Glenn Beck Distorted Barack Obama's Views On The U.S. Constitution In Video

[Your Star]

Yes... they could vote and they were every bit as entitled to repel any force which sought to usurp their rights as were and are every other human being on the planet. Which is what they were doing in fighting the British Army... and that which brought them into the light of American history...

Um, your wrong. You had to be a citizen to be able to vote, and black people couldn't become citizens until the 14th amendment. Stop trying to change history, your only making yourself look like an idiot.

 

[Dittohead not!]

And THAT friends is the inevitable reaction of the common Beck, the BOY King. NOT ONE PERSON, Leftist, Progressive, Independent or otherwise can CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

But hey you'd probably turn to deceit and fraud too. That's true if one has a history of putting up rulers that were communist and they were anything but free.
The US doesn't have such a history... And 'being free' doesn't include tolerating their natural rights.

Secondly, Stewart is more creditable than Beck is.

LOL... Stewart's the highlight of centuries.


Like I said, Stewart would take a statement which implies concerted effort to discuss the issue give it focessed attention.

There you go. I've Beckifized your post for you. Do you like it that way? It sounds a lot better, I think.

 

[PubliusInfinitu]

Um, your wrong. You had to be a citizen to be able to vote, and black people couldn't become citizens until the 14th amendment. Stop trying to change history, your only making yourself look like an idiot.

Oh... well that IS interesting.

I guess the thing that bother's me about your argument is that, if I were making such, I'd have taken the relevant individuals... noted their respective States and cited the respective State laws which forbade those individuals the means to exercise their unalienable right to influence the government, which THE US CONSTITUTION STATED THE POWER OF WHICH WAS IMPARTED BY THE GOVERNED, of which they were decidedly individual parts... yet YOU chose to avoid stating the evidence which you, no doubt, were specifically thinking of when you made this assertion...

It's just so odd that you chose to omit any stated basis for your assertion, as an intellectually sound, logically valid argument would necessarily require such, at the absolute minimum.


But setting that aside; you seem incapable of shirking the ignorance which conflates the 'right' with the means to repel a contesting power which usurps the means to exercise one's right. Made particularly odd, given that this is a fundamental, immutable natural principle and one which rests at the keystone of the American foundation.

Understand friend, the US Declaration of Independence established the principles which defined America... the US Constitution is the governing construct which established the laws which defend and otherwise enforce those principles. There is absolutely NOTHING in the US Constitution which precludes ANY PERSON, male of female and without regard to race, from exercising the pre-existing natural human rights which that Constitution was designed to protect.

You're operating on a warped, deceptive revision of American history; a tactic typically advanced by those who stand antithetical to those immutable, natural American principles.

 

[PubliusInfinitu]

There you go. I've Beckifized your post for you. Do you like it that way? It sounds a lot better, I think.

So... you're implying that it is a fact that Beck's edit changed the context or Hussein's statement... and presumably because you have been unable to show that the edit changed the context in any way, in desperation, you've taken to changing the context of the statement of your fellow board member and demand that the two distinct examples are identical.

Now in truth, your argument is a deceit... an overt, intentional fraud... which is a tactic that is typical of the Progressive anti-American subversive.

Now was that your intention, or have I misunderstood your intention?

Naturally, you're invited to clarify your position, if you feel that I've misrepresented your point of view.

Best of luck.

 

[Dittohead not!]

it is a fact that Beck's edit changed the context or Hussein's statement. and presumably the edit changed the context in a desperation. You've taken to changing the context of the statement of your fellow board member. The two distinct examples are identical.


Naturally, you're invited to clarify your position. I've misrepresented your point of view.

Best of luck.

See how easy it is? Just delete a few key words, and voila, a whole new statement. With a little practice, I could get as good as Beck.

 

[Your Star]

But setting that aside; you seem incapable of shirking the ignorance which conflates the 'right' with the means to repel a contesting power which usurps the means to exercise one's right. Made particularly odd, given that this is a fundamental, immutable natural principle and one which rests at the keystone of the American foundation.

Understand friend, the US Declaration of Independence established the principles which defined America... the US Constitution is the governing construct which established the laws which defend and otherwise enforce those principles. There is absolutely NOTHING in the US Constitution which precludes ANY PERSON, male of female and without regard to race, from exercising the pre-existing natural human rights which that Constitution was designed to protect.

