smart as you think you are, you'd know that to be true.

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 07:44 PM
So you voted against Hillary too? Who did you vote for in 2016...or did you? What party do you support?

I didn't vote in 2016.
I don't support either party, but I'll vote for the lesser evil in every election.

TexanManWithPlans
09-26-2020, 08:14 PM
Mayor Pete not having a chance to be President had nothing to do with his chosen sexual orientation.

Have you so easily forgotten the idiotic way you losers made fun of his name?

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 08:15 PM
I didn't vote in 2016.
I don't support either party, but I'll vote for the lesser evil in every election.

ROFL Jesus, dude, you just admitted you are as big a fucking moron as Trump or any of his supporters!! You didn't vote in 2016 but whine about Hillary losing? WTFO???

Then you claim to vote for "the lesser evil in every election"....even the ones you didn't vote in?

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 08:16 PM
So you say. What makes you think she/he will tell you the truth?It's a process.

TexanManWithPlans
09-26-2020, 08:16 PM
I didn't vote in 2016.
I don't support either party, but I'll vote for the lesser evil in every election.

A vote for third party is a vote for Trump. Imagine an alternate world in which all the third-party voters had voted for Hillary. We would have a sane, competent, intelligent president nominating a justice right now.

When all those idiots who voted third party suddenly find themselves unable to have an abortion due to the right-wing fascist Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, I hope they name their babies after Jill Stein.

Fucking idiots.

Legion
09-26-2020, 08:20 PM
It's a process.

So you say. What makes you think she/he will tell you the truth?

Legion
09-26-2020, 08:21 PM
Have you so easily forgotten the idiotic way you losers made fun of his name?

What are you talking about?

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 08:25 PM
If that's true, how come you claim to have abstained in 2016?

At the time, I didn't care to vote for a lesser evil. But now, I think that's better than not voting at all.

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 08:27 PM
So you say. What makes you think she/he will tell you the truth?

Most people are honest. It's part of being human. All liars eventually reveal themselves either willingly or unwillingly since, of course, they are lying and going against their own humanity.

Saying "The Truth shall always prevail" is not just a religious saying, it's a physical truism. All part of the Laws of the Natural Universe.

Legion
09-26-2020, 08:27 PM
Most people are honest.

Who told you that?

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 08:28 PM
ROFL Jesus, dude, you just admitted you are as big a fucking moron as Trump or any of his supporters!! You didn't vote in 2016 but whine about Hillary losing? WTFO???

Then you claim to vote for "the lesser evil in every election"....even the ones you didn't vote in?

When did I whine about Hillary losing? Are you drunk?

Yeah, at the time, I didn't believing in voting for the lesser evil. Now I do.

Legion
09-26-2020, 08:29 PM
At the time, I didn't care to vote for a lesser evil. But now, I think that's better than not voting at all.

Flighty, aren't you?

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 08:31 PM
Flighty, aren't you?

How so?

Legion
09-26-2020, 08:33 PM
How so?

In 2016, you "didn't believe in voting for the lesser evil", but now you do, so now you'll "vote for the lesser evil in every election", unless "at the time" in the future, you "don't believe in voting for the lesser evil" again?

Legion
09-26-2020, 08:39 PM
Venezuela failed because of American sanctions.

Did it?

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 08:48 PM
In 2016, you "didn't believe in voting for the lesser evil", but now you do, so now you'll "vote for the lesser evil in every election", unless "at the time" in the future, you "don't believe in voting for the lesser evil" again?

Well I can't say I'll never change my mind again. But as of now, I think voting for the lesser evil makes the most sense.
And keep in mind, we all knew Trump would be worse than Hillary, but we had no idea he'd be THIS bad.

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 08:49 PM
Did it?

It did!

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 08:50 PM
When did I whine about Hillary losing? Are you drunk?

Yeah, at the time, I didn't believing in voting for the lesser evil. Now I do.

A lot. A widdle bit. It's fucking Saturday night and we're both online. WTF?

Never vote for the lesser evil. Always vote your conscience.

Legion
09-26-2020, 08:53 PM
Well I can't say I'll never change my mind again.

You could say, it, but I wouldn't believe it, so there's that.

Legion
09-26-2020, 08:53 PM
It did!

Who told you that?

StoneByStone
09-26-2020, 08:53 PM
A lot. A widdle bit. It's fucking Saturday night and we're both online. WTF?

