2016 Election
Quote: ams288The argument that liberals are hypocrites because they are intolerant of prejudiced people will never be a winning one for the bigoted people who push it.
Noone is suggesting the liberals are hypocrital because they are intolerant of prejudiced people. We are calling you liars, because everybody on the planet Earth is prejudicial in their own way. Many times these prejudices are forged by years of experience. I think everyone has that thought in their life that they would like to go back to when they were 18 or 21 and do it all over again knowing full well what they know now. They would be faced with the same situations and scenarios and act differently on instict based upon things they have learned throughout their life
Quote: ams288The argument that liberals are hypocrites because they are intolerant of prejudiced people will never be a winning one for the bigoted people who push it.
Mainly because liberals feel their bigotry is good bigotry.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLI do not like 6:5 Blackjack, I'm prejudiced. But I do not hate the stores that offer it
I do! Hate, hate, hate them...greedy bastards.
Quote: kewljI do! Hate, hate, hate them...greedy bastards.
Now that was funny. +1. But I don't believe your statement. I've spent a lot of time reading your posts ( and blog ) and I really don't think you have any 'hate' in you. Or perhaps we just define the word differently. I try to eliminate 'hate' from my life. Sometimes it's hard, but it's always valiant.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLNow that was funny. +1. But I don't believe your statement. I've spent a lot of time reading your posts ( and blog ) and I really don't think you have any 'hate' in you. Or perhaps we just define the word differently. I try to eliminate 'hate' from my life. Sometimes it's hard, but it's always valiant.
Thank you for the kind words. You are correct, I am not really a hater, certainly not of people. But a casino corporation that screws players, both AP and non-AP alike....honestly hate isn't really too strong of a word for me. I wouldn't mind one bit seeing the Evil Empire end up being broken apart and parts sold off to competitors than may or may not offer something a little better. Wouldn't mind one bit. :)
And this scenario is actually a possibility as the current bankruptcy proceeds. The empire tried to break off and hide certain 'good' assets and there is the possibility that tactic may not be allowed or be legal.
Quote: Gabes22Noone is suggesting the liberals are hypocrital because they are intolerant of prejudiced people. We are calling you liars, because everybody on the planet Earth is prejudicial in their own way. Many times these prejudices are forged by years of experience. I think everyone has that thought in their life that they would like to go back to when they were 18 or 21 and do it all over again knowing full well what they know now. They would be faced with the same situations and scenarios and act differently on instict based upon things they have learned throughout their life
Everyone can be a racist because of some event or series of events because everyone who lives long enough experiences them, but some choose not too.
Every great person, has experienced discrimination. Great people rejected it as best they could.*** They certainly don't say, well too bad.
(***sometimes if only in comparison to those around them at the time, but I believe that counts if you're the outlier in your time period)
~
Anyway, no matter how you grew up or what you were taught, you should aim to teach your children a little better values. If you should do something else, I don't know why, that's for sure. Don't pass along the same crap at least.
--Statues
--Schools
All have been attacked so far...we still aren't talking about racism and how to reduce it. You'll never stop it, but we can do better.
A racist terrorist killed nine people.
Once we've successfully eradicated all traces of the battle flag and all Confederate heroes (many also American heroes, but who cares) maybe we'll actually talk about racism.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-24/obamatrade-passes-corporations-win-again-and-now-they-gloat#comments
Quote: RonC...we still aren't talking about racism and how to reduce it. You'll never stop it, but we can do better.
A racist terrorist killed nine people.
Once we've successfully eradicated all traces of the battle flag and all Confederate heroes (many also American heroes, but who cares) maybe we'll actually talk about racism.
OK lets talk.
What is race?
Most of my life when I had to fill out a form, I was unable to honestly check off a box regarding race. I was left with "Other" or I checked no boxes.
I guess my race is Other :-)
MLK said it best
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
The problem is some are still judging simply due to color.
Really sad that shooter could not see the incredible character in front of him.
Demanding that "race" be filled out on myriad forms and reports either by the subject or some total ignoramus bureaucrat every minute of the day contributes mightily to that divisive consciousness.Quote: terapinedThe problem is some are still judging simply due to color.