You're operating on a warped, deceptive revision of American history; a tactic typically advanced by those who stand antithetical to those immutable, natural American principles.

Slave owners, took away the rights of blacks. Minorities, and women for that matter were not equal under the law when the Constitution was written. Thats a fact, you can't spin your way out of that one. The Constitution didn't take away their rights, but laws on the books did. And it took several SCOTUS cases, and a few amendments to the Constitution to make it where this was true.
And I doubt the College Board AP program would teach me a deceptive revision of American history, but I do think Glenn Beck would.

 

[PubliusInfinitu]

see how easy it is? Just delete a few key words, and voila, a whole new statement. With a little practice, i could get as good as beck.

sweet fail!​

 

[Deuce]

So... you're implying that it is a fact that Beck's edit changed the context or Hussein's statement....

Yes that is exactly what we're implying. If you can't figure out how it changes the context, I don't know what to tell you. It's hard to explain things to people who are incapable of thinking in terms other than absolutes.

 

[PubliusInfinitu]

Slave owners, took away the rights of blacks.

Did they? Again you're conflating the RIGHT... with the MEANS TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT... now that's an interesting position given the many American blacks that were not slaves...

Of course, the problem is that not all Americans were slave owners and not all states allowed slavery; and naturally, this reality would necessarily preclude any means for 'slave owners to take away the rights of blacks'... to exist as an over arching fact. Clearly, you erroneously believe that all blacks were slaves in Colonial America, but the truth is, you've been misinformed.

First, slavery was not limited to blacks... indentured servitude was a common practice... and most indentured servants were white folks... and 'indentured' implies a willful arrangement, most indentured servants were serving well short of willingly.

Beyond that... can you explain how one can take away something that is beyond their means to touch? Slave owners are endowed by the same Creator, with the same rights as blacks, so where do they come by the authority, let alone a sound moral justification which entitles them to enslave anyone, including blacks?

Now clearly, given the finite nature of the species, slave owners did not and do not to this day, enjoy any authority beyond anyone else; and given the equity of rights, there can be no sound moral justification for enslaving others... so such would be a result of what?

It would be a function of unsound injustice, right?

Minorities, and women for that matter were not equal under the law when the Constitution was written. Thats a fact, you can't spin your way out of that one. The Constitution didn't take away their rights, but laws on the books did. And it took several SCOTUS cases, and a few amendments to the Constitution to make it where this was true.
And I doubt the College Board AP program would teach me a deceptive revision of American history, but I do think Glenn Beck would.

What laws? You're implying that minorities had no rights anywhere, as a matter of FEDERAL LAW... This is simply PREPOSTEROUS.

Was it the case in some of the respective states? You bet... But wile setting aside the entire argument of cultural conventions and mores, relevant to the respective regions, you're also setting aside the incontrovertible fact, that the principles set forth in the US Declaration of Independence ARE THE BASIS for the FEDERAL LAWS which overtly enumerated specifically, the rights of Minorities and forbade the States from enforcing laws which otherwise infringed upon those pre-existing rights and the means of those minorities to exercise THEIR PRE-EXISTING RIGHTS... rights which they ALWAYS HAD AS A RESULT OF THEIR HAVING BEEN ENDOWED AT CONCEPTION, BY THEIR CREATOR... RIGHTS WHICH ARE EQUAL TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHICH SOUGHT TO USURP THEIR MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS...

You seem to want to argue that because a woman was specifically forbade from voting by a state legal code... that this meant that women did not have a right to influence their government; that women didn't have the right because government had not given them the right. When the simple fact is that the US Declaration of Independence; which is the charter of principles which set forth the foundation on which America and the US Constitution rests... specifically states that all men are created equal... men meaning the species... NOT while men, not male men... but the human; and that the US DOI OVERTLY STATES THAT THE GOVERNMENT GETS IT POWER AS A RESULT OF THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED; with the US Constitution specifically stating that all powers not imparted to the Federal Government of the US, is specifically reserved by the individuals... ergo, women and minorities have always had the same rights as white men. PERIOD.

This is a common misnomer, so don't sweat it. The point is, that those PRINCIPLES inevitably forced aside the various cultural mores; which FTR, varied widely from region to region and more so from state to state. It is those principles which recognized the PRE-EXISTING RIGHT... those principles recognized that the government cannto give rights and the the only valid purpose of government is to PROTECT THOSE PRE-EXISTING RIGHTS.

