Jump to content

Karl Rove thanks you


Doug69
This topic is 6596 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

For those of you still scratching your hurting, little liberal heads, bewildered at how you lost YET AGAIN, and this time so decisively, Karl Rove generously explained to the New York Times this morning that the reason Bush won is because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU - who, because you are incapable of persuading your fellow citizens to adopt your political views on gay marriage and/or because you think that you are so smart and wise that you don't have to be bothered with that lowly exercise in democracy, you instead keep trying to find liberal judges to IMPOSE your political views regarding gay marriage on your fellow citizens - or, in San Franscisco, you simply BREAK THE LAWS you don't like and have your elected officials do what they want.

 

So, Mr. Rove gleefully explains, all praise for last Tuesday's election is due not to Allah, but to liberals. The backlash was NOT against gay marriage or against gay people; instead, it was against the actions of judges and lawless elected officials who think that the views of the majority are irrelevant, and who, instead, believe that they are so superior, so much wiser, that they can distort the Constitution to simply override the will of the majority to shove down their throats the laws they don't want.

 

Keep engaging in your anti-democratic, tyrannical tactics, and you will reap what you sow - just as you justly suffered last Tuesday, with still worse to come, unless you learn your lesson.

 

You can think all you want that you are so "smart" and that Bush supporters are so "dumb," but given that you have caused your political party to lose control of pretty much everything, how smart are you? And no matter how "dumb" you think red state-rs are, they aren't so dumb that they are going to believe that the U.S. Constitution prohibits them from confining marriage to a man and a woman.

 

Here's Mr. Rove, explaining how he crushed you - again:

_______________________________

 

'Moral Values' Carried Bush, Rove Says

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

 

Published: November 10, 2004

 

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, said Tuesday that opposition to gay marriage was one of the most powerful forces in American politics today and that politicians ignored it at their peril.

 

"This is an issue on which there is a broad consensus," Mr. Rove said, discussing a presidential election that took place as voters in 11 states backed constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriages.

 

"In all 11 states, it won by considerable margins," Mr. Rove said, adding, "People do not like the idea or the concept of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman being uprooted and overturned by a few activist judges or a couple of activist local officials."

 

He said he was not certain that the votes necessarily helped Mr. Bush to defeat Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. He noted that Mr. Kerry had won Michigan and Oregon, where the amendments passed by large margins.

 

"I do think it was part and parcel of a broader fabric where this year moral values ranked higher than they traditionally do," he said, adding: "I think people would be well advised to pay attention to what the American people are saying."

 

Mr. Rove suggested that the Republican Party's success was even broader than some Democrats had acknowledged, citing increased Republican vote totals in states like Hawaii and Connecticut.

 

"You're starting to see some growth of the Republican Party in places where you might not think there was a chance for growth," he said.

 

Mr. Rove appeared to stifle a grin when asked whether he was "indebted" to Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, who opened his City Hall to gay marriages until he was blocked by a court, and to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, for ruling that gay couples have a right to marriage.

 

"If you look at things that intrude into American politics through a nontraditional method - through a judicial vein - they tend to have a huge impact," he said.

 

On Capitol Hill, Mr. Kerry met with Democratic leaders - Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the incoming Senate minority leader - as he prepared to return to the Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>For those of you still scratching your hurting, little

>liberal heads, bewildered at how you lost YET AGAIN, and this

>time so decisively, Karl Rove generously explained to the New

>York Times this morning that the reason Bush won is because of

>PEOPLE LIKE YOU - who, because you are incapable of persuading

>your fellow citizens to adopt your political views on gay

>marriage and/or because you think that you are so smart and

>wise that you don't have to be bothered with that lowly

>exercise in democracy, you instead keep trying to find liberal

>judges to IMPOSE your political views regarding gay marriage

>on your fellow citizens - or, in San Franscisco, you simply

>BREAK THE LAWS you don't like and have your elected officials

>do what they want.

 

Well Dougie, once again, you got it wrong. It was George Bush and the Republicans who made Gay Marriage an issue in this campaign. He was the one who came out for a constitutional ammendment banning Gay marriage. Also, in the States where a referendum on Gay marriage was on this year's ballots, it was the Republican/Communists who started that whole mess.