Well I'm still avoiding groups of people. I thought that's why you're here too, but you may have just revealed that you have no friends. :thinking:


Never vote for the lesser evil. Always vote your conscience.

That's how we move the Overton Window towards Fascism, which is what's happening now.

Minister of Truth
09-26-2020, 08:53 PM
Have you so easily forgotten the idiotic way you losers made fun of his name?

Alfred E. Neuman is an hilarious name.

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 08:57 PM
Well I'm still avoiding groups of people. I thought that's why you're here too, but you may have just revealed that you have no friends. :thinking:

That's how we move the Overton Window towards Fascism, which is what's happening now.

So? I have all the friends I need. You seem a little needier. Amirite?

Thanks for the further evidence you are just as whacky as the TD twins and Teflon Don's entourage.

Doc Dutch
09-26-2020, 09:00 PM
Alfred E. Neuman is an hilarious name.

Always has been, always will be.

CFM
09-27-2020, 06:30 AM
Have you so easily forgotten the idiotic way you losers made fun of his name?

Which one, "Mayor" or "Pete" would be considered making fun of his name?

His orientation choice means he's making fun of himself.

Legion
09-27-2020, 10:36 AM
That's how we move the Overton Window towards Fascism, which is what's happening now.

Is that so?

Jack
09-27-2020, 01:45 PM
"Amy Coney Barrett is an Absolute Threat to LGBTQ Rights"
https://www.hrc.org/news/amy-coney-barrett-is-an-absolute-threat-to-lgbtq-rights

"Coney Barrett defended the Supreme Court’s dissenters on the landmark marriage equality case of Obergefell v. Hodges, questioning the role of the court in deciding the case"

Jack
09-27-2020, 01:49 PM
""Gay Marriage" in trouble?"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?549333-quot-Gay-Marriage-quot-in-trouble

"Amy Coney Barrett
She rejected the idea that Catholic judges should decide legal issues contrary to the church’s moral teachings."

Legion
09-27-2020, 02:04 PM
"Amy Coney Barrett is an Absolute Threat to LGBTQ Rights"

Why do homosexuals, bisexuals, or transsexuals need additional protection under the law?

Legion
09-27-2020, 02:08 PM
Amy Coney Barrett
She rejected the idea that Catholic judges should decide legal issues contrary to the church’s moral teachings.

Said some guy on another forum, citing "the National Women’s Law Center", which was founded by Marcia Greenberger, a DEMOCRAT RBG cultist. :rofl2:

ThatOwlWoman
09-27-2020, 02:14 PM
How ironic that the bigoted fundie Xtian's hated SSM equality issues, as well as abortion, could be decided by a Catholic. Many of them hate Catholics almost as much as they hate gays and abortion.

I'm starting to feel like we are living in some acid-dropping sci-fi author's dystopian nightmare opus.

Jack
09-27-2020, 03:14 PM
Why do homosexuals, bisexuals, or transsexuals need additional protection under the law?

Just guessing, but probably because they've been tortured and killed in the Past.

"Yes. Men having sex with each other is an abomination and condemned by God. Women having sex with each other is also an abomination and condemned by God. This isn’t new news, it’s not like all of sudden Christians have come on the scene proclaiming sodomy is a immoral act and a sin in eyes of God."
https://www.mesabiblestudy.com/is-homosexuality-a-sin/

Legina. Accept Jesus as your Savior. Read the Bible. Otherwise ... you'll be taking the 'Down Escalator' to Hell, where you will burn for Eternity. (is that what you want?)

Legion
09-27-2020, 03:17 PM
Just guessing, but probably because they've been tortured and killed in the Past.

Have they?

Lots of people were tortured and killed in the past. Do they all need special protection based on their sexual preference?

Jack
09-27-2020, 03:25 PM
Have they?

Lots of people were tortured and killed in the past. Do they all need special protection based on their sexual preference?

Well, let's say 2 guys want to butt-fuck each other, and during the 'act', the Police use a 'No-Knock' warrant and enter the house and arrest the 2 guys for 'Butt-Fucking' (Sodomy).
The 2 guys might argue that Butt-Fucking isn't really a 'crime' and that they are only being arrested because they are Queer.
So. You see how they might need some 'special' protection. (?)