And this is why the US Constitution does not GIVE rights, but establishes limitations on the varying powers within the culture; from the power of the individual which is derived from financial influence, to power derived by legislative authority of the State; and why the American founder's established the US Constitution as such.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I fail!​

Yep. You're right. Changing and deleting someone's words doesn't do a thing to change the meaning of what they say.

And if it does, you can just SHOUT nonsense for a few paragraphs.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

More obscurance and dissembling... more of the same deceit and fraud which is typical of the evil that is the Ideological Left.

The tactic here: Declaring certain speech off limits; is a means by which the opposition hopes to gain control of the terms and scope which define the debate.

Such are very old and quite predictable schemes; fallacious notions discovered thousands of years ago, by no less notable a thinker than Plato; whose thoughts on such were written and expanded upon by his successor and student Sacrates. Such tactics represent the fatal flaws of the human species... demonstrating the glaring weaknesses intrinsic to the Leftist ideology and the unsound, unsustainable reasoning common to Left-think.

Wow, I didn't know you were smarter than Plato. I'm impressed!:roll:

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Did they? Again you're conflating the RIGHT... with the MEANS TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT... now that's an interesting position given the many American blacks that were not slaves...

Of course, the problem is that not all Americans were slave owners and not all states allowed slavery; and naturally, this reality would necessarily preclude any means for 'slave owners to take away the rights of blacks'... to exist as an over arching fact. Clearly, you erroneously believe that all blacks were slaves in Colonial America, but the truth is, you've been misinformed.

First, slavery was not limited to blacks... indentured servitude was a common practice... and most indentured servants were white folks... and 'indentured' implies a willful arrangement, most indentured servants were serving well short of willingly.

Beyond that... can you explain how one can take away something that is beyond their means to touch? Slave owners are endowed by the same Creator, with the same rights as blacks, so where do they come by the authority, let alone a sound moral justification which entitles them to enslave anyone, including blacks?

Now clearly, given the finite nature of the species, slave owners did not and do not to this day, enjoy any authority beyond anyone else; and given the equity of rights, there can be no sound moral justification for enslaving others... so such would be a result of what?

It would be a function of unsound injustice, right?





What laws? You're implying that minorities had no rights anywhere, as a matter of FEDERAL LAW... This is simply PREPOSTEROUS.

Was it the case in some of the respective states? You bet... But wile setting aside the entire argument of cultural conventions and mores, relevant to the respective regions, you're also setting aside the incontrovertible fact, that the principles set forth in the US Declaration of Independence ARE THE BASIS for the FEDERAL LAWS which overtly enumerated specifically, the rights of Minorities and forbade the States from enforcing laws which otherwise infringed upon those pre-existing rights and the means of those minorities to exercise THEIR PRE-EXISTING RIGHTS... rights which they ALWAYS HAD AS A RESULT OF THEIR HAVING BEEN ENDOWED AT CONCEPTION, BY THEIR CREATOR... RIGHTS WHICH ARE EQUAL TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHICH SOUGHT TO USURP THEIR MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS...

You seem to want to argue that because a woman was specifically forbade from voting by a state legal code... that this meant that women did not have a right to influence their government; that women didn't have the right because government had not given them the right. When the simple fact is that the US Declaration of Independence; which is the charter of principles which set forth the foundation on which America and the US Constitution rests... specifically states that all men are created equal... men meaning the species... NOT while men, not male men... but the human; and that the US DOI OVERTLY STATES THAT THE GOVERNMENT GETS IT POWER AS A RESULT OF THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED; with the US Constitution specifically stating that all powers not imparted to the Federal Government of the US, is specifically reserved by the individuals... ergo, women and minorities have always had the same rights as white men. PERIOD.

This is a common misnomer, so don't sweat it. The point is, that those PRINCIPLES inevitably forced aside the various cultural mores; which FTR, varied widely from region to region and more so from state to state. It is those principles which recognized the PRE-EXISTING RIGHT... those principles recognized that the government cannto give rights and the the only valid purpose of government is to PROTECT THOSE PRE-EXISTING RIGHTS.

And this is why the US Constitution does not GIVE rights, but establishes limitations on the varying powers within the culture; from the power of the individual which is derived from financial influence, to power derived by legislative authority of the State; and why the American founder's established the US Constitution as such.

You know nothing about the constitution. The constitution is a contract of the people and for the people to elect representatives to govern ourselves. It is not a foreign or supernatural entity that rules us.

