Politics Please say rock bottom is getting close

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Tucker Carlson attacked the US while excusing Russia. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes is more communist than Putin. In Russia peaceful protesters aren't arrested like January 6 insurrectionists, except of course they are. And US government is going into people's homes to take away their guns, which also isn't happening.
 
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is the only kind of Black man Republicans like. A frequent guest on Sean Hannity and other right wing media, he naturally wants to outlaw abortion and birth control and hates gays. Standard, in fact mandatory. He says Black people need to build strong hetero families although he is unmarried.

Even further, he has praised enslavement of Black people.

He said people who march in Pride are children of Satan.

Not only must women be deprived of any control over our fertility, we can't even have fun in the process. He has denounced women who have orgasms as trying to be like men, who are the only ones allowed to enjoy sex.

Two male members of his congregation have charged he had extended sexual relationships with them.
 
Today a comet is passing closer to earth than any previously that we've recorded that hasn't impacted the planet ...I'd say rock bottom is getting pretty close!
 
1Bp5ahJ.png
 
BlazerBender said:
If one is for limited government where states largely handle their own, and make their own choices, how is that considered fascism? Isn't fascism more when one law or entity rules over all?
Click to expand...

Interracial marriage.

INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

Not allowing people to get married because of their race.

Dude.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Interracial marriage.

INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

Not allowing people to get married because of their race.

Dude.
Click to expand...
So what did the guy actually say? Did he say that he doesn't think interracial marriage should be legal? Or did he say he doesn't think the federal government should have the role of dictating that to the states?

Edit: it appears that he was even more narrow in his statement, specifically saying that he doesn't believe the Supreme Court should be using that dictate:

Question: So you would be OK with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?
Answer: Yes, I think that that's something that if you're not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you're not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too. I think that's hypocritical.
Click to expand...

I think he's an idiot for even engaging on that kind of question that clearly has no positive outcome for him.
 
Last edited:
SlyPokerDog said:
This.

But come on, not allowing the races to mix is fucking racist. It's not a states rights issue. No state should have a say in that.
Click to expand...
And it would be good if the follow up had been, "What do you think is the proper handling if a state is passing clearly racist or bigoted legislation? Does any branch of the federal government have the right, role, or responsibility to step in and act in the public interest when an individual state is clearly marginalizing members of its citizenry?" I'd like to see how he would respond to a direct question like that.

What I'm saying is that it's BS to take a guy saying "The Supreme Court shouldn't be dictating to states on matters like this," and twist it to act like he said, "BlAcK pEoPlE aNd WhItE pEoPlE sHoUlDn'T mArRy!!"
 
BlazerBender said:
Oh I would move to a state that didn't make it illegal, but isn't the point to allow everyone their own choice?
Click to expand...

So you get married in a state, live there, raise your family there, pay taxes, just live your life, then one day that very same state says you're no longer married and you have to move to get remarried?
 
Politicians--more often than not, Republican politicians--say enough stupid stuff worthy of being called out on that there's no reason to invent objectionable statements where they don't exist.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
And it would be good if the follow up had been, "What do you think is the proper handling if a state is passing clearly racist or bigoted legislation? Does any branch of the federal government have the right, role, or responsibility to step in and act in the public interest when an individual state is clearly marginalizing members of its citizenry?" I'd like to see how he would respond to a direct question like that.

What I'm saying is that it's BS to take a guy saying "The Supreme Court shouldn't be dictating to states on matters like this," and twist it to act like he said, "BlAcK pEoPlE aNd WhItE pEoPlE sHoUlDn'T mArRy!!"
Click to expand...

Said much better than I but exactly my point as well.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
So you get married in a state, live there, raise your family there, pay taxes, just live your life, then one day that very same state says you're no longer married and you have to move to get remarried?
Click to expand...

The state would vote on it. No different than anything else. If enough people vote for it then that is what they want.
 
BlazerBender said:
Why isn't it a states rights issue? I am asking. Is it against one of the federal constitutional rights?
Click to expand...
Is say it's an equal protection violation. Saying that you'd be allowed to marry a white woman but Jose next door can't seems like unequal treatment.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
And it would be good if the follow up had been, "What do you think is the proper handling if a state is passing clearly racist or bigoted legislation? Does any branch of the federal government have the right, role, or responsibility to step in and act in the public interest when an individual state is clearly marginalizing members of its citizenry?" I'd like to see how he would respond to a direct question like that.

What I'm saying is that it's BS to take a guy saying "The Supreme Court shouldn't be dictating to states on matters like this," and twist it to act like he said, "BlAcK pEoPlE aNd WhItE pEoPlE sHoUlDn'T mArRy!!"
Click to expand...


Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said Tuesday that he would be open to the Supreme Court overturning its 1967 ruling that legalized interracial marriage nationwide to allow states to independently decide the issue.

Braun — who made the comments during a conference call in which he discussed the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court — also said he’d welcome the rescinding of several key decisions made by the court in the past 70 years to pass the power to the states.