Legion
09-27-2020, 03:28 PM
Well, let's say 2 guys want to butt-fuck each other, and during the 'act', the Police use a 'No-Knock' warrant and enter the house and arrest the 2 guys for 'Butt-Fucking' (Sodomy). The 2 guys might argue that Butt-Fucking isn't really a 'crime' and that they are only being arrested because they are Queer. So. You see how they might need some 'special' protection. (?)

No, I don't. What you and other guys like to do in private is none of the police's concern.

Jack
09-27-2020, 03:31 PM
No, I don't. What you and other guys like to do in private is none of the police's concern.

So. You agree that abortion is between a woman and her Doctor.

Legion
09-27-2020, 03:37 PM
So. You agree that abortion is between a woman and her Doctor.

Is abortion another thing you and other guys like to do in private? You just said it was butt-fucking.


Well, let's say 2 guys want to butt-fuck each other, and during the 'act', the Police use a 'No-Knock' warrant and enter the house and arrest the 2 guys for 'Butt-Fucking' (Sodomy). The 2 guys might argue that Butt-Fucking isn't really a 'crime' and that they are only being arrested because they are Queer. So. You see how they might need some 'special' protection. (?)

Have the police used a no-knock warrant to arrest you and your friends for butt-fucking and abortion?

Doc Dutch
09-27-2020, 03:41 PM
No, I don't. What you and other guys like to do in private is none of the police's concern.

Agreed. Even these guys have a right to privacy:

Neo-Nazi gay sex NSFW https://i.imgflip.com/4ghhya.jpg

Jack
09-27-2020, 03:42 PM
Is abortion another thing you and other guys like to do in private? You just said it was butt-fucking.



Have the police used a no-knock warrant to arrest you and your friends for butt-fucking and abortion?

But you just said "do in private is none of the police's concern". Is this your position, or does it depend on what people are doing in private.

Jack
09-27-2020, 03:46 PM
OK. That was funny. :thumbsup:




Agreed. Even these guys have a right to privacy:

Neo-Nazi gay sex NSFW https://i.imgflip.com/4ghhya.jpg

Legion
09-27-2020, 03:47 PM
But you just said "do in private is none of the police's concern". Is this your position, or does it depend on what people are doing in private.

I said that when you and your guy(s) butt-fuck in private it's none of the police's concern.

Do your top(s) (or bottoms) have a license to perform abortions?

Do you butt-fuck and perform abortions in licensed medical facilities?

Doc Dutch
09-27-2020, 03:57 PM
I said that when you and your guy(s) butt-fuck in private it's none of the police's concern.

Do your top(s) (or bottoms) have a license to perform abortions?

Do you butt-fuck and perform abortions in licensed medical facilities?

I don't but you seem very interested in it. Is this a friend of yours? A relative? The title says it all, doesn't it?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4223268/Nazi-gay-porn-star-29-arrested-meth-raid.html
Nazi gay porn star arrested in Dallas meth raid

Jack
09-27-2020, 03:57 PM
I said that when you and your guy(s) butt-fuck in private it's none of the police's concern.

Do your top(s) (or bottoms) have a license to perform abortions?

Do you butt-fuck and perform abortions in licensed medical facilities?

So you are good with disobeying God's Law on Queerdom?

"Scripture is crystal clear on the subject of homosexual behavior, same-sex marriage, and all sexual immorality.
God is also clear on marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Hard to twist Genesis 2:23 & 24, right? There’s nothing in these two verses about a man marrying a man or women be joined with a woman is there?"
https://www.mesabiblestudy.com/is-homosexuality-a-sin/

Legina. You need to REPENT.

Legion
09-27-2020, 03:59 PM
So you are good with disobeying God's Law on Queerdom?

I'm good with ignoring all sky daddies' laws. Even Allah's.

Jack
09-27-2020, 04:00 PM
I'm good with ignoring all sky daddies' laws. Even Allah's.

Hmmmm ...
Maybe there is hope for you yet?

Legion
09-27-2020, 04:01 PM
Hmmmm ...Maybe there is hope for you yet?

I'm not coming over to your place, so forget about it.

Doc Dutch
09-27-2020, 04:09 PM
So you are good with disobeying God's Law on Queerdom?

"Scripture is crystal clear on the subject of homosexual behavior, same-sex marriage, and all sexual immorality.
God is also clear on marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Hard to twist Genesis 2:23 & 24, right? There’s nothing in these two verses about a man marrying a man or women be joined with a woman is there?"
https://www.mesabiblestudy.com/is-homosexuality-a-sin/

Legina. You need to REPENT.