 

[PubliusInfinitu]

You know nothing about the constitution. The constitution is a contract of the people and for the people to elect representatives to govern ourselves. It is not a foreign or supernatural entity that rules us.

And what a marvelous point that would be, IF I had said anything that even remotely implied that such was the case.

But... I gotta say; as logically invalid, intellectually unsound reasoning goes... THAT was SPECTACULAR. Truly, it is one of the most pathetic straw dogs to ever be trotted into debate...

 

[PubliusInfinitu]

Wow, I didn't know you were smarter than Plato. I'm impressed!:roll:

Ahh, so you know of Plato? Now I'M impressed...

More's the pity, that being familiar with Plato, you still can't find the intellectual steam to avoid fallacious reasoning. Plato, of course, would not approve.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

And what a marvelous point that would be, IF I had said anything that even remotely implied that such was the case.

But... I gotta say; as logically invalid, intellectually unsound reasoning goes... THAT was SPECTACULAR. Truly, it is one of the most pathetic straw dogs to ever be trotted into debate...

Your caps are awesome, too!:roll:

 

[PubliusInfinitu]

Yep. You're right. Changing and deleting someone's words doesn't do a thing to change the meaning of what they say.

And if it does, you can just SHOUT nonsense for a few paragraphs.

Yes, I am right... But that's largely a measure of you being wrong... and my simply pointing it out. I do that a lot.

Now your position is that any form of edit is inappropriate... and this is because in this case, you are desperate to establish as a fact, that it is impossible to edit a statement and not change the context of the statement; which is absurd.

Below is an example of your above statement, which I've edited without altering the context. Like Beck's edit of Barry Soetoro's anti-American clamberings, I simply edited your drivel of irrelevancy... and doing so without changing the context of your statement in ANY WAY.

It is interesting however, that YOU, the Progressive have repeatedly demonstrated the Progressive nature by ONLY EDITING content TO INTENTIONALLY CHANGE THE CONTEXT... I wonder what that tells us about YOU, your character and that of your ideology?

Which of course, once again COMPLETELY, UTTERLY, WHOLLY REFUTES YOUR ERRONEOUS AND FATALLY FLAWED POINT.

Yep. You're right. Changing someone's words doesn't change the(ir) meaning.

Now friends, this progressive member... with Progressives being what they are and all, has been REPEATEDLY CHALLENGED, IN SPECIFIC TERMS, to demonstrate how Beck's edit changed the timbre or context of the BS statement... and this member has chronically and consistantly demonstrated that she is incapable of doing so; and to avoid the inherent accountability of her failure and in keeping with the unsound, unsustainable traits of Left-think, the Leftist feels that she must now troll the thread and do everything she can to enflame the debate...

I feel that it is only fair to WARN this member, that if she returns to this thread to again deliberately alter my or any other member's post to make this REPEATEDLY REFUTED POINT, I will report her to the staff for trolling and lock her out of any further means to engage me in debate.

I have a fairly high threshold for the poorly constructed, fatally flawed twaddle; OKA: Left-think... but I'vealmost no tolerance for flaming-trolls.

 

[ScottD]

Below is an example of your above statement, which I've edited without altering the context. Like Beck's edit of Barry Soetoro's anti-American clamberings, I simply edited your drivel of irrelevancy... and doing so without changing the context of your statement in ANY WAY.

That would have been nice if that was what you had done, which you didn't. You very much changed the context of his post from a sarcastic comment to a post saying you are right. So basically, you did what Beck did, LIED. Obama never said anything anti-American, Beck editited him to make him sound that way. I'd much have a President that could tell that the Constitution, while a great document that has done a lot of good, is flawed.

 

[Objective Voice]

That's the point I believe the President was trying to make, that when the Constitution was originally signed, it clearly didn't include equality for all men, just some. But that doesn't mean that the Constitution as it stands today is a bad document. Still, it is flawed. The fact that posters have argued a simple but relevent issue as "what does 'natural born citizen' mean and who is classified as such" only goes to prove that.

It's not a perfect document, but it remains an enviable template for every nation seeking democracy the world over. But I digress...