 

As usual, you got it wrong.

>

>So, Mr. Rove gleefully explains, all praise for last Tuesday's

>election is due not to Allah, but to liberals. The backlash

>was NOT against gay marriage or against gay people; instead,

>it was against the actions of judges and lawless elected

>officials who think that the views of the majority are

>irrelevant, and who, instead, believe that they are so

>superior, so much wiser, that they can distort the

>Constitution to simply override the will of the majority to

>shove down their throats the laws they don't want.

 

No all praise is due to the Republican communists who decided to divide our nation with this issue instead of trying to find ways to unite us. They sought to restrict the freedoms of some Americans instead of increase them.

 

Please give my congrats to your Communistic heros.

>

>Keep engaging in your anti-democratic, tyrannical tactics, and

>you will reap what you sow - just as you justly suffered last

>Tuesday, with still worse to come, unless you learn your

>lesson.

 

It is the President who is anti-democratic and tyranical. He was the one who sought to force people to do things his way.

>

>You can think all you want that you are so "smart" and that

>Bush supporters are so "dumb," but given that you have caused

>your political party to lose control of pretty much

>everything, how smart are you? And no matter how "dumb" you

>think red state-rs are, they aren't so dumb that they are

>going to believe that the U.S. Constitution prohibits them

>from confining marriage to a man and a woman.

>

 

This is hardly an issue for the constitution. To add somethign like this to the constitution is morally and ethically wrong.

 

Yes your heros won. But that is not a good thing. The communists are now in control of our government. You are right. they will continue to restrict the rights of everyday people. It is a sad day in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Karl Rove thanks you, so does Jesus

 

From The Morning Call -- November 8, 2004

 

Jesus speaks through the Republicans

 

 

I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.

 

It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans.

 

The Democrats will not be able to win elections until they renounce their sinful ways and stop encouraging abortions, gayness, and trying to take away our guns.

 

Earl Balboa

 

Washington Township

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>For those of you still scratching your hurting, little

>liberal heads, bewildered at how you lost YET AGAIN, and this

>time so decisively, Karl Rove generously explained to the New

>York Times this morning that the reason Bush won is because of

>PEOPLE LIKE YOU - who, because you are incapable of persuading

>your fellow citizens to adopt your political views on gay

>marriage and/or because you think that you are so smart and

>wise that you don't have to be bothered with that lowly

>exercise in democracy, you instead keep trying to find liberal

>judges to IMPOSE your political views regarding gay marriage

>on your fellow citizens - or, in San Franscisco, you simply

>BREAK THE LAWS you don't like and have your elected officials

>do what they want.

>

>So, Mr. Rove gleefully explains, all praise for last Tuesday's

>election is due not to Allah, but to liberals. The backlash

>was NOT against gay marriage or against gay people; instead,

>it was against the actions of judges and lawless elected

>officials who think that the views of the majority are

>irrelevant, and who, instead, believe that they are so

>superior, so much wiser, that they can distort the

>Constitution to simply override the will of the majority to

>shove down their throats the laws they don't want.

>

>Keep engaging in your anti-democratic, tyrannical tactics, and

>you will reap what you sow - just as you justly suffered last

>Tuesday, with still worse to come, unless you learn your

>lesson.

>

>You can think all you want that you are so "smart" and that

>Bush supporters are so "dumb," but given that you have caused

>your political party to lose control of pretty much

>everything, how smart are you? And no matter how "dumb" you

>think red state-rs are, they aren't so dumb that they are

>going to believe that the U.S. Constitution prohibits them

>from confining marriage to a man and a woman.

>

>

Doug;

 

You may be correct about the backlash and the cause for Bush's victory last week. However I think you show very little understanding of how the United States of Ameirca actually works. It may come as a surprise to you that there are THREE EQUAL BRANCHES of our great government, the Exceutive, the Legislative and the Judicial. One is not superior to any of the others, they act to balance each other, as the framers of our Constitution brilliantly wrote it.

