- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
- Messages
- 11,524
- Reaction score
- 6,769
- Location
- Las Vegas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
There is a difference between disagreeing and ugly name calling.
here is my point about the party. If somerepublicans do not rule out having nugent as their spokeperson on the campaign trail is appalling.that is exactly what i said. "criticizing your political opponent is pretty much normal imho. Using terms like "subhuman mongrel" is uniquely insulting and disgusting" so unless you want to compensate me for copyright violation, please explain why when i say it, you overlook it and then you say the same thing and expect the chamber to break into applause.
Is there a possibility that you are misreading my posts? :doh what do you think i said?
(i consider this to be good natured banter, nothing more. But really, you should at least try to find the great wisdoms of my declarations so you don't end up with a huge bill)
All those countries you imply are uncivilized are ruled by laws and treaties too. You're just parrotting soupy nonsense. And yes, Russia for instance. No doubt it's civilized and ruled by laws and treaty AND they do indeed discriminate against homosexuals.
They are not civilized, that is my point. The USA however is a civilized country that actually respects human rights and want to live according to those values. Russia is not a civilized country, Russia proves that just about every day/week. They might have rules and treaty ratification but they do not embody or respect civil rights.
No to that last. And the UN's kumbayah meaningless in reality speech aside you really don't know much about the US do you? The Jim Crow laws were struck down by the SCOTUS because they violated CONSTITUTIONAL rights.
Yes to the last, the US did ratify that treaty https://www.aclu.org/human-rights/faq-covenant-civil-political-rights-iccpr from what I understand. And as the US has ratified this, it goes far beyond the UN kumbayah meaningless etc.
The Jim Crow laws were struck down by the SCOTUS so why would all these anti-gay laws not be found just as unconstitutional? There are already several federal rulings naming anti-gay wedding laws unconstitutional.
I was looking for more along the lines of something that acts as a foundation of a chain of reasoning, of which, under all circumstances, necessarily fixed, determines, defines and governs the civil rights of men. The law really doesn't work towards those ends, sorry.
America fought a Civil War to end Forced Association in the form of slavery. Perhaps you're not as sensitive to the issue of forced association as some Americans. You see, in America there is no such Right as Forced Association. What does exist is the Right to Free Association. Liberals hate this right and have been waging war on it and now they've also turned on Free Speech too, with their hate speech laws and speech codes at universities.
There seems to be something dark in the heart of liberals.
That is a code I like to live by and want to promote.
here is my point about the party. If some republicans do not rule out having nugent as their spokeperson on the campaign trail is appalling.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. There is one GOP candidate who has embraced Nugent and even then, with a disclaimer. "All Republicans" do not have the authority to tell a candidate what they may or may not do. So, what is this point you are trying to make?
" If some republicans do not rule out having nugent as their spokeperson on the campaign trail is appalling " is not a structurally functional sentence. Did I not document that not just some, but many Republicans have disclaimed Nugent?
How about republican presidential hopefuls. Have they condemned this blatant blasphemy
IDK. Have they? Did anyone ask them? What was their response?
Apparently you give Nugent more credibility than most do. Most people think he's nuts - you seem to think he's important. What is that all about?
Here is my take. Remember when McCain addressed the woman who claimed that Obama was not an American. Do you think that will happen in 2014 elections? I don't
If you're trying to confuse me - you've succeeded. How did McCain get into this conversation? How did Obama get in this conversation?
Q. How about republican presidential hopefuls. Have they condemned this blatant blasphemy
A. IDK.
Q. Have they? Q.Did anyone ask them? Q. What was their response?
A. "Here is my take. Remember when McCain addressed the woman who claimed that Obama was not an American. Do you think that will happen in 2014 elections? I don't"
In 2014 I predict that a woman will claim that Obama is not an American. Of course, I could be wrong. Women are so unpredictable.
I think we are on different posts. Have a nice evening
Too bad that it's an incoherent code. It is the incoherence which makes it unworkable.
The Left is already at work trying to cook up a "right" to be not be offended. This is the handmaiden to the "right" to not be discriminated against. The "right" to not be offended is exercised within the realm of speech and the "right" to not be discriminated against is exercised within the realm of associations.
For both rights to exist, they require that actual rights, those of free speech and free association, be abandoned. For a person to not be offended by me requires that I privilege their feelings over my own right to speak my mind. For a person to not be discriminated against by me requires that I associate with this person when my own preference is not to associate with that person.
Women are really going to be pissed off when you liberal totalitarians start forcing them to see male gynecologists instead of female gynecologists because you object to the sexual discrimination that they direct at male physicians.
Not really, its the reason don't ask don't tell worked so well to ease the concerns of straight soldiers
Powerful GOP lobbyist drafts bill to ban gay athletes from playing in the NFL | The Raw Story
Classic. The GOP slowly sliding into an irrelevant regional party based upon hate. May God have mercy on their souls.
if this is not a joke, its very troubling as usual, of politicians who believe they have power to control things which are not a delegated power.
What a stupid idea! Pretty sure it isn't even close to being constitutional. DADT for the NFL. Please. If DADT was repealed for the military, there is no way that Congress can or will enact it for a private league. It is in no way the government's place to do such a thing. I don't care how the guy wants to push it, it is not the government's place to do it. I'm not even sure it would be okay for the teams/league to do the proposed on their own. Private showers/stalls would be one thing, but separate facilities that single out/separate players by sexuality is discrimination.
It won't pass. What's the big deal?
Expression of opinion. And I feel people like Jack Burkman (the guy who wrote this stupid legislation) need to be called out for their stupidity in doing stupid things like this. Doesn't matter if the only ones who see it know that it won't pass. The fact that he does apparently hold some political influence means that things like this should be brought up whenever he tries to flex that influence in other ways.
Its one clown, who drafted a bill that will never pass. Deal with it.
What a stupid idea! Pretty sure it isn't even close to being constitutional. DADT for the NFL. Please. If DADT was repealed for the military, there is no way that Congress can or will enact it for a private league. It is in no way the government's place to do such a thing. I don't care how the guy wants to push it, it is not the government's place to do it. I'm not even sure it would be okay for the teams/league to do the proposed on their own. Private showers/stalls would be one thing, but separate facilities that single out/separate players by sexuality is discrimination.
I'm expressing my opinion of that "one clown" in a thread directly related to it. Maybe you are the one who needs to "deal with it".
It'll never pass. Stop with the fear mongering.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?