Quote: terapinedOK lets talk.
What is race?
Most of my life when I had to fill out a form, I was unable to honestly check off a box regarding race. I was left with "Other" or I checked no boxes.
I guess my race is Other :-)
MLK said it best
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
The problem is some are still judging simply due to color.
Really sad that shooter could not see the incredible character in front of him.
Thank you. That is what we are not talking about...we've got more goody two shoes folks wanting to remove things than we've got trying to actually make things better.
The politicians are all falling over themselves but doing nothing.
Quote: terapinedMy prediction on gay marraige supreme court ruling.
9-0
Yup, you heard it here 1st.
Its about legacy.
The conservative justices see the writing on the wall, not just this country but the entire planet.
This sounds like some serious tin foil hat level stuff.
Just read the Scalia SCOTUcare opinion.
Boy does this guy have anger issues
No way Gay marraige gets his vote and Alito is in his pocket.
Still hope for Clarence Thomas, he did just vote against the Confederate flag :-)
Quote: ams288Because there are no good legitimate reasons to be against marriage equality other than hate and/or prejudice. :)
Thanks for making my point!!
Quote: RonCGood post
Quote: terapined
Just read the Scalia SCOTUcare opinion.
Boy does this guy have anger issues
Tearing up the Constitution for a cult of personality is worth getting angry about. Which is what the other 6 just did.
For the right price she will wear a confederate flag to the presentation. Don't you wonder who Kimmy will vote for?
Quote: pyromanThis sounds like some serious tin foil hat level stuff.
Leftist-one who thinks the right to homosexual marriages, free abortions and free college is in the constitution; but the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn't.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/15693-2016-election/173/#post454258
Err, how big will it be and where will it rest?Quote: petroglyph
For the right price she will wear a confederate flag to the presentation. Don't you wonder who Kimmy will vote for?
It just gets me, they could ask Mike for an opinion, but instead ask this "star". Sheesh.
The Trans Pacific Trade deal passed almost without acknowledgement, a treaty which will effect the country. It amazes me that something like that goes by while the country is distracted by the flag issue, and then this?
Quote: terapinedMy prediction on gay marraige supreme court ruling.
9-0
Yup, you heard it here 1st.
Its about legacy.
I was wrong in expecting a ruling in the 6-3 or 7-2 range with a couple conservative justices protecting their legacy from hindsight, but YOU my friend, were way off. Lol.
Quote: kewljI was wrong in expecting a ruling in the 6-3 or 7-2 range with a couple conservative justices protecting their legacy from hindsight, but YOU my friend, were way off. Lol.
I was way off.
It was close which is scary.
Regardless, thrilled with the decison.
Quote: terapinedI was way off.
It was close which is scary.
Regardless, thrilled with the decison.
It was going to be close no matter what. Even if one or two of the conservative justices threw in with the majority, they would have only done so after it was apparent what they ruling would be. Justice Kennedy was always going to be the 'deciding' vote, as he is in many instances.
Talk about power. Justice Kennedy is arguably the most powerful man in the world. That too seems problematic, not specifically to this case but in general. But I guess that's our system. Ultimately someone has to make the big decisions. :/
Quote: terapinedI was way off.
It was close which is scary.
Regardless, thrilled with the decison.
I am sure you are, but as the man said, "be careful what you wish for."
It is now legal for a man to marry two women and them to marry each other for a Social Security survivor benefits bonanza. Polygamy is now legal. Child brides are now legal. There is no legal way to define marriage. With this kind of a ruling it is all wide open.
The second issue is that the SCOTUS has lowered the bar to "finding rights." 150 years and nobody found this right in the 14th Amendment until today. The question is what will be next? It will take years to understand.
The only bright spot is now the left has one less thing to attack conservatives on in 2016 and in 2017 POTUS Walker can deal with something new.
Quote: kewljIt was going to be close no matter what. Even if one or two of the conservative justices threw in with the majority, they would have only done so after it was apparent what they ruling would be. Justice Kennedy was always going to be the 'deciding' vote, as he is in many instances.