He won't repent. He likes it too much. ;)

https://i.imgflip.com/4ghkwm.jpg

Jack
09-27-2020, 04:18 PM
I'm not coming over to your place, so forget about it.

... and a spark of humor. (is this the REAL Legina ... or an impostor?)

Damocles
09-27-2020, 04:33 PM
"‘The dogma lives loudly in you’: Dianne Feinstein’s grilling of Trump SCOTUS frontrunner for her devout catholicism goes viral"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-diana-feinstein-ruth-bader-ginsburg-b512741.html

"A place on the court is a lifetime position and if a justice is appointed by Mr Trump, it would likely give the court a Conservative super majority that could stand for decades."

I couldn't care less what Diane Feinstein has to say about her, the Democrat Dogma is strong in that one.

Jack
09-27-2020, 05:18 PM
I couldn't care less what Diane Feinstein has to say about her, the Democrat Dogma is strong in that one.

It comes down to personal beliefs.

God's Law.
Man's Law.

The Constitution was written by 'Man'. Using 'reason & logic'.
God's Law ... wasn't really written by 'God'.

Support this?:
"Why Did God Kill A Man For Picking Up Sticks On The Sabbath Day?"
http://godlovespeople.com/articles/killed_for_sticks.htm

"Numbers 15:32-35, “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”"

Damocles
09-28-2020, 08:53 AM
It comes down to personal beliefs.

God's Law.
Man's Law.

The Constitution was written by 'Man'. Using 'reason & logic'.
God's Law ... wasn't really written by 'God'.

Support this?:
"Why Did God Kill A Man For Picking Up Sticks On The Sabbath Day?"
http://godlovespeople.com/articles/killed_for_sticks.htm

"Numbers 15:32-35, “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”"

Sounding a bit silly... when was the last time SCOTUS Nominee and Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett picked up rocks to kill folks for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? When was the last time a Jewish person did such a thing? It is their particular part of the Bible that you are reading from (fourth book of the Torah).

The reality is, pretending you are afraid that Amy Coney Barrett is going to take up arms against folks chopping wood on Sunday is absurd, and useless, it takes a true belief in the dogma of your political party to really believe that such nonsense will happen or to convince yourself it is a valid question.

Jack
09-28-2020, 10:24 AM
Sounding a bit silly... when was the last time SCOTUS Nominee and Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett picked up rocks to kill folks for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? When was the last time a Jewish person did such a thing? It is their particular part of the Bible that you are reading from (fourth book of the Torah).

The reality is, pretending you are afraid that Amy Coney Barrett is going to take up arms against folks chopping wood on Sunday is absurd, and useless, it takes a true belief in the dogma of your political party to really believe that such nonsense will happen or to convince yourself it is a valid question.

:) Simply pointing out one of 'God's Laws' that most people ignore, think is stupid, but ... is in The Ten Commandments (obey the Sabbath) that Religious types want to have in every Courthouse.
"No other Gods before ME". Another of 'God's Laws'. Opposite of Free Speech/Free Expression in the Constitution.

So. In my opinion, putting people on a Supreme Court that hold 'Religious Views' is going to put them at odds with their Faith. The 'Good Book', the one people say was 'written by God', says:
"Leviticus 18 and 20
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22[1]
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

Most Religious types believe what's in the Bible. 'Free Thinkers' on the other hand, use 'reason and logic' to come to common sense solutions.

'Will Queers Still Be Allowed to 'Marry' is a valid statement in light of a 'Religious type' (Barrett) being installed on the Supreme Court. The Bible, the Book written by God, says 'No'.

What is your fear of 'Democrat Dogma' and can you describe what it is?

Doc Dutch
09-28-2020, 11:01 AM
:) Simply pointing out one of 'God's Laws' that most people ignore, think is stupid, but ... is in The Ten Commandments (obey the Sabbath) that Religious types want to have in every Courthouse.
"No other Gods before ME". Another of 'God's Laws'. Opposite of Free Speech/Free Expression in the Constitution.

So. In my opinion, putting people on a Supreme Court that hold 'Religious Views' is going to put them at odds with their Faith. The 'Good Book', the one people say was 'written by God', says:
"Leviticus 18 and 20
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22[1]
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

Most Religious types believe what's in the Bible. 'Free Thinkers' on the other hand, use 'reason and logic' to come to common sense solutions.