Where the issue of race is concerned, African Americans (black slaves) were not made a part of the American landscape where individual freedoms and equality were concerned. They were seen either as a means for international and domestic commerce or as part of the labor force without rights or benefits. So, how anyone can stand up and disagree with the President on this issue is really absord! Still, that doesn't make him unpatriotic. It simply means he understands (perhaps better than most) how excluding slaves as part of the American citizenry has had a long lasting negative impact on our nation's society that still affects us to this day. How people continue to deny that in this day and age just boggles the mind!

i'm sorry, but this simply isn't accurate. as evil as slavery is, equating it with racism is incorrect. blacks and whites did indeed have similar rights under the original Constitution. slaves didn't.

How could you bring yourself to make such a foolish statement? Even if a Black person was free prior to 1787, they did NOT have the same rights as Whites.

From Constitution.net:

Slavery

When the United States first created the Constitution, most of the black people in America were actually slaves. A slave is someone who is owned by someone else. Today, there are no legal slaves in America, but legal slavery was very common in 1787. As time went by, more and more people thought that slavery was wrong. Most of the people who wanted to end slavery, called abolitionists, were from the states in the north. Most of the people who wanted to keep slavery were from the states in the south. The Southern states wanted to keep slavery because a lot of their economy, how they made money and did business, was tied up with slaves. Slaves were worth money, and slaves picked their crops, like cotton and tobacco.

The people in the North said that ending slavery was an important step for the nation to take. The people of the South were afraid of losing their economy, and saw the ability to have slavery as an important issue for each state to decide on its own. When President Lincoln was elected, the South got very angry. His election was seen as a strike against slavery because Lincoln had said he didn't like slavery. Most of the Southern states decided to break away from the United States to create their own country, the Confederate States of America. The USA did not agree that the states of the CSA could break away. The Civil War followed. The USA won that war, but it was a terrible war - one of the worst the United States has ever had in terms of death and destruction.

One very positive thing emerged from the Civil War, though: the end of slavery. In the 13th Amendment, slavery was forever abolished in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment said that every person born in the United States was a full citizen of the United States, even if that person was a former slave. The 15th Amendment made sure that black people could vote. Many people felt that even if black people were not slaves, they were still inferior to white people, and for 100 years, some laws were passed to keep black people from being equal to whites. Though we still live with the legacy of slavery today, the election of President Barack Obama, in 2008, was one further step on the way to our fulfillment of the dream of equality.

Either you were just playing stupid to pander this debate further or you really are that stupid! :doh

 

[ScottD]

Is it really?

Well let's see how that holds up?



Pedophiles are people with beliefs different from mine... Should I defend their Right to those beliefs also?

Or, do we both agree that we do not defend the right of a pedophile to believe as they believe, because there is no right to usurp the rights of another... thus there's no POTENTIAL RIGHT TO ADVOCATE FOR THE USURPATION OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. Meaning, in simple terms that there is no right to strip a child of their innocence, EVEN IF ONE CAN INFLUENCE A CHILD TO WILLINGLY PARTICIPATE IN BEHAVIOR WHICH WOULD STRIP THEM OF THEIR INNOCENCE.

The same is true of Leftism... Left-think stands FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE than THEFT. PERIOD!

There is no right to strip another of their property... Thus there is no right to advocate for such, by rationalizing that theft is acceptable when it serves the subjective needs of the collective... and subverting the means of the individuals to exercise their rights through the power imparted in good faith to the legislature and claiming that such constitutes law, thus must be respected.

Whoops... Turns out being people with differing ideas, is not in and of itself a sufficient excuse to justify immorality.

I mean let's assume for the sake of argument that there's a young man walking down my street at 3:00am... we'll call him Deon and with Deon is his comrade, Karl. The spy upon my home and take the idea that their lives would be immeasurably improved by taking possession of my belongings; so Deon and Karl took a vote and found that the majority opinion agreed and they immediately took action to enforce the collective will and walked up my driveway, through my front door and began collecting property, of which they felt rightfully entitled to take possession.

Now my security system and dogs immediately alert me of Deon and Karl's presence and upon inquiring, I find Deon and Karl in my home, gathering my property.

Naturally, my opinion of Deon and Karl's actions differs from that of Deon and Karl... my opinion is that their collective is a clear and present threat to and a incontestable usurpation of my rights; and having come to that logically valid, intellectually sound conclusion... I raise my trusty glock and double-tap both Deon and Karl in the center of their respective masses, dropping them like a couple of sacks of rhetorical dirt; an action which rests in the perfect moral justification which instantly strips each of their respective lives...

Now there's not much of a distinction in the cultural macro of communist insurgencies and that Deon and Karl Collective micro.