Talk about power. Justice Kennedy is arguably the most powerful man in the world. That too seems problematic, not specifically to this case but in general. But I guess that's our system. Ultimately someone has to make the big decisions. :/
Actually that is NOT the system. They get away with it because elected officials allow it. Andy Jackson didn't tolerate it. No way should 5 rich Ivy leftists decide every thing in the country.
Quote: AZDuffmanPolygamy is now legal. Child brides are now legal. There is no legal way to define marriage. With this kind of a ruling it is all wide open.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
I get immense pleasure from how wrong you are. :)
Quote: ams288Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
I get immense pleasure from how wrong you are. :)
How am I wrong? It was found unconstitutional to "limit" marriage. It is now all wide open. Might take a court case if some bigot at the courthouse decides marriage is only two people, but there are now no constitutional limits. Equal Protection clause applies to all.
Quote: AZDuffmanHow am I wrong? It was found unconstitutional to "limit" marriage. It is now all wide open. .
Of course you are correct. I could marry
my dog now if I liked. And it will create
havoc in SS, you'll have couples marrying
each other for the increased benefits.
One can of worms closed and another opened.
They couldn't just single out Gays, that would
be discriminatory. The ruling has to include
anybody who wants to marry anything.
Quote: EvenBobOf course you are correct. I could marry
my dog now if I liked. And it will create
havoc in SS, you'll have couples marrying
each other for the increased benefits.
One can of worms closed and another opened.
They couldn't just single out Gays, that would
be discriminatory. The ruling has to include
anybody who wants to marry anything.
It was actually the Citizen United Ruling that opened it up. An entity who can't die or vote is/are? people too.
Quote: rxwineIt was actually the Citizen United Ruling that opened it up. An entity who can't die or vote is/are? people too.
"By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas." Justice Alito
Traditional ideas being, one wife or husband. Now
the door is wide open for polygamy and it will
really hit the fan then. Can hardly wait.
Quote: EvenBob"By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas." Justice Alito
Traditional ideas being, one wife or husband. Now
the door is wide open for polygamy and it will
really hit the fan then. Can hardly wait.
Oh you will be waiting.
Better chance of Ebola spreading accross the country lol
No one is going to be marrying a dog (unless "dog" refers to an ugly wife or something). Polygamy is not legal. It is not now legal to marry "child brides" (<--- this is my favorite bit of nonsense I've seen today).
Marriage is now officially defined as being between two loving adults. The end. You can be butthurt about it all you want. But it ain't gonna change til the day you die.
Quote: EvenBob"By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas." Justice Alito
Traditional ideas being, one wife or husband. Now
the door is wide open for polygamy and it will
really hit the fan then. Can hardly wait.
If the Islamists only significant difference was the polygamy acceptance, I would give a hearty hurrah! What a relief if that was all they were interested in.
Not that I think polygamy is a great idea. I don't.
Quote: terapinedOh you will be waiting.
Better chance of Ebola spreading accross the country lol
I give it at most ten years before it's seriously on the table.
I dough I dough flavor.
Hmm.
suddenly I have a craving for ice cream :-)
The meltdown on the right is just so entertaining, I watching Fox tonight :-)
Quote: 24BingoI give it at most ten years before it's seriously on the table.
Someone should take that action. It will never "seriously" be on the table.
Some d-bag political activist like that James O'Keefe guy might try to create some phony lawsuit to bring it into the judicial system, but it'll get laughed out of court.
Quote: ams288
But it ain't gonna change til the day you die.
Wanna bet? It changed today, you just don't
realize it yet.
This is John Roberts on today's decision. Read it
carefully:
"Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. I … can’t help but think this decision opens the door to legal polygamy.."
KERBLAM! He's absolutely correct. Polygamy has
been accepted worldwide for thousands of years.
It's far more accepted than same sex marriage.
They just approved polygamy today, only it hasn't
been written in yet. He as much says that in the
paragraph I quoted.
Polygamy will never be law of the land.
More importantly, is there a large group of people pushing for it?