 

I also understand what happened last week, but that does not make me change any of my opinions or actions. The pursuit of gay marriage in Massachusetts was done through proper constitutional channels, and it has been granted. An although Massachusetts is the bluest of the blue states, there is very little chance that we will lose the right to marry in Massachusetts. While the rest of the country was reacting (or over-reacting) to gay marriage, every state legislative seat contested in Massachusetts last week was won resoundingly by the pro-gay marriage candidate. Our Mormon Govenor spent $3 Million dollars and waged nasty campaigns end he ended up losing three seats in the state legislature. The people in Massachusetts have lived with gay marriage now for six months, and they have become increasingly comfortable with it. In fact many folks have a deeper respect for their gay friends, neighbors and co-workers becasue they were willing to make the serious commitment to marriage. Education, over time will win the issue for us.

 

The "civil disobdience" marriages in San Francisco and New York and Oregon were exactly that - civil disobedience, not lawlessness, as you portray it. No great changes have taken place in this country without courageous acts of civil disobedience. If Rosa Parks had waited for the majority to grant her her civil rights through the legislative process, she would still be at the back of that damn bus! Civil disobedience does play a role in how Ameirca comes to concensus on issues. Standing up for your rights and demanding them will always precede them being granted lgislatively.

 

So education, civil disobdeince, legislative and judicial action will result in gay marriage throughout the United States eventually. DOMA will be struck down as un-Constitutional as soon as those cases work their way through the system.

 

Please remember that folkks can have all of the backlash that they want. Backlash would be a polite way of refering to lynchings and cross-burnings during the black civil rights movement. But please try to remember that civil rights are NOT decided by a majority vote, however uncomfortable it may make small minded people feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>For those of you still scratching your hurting, little

>liberal heads, bewildered at how you lost YET AGAIN,

 

2 out of the last 4 isn't bad. 3 out of the last 4 is even better if you're counting the popular vote.

 

>and this

>time so decisively,

 

Wow, by three percentage points!

 

Republican senator Lindsey Graham (Q-SC), speaking about Social Security reform, tells AP:

 

==``No idea is off the table,'' Graham said. He thinks Republicans have about a six-month political window before Bush's election momentum starts to fade and attention turns to midterm elections.==

 

So there is what his own party is saying about Bush's mandate. The rule is, every percentage point is worth two months. The corollary, of course, is that Democrats have to wear a hair shirt for that long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>For those of you still scratching your hurting, little

>liberal heads, bewildered at how you lost YET AGAIN,

 

2 out of the last 4 isn't bad. 3 out of the last 4 is even better if you're counting the popular vote.

 

>and this

>time so decisively,

 

Wow, by three percentage points!

 

Republican senator Lindsey Graham (Q-SC), speaking about Social Security reform, tells AP:

 

==``No idea is off the table,'' Graham said. He thinks Republicans have about a six-month political window before Bush's election momentum starts to fade and attention turns to midterm elections.==

 

So there is what his own party is saying about Bush's mandate. The rule is, every percentage point is worth two months. The corollary, of course, is that Democrats have to wear a hair shirt for that long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>But please try to remember that civil rights are

>>NOT decided by a majority vote

>

>You wanna run that one by me again?

>

>Skeptically yours,

>

>FFF

 

 

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>But please try to remember that civil rights are

>>NOT decided by a majority vote

>

>You wanna run that one by me again?

>

>Skeptically yours,

>

>FFF

 

 

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: "Activist judges"...

 

Douglas,

Don't you think that on occasion "activist judges and activist local officials" are necessary to induce positive change?

Do you not agree that such people played a key role in dismantling organized, official segregation during the Civil Rights movement of the '60's?

Of course, you may feel that was another example of liberal fascists imposing their will on the poor, helpless, white folk of the USA...

In which case, 'tho I could hardly agree with you, I can see that cold, bitter place from where you're coming.

 

Trix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: 8th grade civics or social studies or government anyone?

 

>Did you or Doug ever take one of these classes? did you pass?