'Will Queers Still Be Allowed to 'Marry' is a valid statement in light of a 'Religious type' (Barrett) being installed on the Supreme Court. The Bible, the Book written by God, says 'No'.

What is your fear of 'Democrat Dogma' and can you describe what it is?
They also took an oath to the Constitution. "Render unto Caesar".

Be careful on what Litmus Tests you seek to make mandatory when nominating a Justice. It's on the Road to Unintended Consequences.

Only idiots I saw were those RWers who tried to conflate the Bible with the Constitution. The Constitution forbids this and has rulings to prove it.


https://billofrightsinstitute.org/cases/
Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)
The Court considered whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was violated by a Maryland requirement that a candidate for public office declare a belief in God to be eligible for the position. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the requirement violated the Establishment Clause by giving preference to candidates who believed in God and were willing to state their beliefs, over other candidates. In this, Maryland effectively aided religions involving a belief in God at the expense of religions or beliefs that do not, a position that a state is expressly prohibited from taking. (Citation: 367 U.S. 488)

Eagle_Eye
09-28-2020, 11:04 AM
New Christian Conservative SC Court and their views on Queers.

Worried about how the new court will affect your plan to wed?

Jack
09-28-2020, 11:32 AM
They also took an oath to the Constitution. "Render unto Caesar".

Be careful on what Litmus Tests you seek to make mandatory when nominating a Justice. It's on the Road to Unintended Consequences.

Only idiots I saw were those RWers who tried to conflate the Bible with the Constitution. The Constitution forbids this and has rulings to prove it.


https://billofrightsinstitute.org/cases/
Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)
The Court considered whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was violated by a Maryland requirement that a candidate for public office declare a belief in God to be eligible for the position. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the requirement violated the Establishment Clause by giving preference to candidates who believed in God and were willing to state their beliefs, over other candidates. In this, Maryland effectively aided religions involving a belief in God at the expense of religions or beliefs that do not, a position that a state is expressly prohibited from taking. (Citation: 367 U.S. 488)


They also took an oath to the Constitution.
Well. That's the Question: Which 'Oath' do you hold supreme. (?)

Barrett ...

Jack
09-28-2020, 11:37 AM
Worried about how the new court will affect your plan to wed?

You seem like a 'Religious type' to me. So ... do you support 'Gay Marriage'?
You know, 2 guys butt-fucking each other is just like a Man and a Woman getting Married and having Biological Children?
Or ... do you believe what the Bible says, the Word of God, on the subject?

Doc Dutch
09-28-2020, 11:38 AM
Well. That's the Question: Which 'Oath' do you hold supreme. (?)

Barrett ...

The one they gave. Render unto Caesar. If they can't, then they should recuse themselves.

Doc Dutch
09-28-2020, 11:46 AM
You seem like a 'Religious type' to me. So ... do you support 'Gay Marriage'?
You know, 2 guys butt-fucking each other is just like a Man and a Woman getting Married and having Biological Children?
Or ... do you believe what the Bible says, the Word of God, on the subject?

Sodomy laws were tossed out almost 20 years ago in Lawrence v. Texas. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/ Note that it, too, was a 14th Amendment violation.

"Marriage" is a religious thing. The only reason the state should be interested is as a revenue source and creating, for a price, a legal document for the courts. This too falls under the 14th Amendment. Religious aspects don't matter because of the First Amendment.

Jack
09-28-2020, 11:46 AM
The one they gave. Render unto Caesar. If they can't, then they should recuse themselves.

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I think the 'Render unto Caesar' is about paying Taxes.

Jack
09-28-2020, 11:48 AM
Sodomy laws were tossed out almost 20 years ago in Lawrence v. Texas. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/ Note that it, too, was a 14th Amendment violation.

"Marriage" is a religious thing. The only reason the state should be interested is as a revenue source and creating, for a price, a legal document for the courts. This too falls under the 14th Amendment. Religious aspects don't matter because of the First Amendment.

Agreed.

Doc Dutch
09-28-2020, 11:50 AM
I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I think the 'Render unto Caesar' is about paying Taxes.