His remarks were first reported by local outlets NWI.com and WFYI Indianapolis.

Critical of activism from the bench, Braun cited a series of landmark decisions made by the court, including Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, and Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage.
​
No where in that tweet I posted said "BlAcK pEoPlE aNd WhItE pEoPlE sHoUlDn'T mArRy!!"

But if not allowing people to get married because of their race isn't racist then I don't know what is.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said Tuesday that he would be open to the Supreme Court overturning its 1967 ruling that legalized interracial marriage nationwide to allow states to independently decide the issue.

Braun — who made the comments during a conference call in which he discussed the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court — also said he’d welcome the rescinding of several key decisions made by the court in the past 70 years to pass the power to the states.

His remarks were first reported by local outlets NWI.com and WFYI Indianapolis.

Critical of activism from the bench, Braun cited a series of landmark decisions made by the court, including Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, and Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage.
​
No where in that tweet I posted said "BlAcK pEoPlE aNd WhItE pEoPlE sHoUlDn'T mArRy!!"

But if not allowing people to get married because of their race isn't racist then I don't know what is.
Click to expand...
I wasn't accusing you of saying that, or even that anyone had made that specific claim. But even the article that you quoted clearly reinterpreted his statements to claim he said something he didn't actually say. That's what I take issue with.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Is say it's an equal protection violation. Saying that you'd be allowed to marry a white woman but Jose next door can't seems like unequal treatment.
Click to expand...

Possibly. Would the state judicial system be able to override in that case then? Say it found itself onto a state ballot and people voted it in, couldn't the state’s own judicial system override, if deemed unconstitutional?

I do see right to privacy possibly being a counter as well? Personally, I've never felt government should be involved with marriage, but i also believe in limited government with more power to the states over the feds.
 
BlazerBender said:
Possibly. Would the state judicial system be able to override in that case then? Say it found itself onto a state ballot and people voted it in, couldn't the state’s own judicial system override, if deemed unconstitutional?

I do see right to privacy possibly being a counter as well? Personally, I've never felt government should be involved with marriage, but i also believe in limited government with more power to the states over the feds.
Click to expand...
A state's judiciary can only rule in regard to its own laws and constitution; a case has to go to a federal court in order for the US Constitution and amendments to come into play.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Abortion rights are not being decided by the voters in many states.
Click to expand...

I know. And im conflicted on that one as well. To me, having the federal government say one way or another leaves no room for personal belief aNd is very much fascist to force one way on all.

To me, the beauty of our country is our individual state freedom. So if enough people dont think/believe like me, I am able to move to an area with more like minded people, without either side dictating their beliefs to the other. The more control we give the federal government, the closer we get to fascism. The more we lean towards individual states’ rights, the more we maintain the ability to to allow all to have their own beliefs.
Do I believe abortion should be illegal? No. But who am i to tell others who think its bad, that they cant move to an aRea with like minded people and vote for their community to outlaw abortion? Its not my community. My community has laws i agree with on the subject. And their community has laws that agree with what they believe.

I don't see a problem with that. But i don't see everything.
 
No. An individual's rights should not be subject to majority rule. If a majority in a state thought only Christians should be allowed to vote, or only white men, is that OK?
If a majority wants slavery should it be allowed?
 
crandc said:
No. An individual's rights should not be subject to majority rule. If a majority in a state thought only Christians should be allowed to vote, or only white men, is that OK?
If a majority wants slavery should it be allowed?
Click to expand...

Good points.

So where is the line drawn where states should maintain rights thru majority vote vs. the federal government overruling for all?
 
BlazerBender said:
I know. And im conflicted on that one as well. To me, having the federal government say one way or another leaves no room for personal belief aNd is very much fascist to force one way on all.

To me, the beauty of our country is our individual state freedom. So if enough people dont think/believe like me, I am able to move to an area with more like minded people, without either side dictating their beliefs to the other. The more control we give the federal government, the closer we get to fascism. The more we lean towards individual states’ rights, the more we maintain the ability to to allow all to have their own beliefs.
Do I believe abortion should be illegal? No. But who am i to tell others who think its bad, that they cant move to an aRea with like minded people and vote for their community to outlaw abortion? Its not my community. My community has laws i agree with on the subject. And their community has laws that agree with what they believe.

I don't see a problem with that. But i don't see everything.
Click to expand...

PtldPlatypus said:
I wasn't accusing you of saying that, or even that anyone had made that specific claim. But even the article that you quoted clearly reinterpreted his statements to claim he said something he didn't actually say. That's what I take issue with.
Click to expand...

I can understand the Abortion/Roe v Wade debate. I may not agree with one side but I can clearly understand their argument.

Please explain to me how not allowing people to get married based on the color of their skin isn't just plain hateful racism? Please explain how it's a state's right to allow white & white to marry, and black & black to marry, but not white & black?

I could maybe understand the argument that state A says no one can be married, or everyone over the age of 18 but under the age of 40 has to be married. I wouldn't agree with it but I could understand it.

How are states wanting to decide who can be married based on skin colors not racist as fuck?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top