>

 

When people talk about how liberals think they are so smart and that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and ignorant, when - in reality - the self-loving liberals are really just pretensious, snotty, pseudo-intellectual morons who dig their own graves with their repulsive behavior, I believe that they are talking about comments like this.

 

Listen carefully; I will simplify this for you:

 

(1) The mere fact that a court invalidates a law on constitutional grounds does not mean that the court has acted improperly or undemocratically, because one of the core functions of the judiciary is to invalidate laws which violate an actual constitutional guarantee;

 

BUT:

 

(2) When courts strike down laws because they disagree with those laws as a political matter, and there is NOTHING in the Constitution which can be reasonably read to prohibit the law in question, then judges are acting tyrannically and undemocratically.

 

So pointing out the utterly OBVIOUS but FUCKING IRRELEVANT fact that courts may properly strike down unconstitutional laws CONTRIBUTES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the discussion about whether courts have acted tryranically by IMPOSING GAY MARRIAGE on an unwilling majority.

 

In order to defend a court decision which invalidates a law on constitutional grounds, it is woefully insufficient to simply spit out the 8th Grade civics principle that there are times when courts may legitimately strike down laws. You have to go further than that and point to an actual CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE which the law in question violates.

 

All of the liberals on this Board are capable only of engaging the former line of "argument," but are wholly incapable of engaging in the latter.

 

Do you and your sad, embittered comrades - who actually seem to want despreately to cling forever to your LOSER status - really not understand that distinction???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>For those of you still scratching your hurting, little

>>liberal heads, bewildered at how you lost YET AGAIN,

>

>2 out of the last 4 isn't bad. 3 out of the last 4 is even

>better if you're counting the popular vote.

 

Bush won in 2000. In 2002, the GOP, defying almost uniform historical trends for mid-term elections, made significant gains in both the House and Senate. And now, in 2004, Bush won by 3 million votes AND the GOP has again gained seats in the Senate - pathetically, the Democrats couldn't even hold on to their Senate leader.

 

The GOP now controls - yet again - the White House, both houses of Congress, governorships and state houses. They have smashed the Democrats in 3 consecutive national elections.

 

But if you want to keep telling yourself that the Democrats are doing just fine and should continue doing what you're doing - please, don't let me stop you.

 

>So there is what his own party is saying about Bush's mandate.

> The rule is, every percentage point is worth two months. The

>corollary, of course, is that Democrats have to wear a hair

>shirt for that long.

 

Check out the 2002 elections to see how stupid this "analysis" is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: "Activist judges"...

 

>Douglas,

>Don't you think that on occasion "activist judges and activist

>local officials" are necessary to induce positive change?

 

Yes - when there is an actual basis in the law and in the Constitution for the "social change," then I think it can be healthy.

 

When there is no such basis in law , then it is just a bunch of anti-democratic elitists who think that they are so much smarter and wiser than everyone else that they are entitled to override the will of the majority, because that is just their Natural Right. That form of odious authoritarianism may be celebrated as being bohemian and revolutionarily glamorous in San Fransisco cafes and bathhouses, but that doesn't make it any less authoritarian.

 

>Do you not agree that such people played a key role in

>dismantling organized, official segregation during the Civil

>Rights movement of the '60's?

 

There was this thing in the 1960's called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which rendered racial discrimination illegal and actionable under the law. There was another thing called the Voting Rights Act which protected and ensured the right of blacks to have meaningful participation in our political process.

 

They were called "Acts" because they were enacted by a majority of representatives in Congress who were democratically by the citizens of this country, and then signed into law by the President.

 

There was this guy named Martin Luther King who went around giving SPEECHES in order to PERSUADE his fellow citizens that this type of legislation was needed. And it worked.

 

Prior to that, there was constitutional amendments which were DEMOCRATICALLY encated in order to end racial discrimination in other sectors.

 

That's how social change occurs properly and democratically - by convicing citiznes of the need for it and then effectuating it democratically.

 

It's preposterous and intellectually baseless to compare the social change surrounding racial discrimination - virtually all of which occurred DEMOCRATICALLY -- with the consummately un-democratic efforts of gay activists who are incapable of persuasding a paper bag to try to have gay marriage shoved down the throats of citizens who aren't convinced that it's the right thing.