Specifically, yes, but the intent is to divide the spiritual from the secular. Use Romans 13:1 on them. ;)

Jack
09-28-2020, 12:33 PM
Specifically, yes, but the intent is to divide the spiritual from the secular. Use Romans 13:1 on them. ;)

Yeah. Well, in this case, are you going to separate the 'spiritual' Barrett from deciding cases that might go against her deep Belief in the Bible?

"At the same time, the Louisiana native and Notre Dame Law graduate, a favorite among Trump’s evangelical Christian base, has said legal careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction, prestige or money, but rather “as a means to the end of serving God” "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/26/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-donald-trump-people-of-praise

Doc Dutch
09-28-2020, 12:37 PM
Yeah. Well, in this case, are you going to separate the 'spiritual' Barrett from deciding cases that might go against her deep Belief in the Bible?

"At the same time, the Louisiana native and Notre Dame Law graduate, a favorite among Trump’s evangelical Christian base, has said legal careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction, prestige or money, but rather “as a means to the end of serving God” "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/26/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-donald-trump-people-of-praise

She has to go with the law. "Jesus says" is not a legal argument. Did you hold it against Ginsburg because she was Jewish? Or because she was a woman? Maybe because she was short? Or wore glasses?

Jack
09-28-2020, 12:38 PM
She has to go with the law. "Jesus says" is not a legal argument.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

The 'Law' is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.

Doc Dutch
09-28-2020, 12:40 PM
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

The 'Law' is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.

It has to be in accordance with the Constitution.

Jack
09-28-2020, 12:44 PM
It has to be in accordance with the Constitution.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yes. Of course. And the Justices get to 'interpret' what the Constitution says.

Doc Dutch
09-28-2020, 12:48 PM
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yes. Of course. And the Justices get to 'interpret' what the Constitution says.

Oooookay. So what is your solution? Nine gay atheists who will "get to 'interpret' what the Constitution says"?

Legion
09-28-2020, 01:20 PM
The one they gave. Render unto Caesar. If they can't, then they should recuse themselves.

Don't you need to prove that a judge is unable to set their personal beliefs aside and rule on the merits of a case according to the law?

Under Jackoff's scenario, only atheists should be allowed on the bench in any court, right?

Jack
09-28-2020, 01:26 PM
Oooookay. So what is your solution? Nine gay atheists who will "get to 'interpret' what the Constitution says"?

:)
I'm conducting a 'Poll'.
It's concerning 'Queers'. Something frowned on by 'Religious types'.
I, like others, have seen Barrett's religious affiliations: 'People of Praise'.
--->"At the same time, the Louisiana native and Notre Dame Law graduate, a favorite among Trump’s evangelical Christian base, has said legal careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction, prestige or money, but rather “as a means to the end of serving God” "<---
Emphasis placed on "as a means to the end of serving God".

Just a Poll. Wondering how others feel. So far, 3 people say 'it's all good, nothing to worry about'. 2 others state a 'name change' would solve the problem. (Like, it wouldn't be a 'Marriage', ... it would be a 'Pairriage', or 'Civil Union', or 'Domestic Partnership', or 'Room Mates' or something)

Jack
09-28-2020, 01:30 PM
Don't you need to prove that a judge is unable to set their personal beliefs aside and rule on the merits of a case according to the law?

Under Jackoff's scenario, only atheists should be allowed on the bench in any court, right?

No. You said the key word: "set their personal beliefs aside". Barrett, using her own words, may not be able to do that.

--->"as a means to the end of serving God"<---

Doc Dutch
09-28-2020, 01:34 PM
:)
I'm conducting a 'Poll'.
It's concerning 'Queers'. Something frowned on by 'Religious types'.
I, like others, have seen Barrett's religious affiliations: 'People of Praise'.
--->"At the same time, the Louisiana native and Notre Dame Law graduate, a favorite among Trump’s evangelical Christian base, has said legal careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction, prestige or money, but rather “as a means to the end of serving God” "<---
Emphasis placed on "as a means to the end of serving God".

Just a Poll. Wondering how others feel. So far, 3 people say 'it's all good, nothing to worry about'. 2 others state a 'name change' would solve the problem. (Like, it wouldn't be a 'Marriage', ... it would be a 'Pairriage', or 'Civil Union', or 'Domestic Partnership', or 'Room Mates' or something)

I saw the poll, but you arguing about Christians on the Bench. That's a different argument.