60ish percent of Americans support marriage equality. What percent is for polygamy? Marriage equality support has grown exponentially in the last couple decades. Will the same thing happen for plural marriage? Doubtful.
Quote: EvenBobWanna bet? It changed today, you just don't
realize it yet.
What I meant is that gays will never again be denied the right to marry. Marriage will continue to evolve, as it always has. (But it will not evolve into legalized polygamy in the U.S., child brides, man on animal marriages, or anything else dumb like that that equality critics predict).
Quote: AZDuffman
It is now legal for a man to marry two women and them to marry each other for a Social Security survivor benefits bonanza. Polygamy is now legal. Child brides are now legal. There is no legal way to define marriage. With this kind of a ruling it is all wide open.
Quote: EvenBobI could marry
my dog now if I liked.
What on earth is wrong with you people? Typical fear mongering and scare tactics straight from the playbook of those on the right.
Obamacare will lead to death squads.
Gay Marriage means Polygamy, pedophilia and marrying your dog are legal.
Grow up and just stop. Stop worrying about what everyone else is doing. How about you live your life and try to be as happy as you can and let others do the same. THAT, gentlemen is the principal this country was founded on.
I am in a same sex marriage. That is between my partner/spouse and myself. It doesn't take away from your marriage or life one bit. It has absolutely nothing to do with your marriage or arrangement. That is between you EvenBob and Mrs. EvenBob and you, Duffman and Mrs. Duffman.
Chill! Learn to live and let live.
Quote: AZDuffman
It is now legal for a man to marry two women and them to marry each other for a Social Security survivor benefits bonanza. Polygamy is now legal. Child brides are now legal.
Do you have any references for this or are you just making up lies?
Quote: kewljI am in a same sex marriage. That is between my partner/spouse and myself. It doesn't take away from your marriage or life one bit.
Why do same-sex couples who get married deserve to have more rights than single people? Give equal rights to everyone regardless of marital status. Anything else is discrimination and it absolutely does take away from everyone else who now has to subsidize your benefits
Quote: kewljand marrying your dog are legal.
Dogs may have lesser agendas than getting married.
Quote: TomGWhy do same-sex couples who get married deserve to have more rights than single people?
You're looking at it wrong.
Single?
The number of potential marriage partners for you just doubled :-)
Quote: ams288
More importantly, is there a large group of people pushing for it?
Is that how you think the court works?
Good grief. The court is about the law.
If it's legal for same sexes to get married,
and the court said it is, then it's legal for
3 people to marry. Roberts was correct,
the exact same argument is true for both
scenarios. And it's an easier decision to make
because plural marriage is still practiced
in half the world. Home many wives did
Solomon have? 700?
As usual, the Left has thought nothing out,
it's all about me me me, and what I want.
Pandora's Box has been opened.
Quote: ams288Someone should take that action. It will never "seriously" be on the table.
Some d-bag political activist like that James O'Keefe guy might try to create some phony lawsuit to bring it into the judicial system, but it'll get laughed out of court.
You know, in theory, there are ways to get things done other than the judiciary. Never seems to work out in practice, but theoretically they're there.
I doubt that the courts will ever take this step. However, seeing acceptance of such relationships in the private sphere building in the subcultures that were ahead of the curve on LGBT issues, I do think it's only a matter of time before they try to get some sort of legal recognition. Whether it builds from there or implodes I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball. The temporal provincialism of your "right side of history" lot aside, I expect the world two hundred years from now, if either of us could see it, would be be as baffling to us as our world to Edmund Burke.
Quote: ams288What I meant is that gays will never again be denied the right to marry. Marriage will continue to evolve, as it always has. (But it will not evolve into legalized polygamy in the U.S., child brides, man on animal marriages, or anything else dumb like that that equality critics predict).
Why is it dumb? Dog f******ers should have the same right to be happy as we all do. If the dog barks twice, he agrees to the marriage. We have already changed the vows, w=so why cant barks be allowed. Just trying to make sure no one is offended and is allowed to be happy.
And if 3 women love a man and all agree to being married, why should they not be happy?
And if anyone isn't sure, I'm fine with all of it. America is changing and it's flag needs to GO too!