I could have forfeited my right to my property... I could have rejected my responsibility to defend my life, my family and home... conceding to the invalid, unsustainable, unsound reasoning of the little Communist collective, but I chose to recognize, respect and bear the responsibility intrinsic in my endowed, certain, self evident, unalienable rights; which resulted in my having effectively sustained my rights.

I hope that helps...

Let me point out some things that are wrong with that post.

1) You are advocating Genocide to prevent theft? Overkill.

2) The left also stands for dignity and honoring the rights of all Americans, something the right forgets when it bans gay marriage and the like.

3) Communism does not dictate theft. You are twisting the very ideals of communism with your false analogy there.

4) Again, I'm going to come back to the fact that even if that analogy was even the little most bit accurate, it would still no advocate the brutal oppression of a group of people.

 

[TennesseeRain]

Either you were just playing stupid to pander this debate further or you really are that stupid! :doh

Apparently, he's a fan of Plessy v. Ferguson

 

[Redress]

I feel that it is only fair to WARN this member, that if she returns to this thread to again deliberately alter my or any other member's post to make this REPEATEDLY REFUTED POINT, I will report her to the staff for trolling and lock her out of any further means to engage me in debate.

Moderator's Warning:

If you have a problem with a post, report it. Don't threaten to report it, don't threaten things beyond your ability. Further, it's time to talk about the topic, and not the other posters here.

 

[cpwill]

How could you bring yourself to make such a foolish statement?

education. it's a dangerous thing for popular misconceptions.

Even if a Black person was free prior to 1787, they did NOT have the same rights as Whites.

:shrug: that depended a bit more on where you were, certainly the society was not racist in the meaning we have come to imbue the term with. that racism was a product of later science. however, blacks in early America in various places voted, held office, worked equally and fought in the military equally with whites... James Armistead Laffayette, though a slave, was trusted to serve as an extremely highly placed double agent for the Revolutionaries. George Washington coordinated the movement of his army and the French navy based off of Armisteads' reporting, and (it's a fun little known story) he may have very well been responsible for our victory at Yorktown; this is not the level of trust and confidence you give to someone whom you are convinced is inherently weak, immoral, and stupid (as racism would have us believe). Armistead was freed by the Virginia state legislature's decree, given a pension, and became a farmer - and he himself owned slaves. as did many free blacks.

because slavery =\= racism. where blacks were freed, it wasn't until later in America's history that we begin to see the really nasty stuff, the laws forbidding blacks to learn to read, own certain property, or testify in court, etc. the most racist president we've ever had wasn't any of the founders (who, btw, generally opposed slavery themselves), but 20th century Woodrow Wilson.

 

[cpwill]

1) You are advocating Genocide to prevent theft? Overkill.

not at all; he's simply bringing to bear a pretty common part of natural-rights philosophy; that you do not have the ability to 'give up' your inalienable rights. for example, we hold that i cannot rightfully sell myself into slavery; me being in a state of slavery would still be a violition of my rights, even though i willfully put myself there. It's why alot of people oppose legalizing suicide. his anti-pedophilia statement is another expression of the thought process.

i'm not sure i completely agree with it (with the exception of pedophilia; you have to be at the point where you can be considered to be fully capable of making your own decisions in order to exercise them with this level of intense result), but it's hardly an extreme position.

2) The left also stands for dignity and honoring the rights of all Americans, something the right forgets when it bans gay marriage and the like.

interesting. considering that traditional marriage has been upheld every time it has been put to a vote - and by considerable margins - does this mean that you consider the majority of Americans to be 'the right'?

and if the left is interested in upholding the dignity of all Americans, why does it degrade so many of them? why are 'tea baggers all racists' ? why do they need to go intimidate bankers by threatening them at home? why are Americans 'a nation of cowards'? why do we need to limit the first amendment rights or expression of conservative Americans?

3) Communism does not dictate theft. You are twisting the very ideals of communism with your false analogy there

communism absolutely does dictate theft.

 

[cpwill]

Apparently, he's a fan of Plessy v. Ferguson

no, but i do use it as an entertaining (and often unexpected) bludgeon when discussing the claim that government is needed to fix the effects of racism in society.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

no, but i do use it as an entertaining (and often unexpected) bludgeon when discussing the claim that government is needed to fix the effects of racism in society.

If Rosa Parks were still here I am sure she would disagree with you.