The state should call marriages/civil unions/whatever all the same thing. It's up to the individuals to call it a "marriage" based upon their individual rules and choices. If a couple wanted to call it a "bonding", a "binding" or a "buddy fucking", that's their choice. The state only cares (or should) about tax revenue and establishing a legal agreement. It should be standard for everyone.

Legion
09-28-2020, 01:34 PM
No. You said the key word: "set their personal beliefs aside". Barrett, using her own words, may not be able to do that. --->"as a means to the end of serving God"<---

Key words:
may not be able to do that.

Get back to me if you can ever prove that she wasn't able to set her personal beliefs aside.

TOP
09-28-2020, 01:36 PM
No. You said the key word: "set their personal beliefs aside". Barrett, using her own words, may not be able to do that.

--->"as a means to the end of serving God"<---
Where's the link to your quote? I think she'll be just fine.....I'm very impressed with her...are you not?

TOP
09-28-2020, 01:37 PM
Key words:

Get back to me if you can ever prove that she wasn't able to set her personal beliefs aside.Indeed....;)

Legion
09-28-2020, 01:38 PM
Sounding a bit silly... when was the last time SCOTUS Nominee and Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett picked up rocks to kill folks for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? When was the last time a Jewish person did such a thing? It is their particular part of the Bible that you are reading from (fourth book of the Torah).

The reality is, pretending you are afraid that Amy Coney Barrett is going to take up arms against folks chopping wood on Sunday is absurd, and useless, it takes a true belief in the dogma of your political party to really believe that such nonsense will happen or to convince yourself it is a valid question.

It appears that Jackoff is all in on identity politics.

Jack
09-28-2020, 01:44 PM
I saw the poll, but you arguing about Christians on the Bench. That's a different argument. The state should call them all the same thing. It's up to the individuals to call it a "marriage" based upon their individual rules and choices. If a couple wanted to call it a "bonding", a "binding" or a "buddy fucking", that's their choice. The state only cares (or should) about tax revenue and establishing a legal agreement. It should be standard for everyone.

Dutch: "but you arguing about Christians on the Bench."
Jack: Wrong. Many in this part of the World call themselves 'Christian', but don't really subscribe to what the Bible says. Did you 'Turn the other cheek' when 2 buildings in NYC got knocked down? How about 'Forgive your Trespassers'?

Dutch: "The state should call them all the same thing".
Jack: That would be a solution. Calling then 'Civil Unions' wouldn't cause the Religious types to get worked up over who is 'Married' and who isn't.

Dutch: "The state only cares (or should) about tax revenue and establishing a legal agreement."
Jack: Agree.

Jack
09-28-2020, 01:47 PM
Key words:

Get back to me if you can ever prove that she wasn't able to set her personal beliefs aside.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/26/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-donald-trump-people-of-praise

I've given you a link to 'People of Praise'. You can read it and come up with your own conclusion.

Jack
09-28-2020, 01:49 PM
Where's the link to your quote? I think she'll be just fine.....I'm very impressed with her...are you not?

"Amy Coney Barrett: spotlight falls on secretive Catholic group People of Praise"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/26/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-donald-trump-people-of-praise

She sounds like a Religious Quack.

Damocles
09-28-2020, 01:50 PM
Jack wants to pretend that Sotomayor would vote with "Jesus first" because: Catholic... Unless he is a hypocrite and only cares if it is a rightwinger Catholic.

The reality is, his "religious test" is itself against the constitution (and directly so, it says no religious test should be applied). Any nominee should simply tell them so when they ask about it.

There are currently 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court, it is just "this one" that Jack worries about because he doesn't want this President to nominate anybody...

Too late.

Legion
09-28-2020, 01:51 PM
I've given you a link to 'People of Praise'. You can read it and come up with your own conclusion.

So what?

Get back to me if you can ever prove that ACB wasn't able to set her personal beliefs aside.

Did you assume that RBG was going to rely om Mosaic law when she heard a case?

Legion
09-28-2020, 01:52 PM
Jack wants to pretend that Sotomayor would vote with "Jesus first" because: Catholic... Unless he is a hypocrite and only cares if it is a rightwinger Catholic.

The reality is, his "religious test" is itself against the constitution (and directly so, it says no religious test should be applied). Any nominee should simply tell them so when they ask about it.

There are currently 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court, it is just "this one" that Jack worries about because he doesn't want this President to nominate anybody...

Too late.

Bingo.