 

>Of course, you may feel that was another example of liberal

>fascists imposing their will on the poor, helpless, white folk

>of the USA...

>In which case, 'tho I could hardly agree with you, I can see

>that cold, bitter place from where you're coming.

 

Keep spewing self-righteous, trite, condescending PC vomit like this. It's exactly what makes you so repulsive to most voters and ensures that even plainly incompetent Presidents like George Bush get re-elected, because the alternative - YOU - is so much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: "Activist judges"...

 

>Keep spewing self-righteous, trite, condescending PC vomit

>like this. It's exactly what makes you so repulsive to most

>voters and ensures that even plainly incompetent Presidents

>like George Bush get re-elected, because the alternative - YOU

>- is so much worse.

 

I had no idea Trixie was running for President! You go, girl! :7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: "Activist judges"...

 

Dougie's obviously a victim of mad cow disease. He's started backtracking and flopping on civil rights. But he conveniently (as ever) ignores the fact that key parts of the U.S. civil rights revolution occurred because of court decisions and NOT because of legislation.

 

As for what constitutional provision guarantees a right to gay marriage, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, HON? The Equal Protection Amendment? The one that explicitly says everyone has to be treated equally under the law? The one that means the state can't single out one group for discriminatory treatment? A group like same-sex couples? Duh?

 

Sheesh! But what do you expect from a graduate of the Hendrik Verwoerd Finishing School for Dainty Self-Hating Faggots? x(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: "Activist judges"...

 

>>Douglas,

>>Don't you think that on occasion "activist judges and

>activist

>>local officials" are necessary to induce positive change?

>

>Yes - when there is an actual basis in the law and in the

>Constitution for the "social change," then I think it can be

>healthy.

>

>When there is no such basis in law , then it is just a bunch

>of anti-democratic elitists who think that they are so much

>smarter and wiser than everyone else that they are entitled to

>override the will of the majority, because that is just their

>Natural Right. That form of odious authoritarianism may be

>celebrated as being bohemian and revolutionarily glamorous in

>San Fransisco cafes and bathhouses, but that doesn't make it

>any less authoritarian.

>

>>Do you not agree that such people played a key role in

>>dismantling organized, official segregation during the Civil

>>Rights movement of the '60's?

>

>There was this thing in the 1960's called the Civil Rights Act

>of 1964 which rendered racial discrimination illegal and

>actionable under the law. There was another thing called the

>Voting Rights Act which protected and ensured the right of

>blacks to have meaningful participation in our political

>process.

>

>They were called "Acts" because they were enacted by a

>majority of representatives in Congress who were

>democratically by the citizens of this country, and then

>signed into law by the President.

>

>There was this guy named Martin Luther King who went around

>giving SPEECHES in order to PERSUADE his fellow citizens that

>this type of legislation was needed. And it worked.

>

>Prior to that, there was constitutional amendments which were

>DEMOCRATICALLY encated in order to end racial discrimination

>in other sectors.

>

>That's how social change occurs properly and democratically -

>by convicing citiznes of the need for it and then effectuating

>it democratically.

>

>It's preposterous and intellectually baseless to compare the

>social change surrounding racial discrimination - virtually

>all of which occurred DEMOCRATICALLY -- with the consummately

>un-democratic efforts of gay activists who are incapable of

>persuasding a paper bag to try to have gay marriage shoved

>down the throats of citizens who aren't convinced that it's

>the right thing.

>

>>Of course, you may feel that was another example of liberal

>>fascists imposing their will on the poor, helpless, white

>folk

>>of the USA...

>>In which case, 'tho I could hardly agree with you, I can see

>>that cold, bitter place from where you're coming.

>

>Keep spewing self-righteous, trite, condescending PC vomit

>like this. It's exactly what makes you so repulsive to most

>voters and ensures that even plainly incompetent Presidents

>like George Bush get re-elected, because the alternative - YOU

>- is so much worse.