TOP
09-28-2020, 01:53 PM
"Amy Coney Barrett: spotlight falls on secretive Catholic group People of Praise"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/26/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-donald-trump-people-of-praise

She sounds like a Religious Quack. I disagree...but you're entitled to your opinion....
Is it a SuperSECRETCatholic group?

Damocles
09-28-2020, 01:53 PM
So what?

Get back to me if you can ever prove that ACB wasn't able to set her personal beliefs aside.

Did you assume that RBG was going to rely om Mosaic law when she heard a case?

Or Sotomayor... who is a Catholic too.

Jack
09-28-2020, 01:55 PM
Jack wants to pretend that Sotomayor would vote with "Jesus first" because: Catholic... Unless he is a hypocrite and only cares if it is a rightwinger Catholic.

The reality is, his "religious test" is itself against the constitution (and directly so, it says no religious test should be applied). Any nominee should simply tell them so when they ask about it.

There are currently 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court, it is just "this one" that Jack worries about because he doesn't want this President to nominate anybody...

Too late.

No.

People call themselves 'Jews' or 'Catholics' or 'Protestants', or Muslims', etc. ... but aren't really 'Devout'. This Barrett woman looks like a Fanatic. (see 'People of Praise')

Doc Dutch
09-28-2020, 01:55 PM
Key words:

Get back to me if you can ever prove that she wasn't able to set her personal beliefs aside.

Can you prove that about any Justice?

https://i.imgflip.com/4glb8o.jpg

Jack
09-28-2020, 01:56 PM
I disagree...but you're entitled to your opinion....
Is it a SuperSECRETCatholic group?

:) Read the link. Come up with your own conclusion. I've given you mine.

Damocles
09-28-2020, 01:58 PM
No.

People call themselves 'Jews' or 'Catholics' or 'Protestants', or Muslims', etc. ... but aren't really 'Devout'. This Barrett woman looks like a Fanatic. (see 'People of Praise')

So, yes, you are a hypocrite. The leftist dogma is strong in this one. You would be somebody I would immediately vote against. You don't even understand that the Constitution itself is directly, and not just sorta, against this nonsense of "religious test"...

She's never ruled that way as an Appeals court judge, you know why? Because she's a good judge. Even you know it, you would just rather be a anti-catholic religious bigot than follow the constitution. Thankfully Amy Coney Barrett isn't like you.

Legion
09-28-2020, 01:58 PM
People call themselves 'Jews' or 'Catholics' or 'Protestants', or Muslims', etc. ... but aren't really 'Devout'. This Barrett woman looks like a Fanatic. (see 'People of Praise')

"Looks like"...to people who desperately want to keep another Trump appointee off the Court.

Too late. "Looks like" she's going to be confirmed, and maybe before the election.

Legion
09-28-2020, 01:59 PM
Or Sotomayor... who is a Catholic too.

But that's ... different. :rolleyes:

Jack
09-28-2020, 02:04 PM
So, yes, you are a hypocrite. The leftist dogma is strong in this one. You would be somebody I would immediately vote against. You don't even understand that the Constitution itself is directly, and not just sorta, against this nonsense of "religious test"...

She's never ruled that way as an Appeals court judge, you know why? Because she's a good judge. Even you know it, you would just rather be a anti-catholic religious bigot than follow the constitution. Thankfully Amy Coney Barrett isn't like you.

:laugh: I support 'Man's Law' and DON'T want the 'Religious types' influencing any Laws in the United States.

I'm singling out Barrett for her affiliation with the 'People of Praise' and her comments.
Do you want me to re-post the site and her words for the third time so you don't have to go back and look for it?

TOP
09-28-2020, 02:05 PM
:) Read the link. Come up with your own conclusion. I've given you mine.I've read about it....and I think you should do some more reading....

Doc Dutch
09-28-2020, 02:06 PM
:laugh: I support 'Man's Law' and DON'T want the 'Religious types' influencing any Laws in the United States.

I'm singling out Barrett for her affiliation with the 'People of Praise' and her comments.
Do you want me to re-post the site and her words for the third time so you don't have to go back and look for it?

Why do you single out "religious types" over "gay types", "straight types", "white types", "Mexican types" or anything else?

Jack
09-28-2020, 02:07 PM
I've read about it....and I think you should o some more reading....

HA! I've read enough. My opinion is that 'Roe v Wade' will be overturned and that 'something' will happen to 'Gay Marriage'.