>

 

Gay Activist are merely doing the same thing that the Civil RIghts Activists did over 30 years ago. It is a sound means to achieve a goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: "Activist judges"...

 

Thank you, Douglas, for your courteous nomination of li'l ole me to the office of President of the United States of America!

While I can't usually be bothered with things political, I do promise to bring fun and fashion back to the American People! And also, I promise to personally interrogate the more attractive Taliban and AlQaeda prisoners being held at Guantanamo in a most original manner...

 

Now, back to the gristle of your retort. Douglas, I do believe that you and I differ in theory of how governments and societies go about change. You apparently think that if certain oppressed groups and/or minorities abide by the letter of the law,

quietly cast their votes decade after decade, thinking "Well, if we lose, it's for the good of the people. America has spoken, and She is always just and wise.", that EVENTUALLY the good politicians in the bubble called Capitol Hill will take notice, and say "Golly boys, haven't these people suffered enough?", suddenly enacting legislature to raise to equal status said oppressed group and/or minority???

(Above is possibly my most favorite sentence EVER!)

Can you quote ONE episode of history where such a thing has occurred, anywhere, any time in the World?

 

I believe we've had this discussion before, MS 69. You have your theory that the letter of the (unjust)law is written in stone, waiting for the sands of the time to slowly erode it away. I on the other hand believe a strong man with a sound hammer will do the trick nicely.

Laws and governments do not initiate social change, people do. Did it not take a popular revolution to create the United States? And weren't a majority of the citizens of the American Colonies namby- pamby wimps, eager to maintain the status quo, whilst our Founding Fathers put their honor and indeed their lives at jeopardy fighting for what they knew to be right? Individuals initiate social movements, and eventually governments respond in order to catch up, or go the way of the dinosaurs. For better or worse, this is one of the hallmarks of human history.

I will happily place my eggs in this basket, risking failure, rather than waiting for some legal system that has no impetus to change to someday take notice of me.

 

Trix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug's fourth Crusade

 

Silly doogie I know you long to wax conservative at every opportunity but really if you'd paid attention to anything I've written in the last few weeks you'd know I have little argument with everything you've said in your post. Not that you ever pay attention to who or what's being said.

 

I've said before and I will continue to say that I don't think the constitution grants anyone the right to marry, straight or gay. If a state decided that NO unions should be legally recognized I really don't see how anyone could constitutionally argue with that.. do you? This screeching need by you and other gay men and women by whatever means you feel you should get it to be allowed to 'marry' is the dumbest crusade ... ever. We have the chance to develop our own ceremonies in the context of civil unions but we beg beg beg or if we want to act like Doug who doesn't ask but just demands, fine.. we DEMAND to be let at the table of the silly sacrament of "marriage". Few straight people even follow it.. let them continue to make a mockery of the institution and stop giving them opportunities to fling poo at us at every chance with the threat that we're going to somehow 'sully' it. If we had any honesty at all we'd realize that turning away from the opportunity for our own tradition is sullying US and not them.

 

Really where would you want to get married? In a southern Baptist church? In a Catholic church? (it REALLY bugs me to have to be proper and capitalize those two words) In a mosque? If that's the context of where fags would marry then you better believe it would destroy them.. they would be forced then to honor love above all else and not hatred. Forcing most Christians/Muslims to see that love exists in everyone and not just in them would bring most of their us vs them strategies for controlling the flock to a loud crashing devastating end. (yeah I did say most.... don't even try to pretend that most Christians follow the actual teachings of Christ/Muhammad)

 

But really to claim that the majority granted everyone civil rights through the law without any action from judges is a new in a long series of lows for you, you must sit there and try to find new ways to twist history and logic. If you're really attempting to say that the authors of the 14th amendment intended it to be used in all the ways it's been used by the courts in every case they've cited since it's passage then you credit everyone here with having as little interest in the truth as you do.

 

Also if you are trying to defend FFF's moronic statement implying that civil rights have only EVER been granted by a majority vote then I swear to god Doug you're 5 glial cells looking for something to do.

 

Gio in Denver

 

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."

Gio in Denver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...