Republicans are not for our constitution.

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who is trying to repeal the 14th amendment? There is a process to become a citizen for those who come here legally. Showing a photo ID does not prevent one from voting.

Voter suppression is a Republican initiative
Make it more difficult to vote, Strict ID standards, limit voter hours, selectively reduce the number of voting machines, cut back early voting

A photo ID is not a strict standard voter hours are generally 7am to 7pm 12 hours I have seen no one reduce the number of voting machines you might have to cut back early voting if you don’t have enough people to work at polls.

Almost 95% of Americans have an acceptable photo ID. Determining what is acceptable is a way Republicans suppress the vote.
A gun permit is acceptable while a student ID is not
Drivers licenses are acceptable, but many legitimate voters in urban areas do not drive

5% not having ID is not that big a deal until you realize many elections are won by 1-2%
If most of the people without an acceptable ID vote Democrat, Voter ID laws are an effective means of suppression

Utter bull. Where do you get this 5% number from? How does 5% of our society function in this country with no valid ID? How do they borrow money, buy alcohol, get on a plane, get a passport, get a loan from the bank? Cash a check?

In most states (if not all) gun licenses are issued to people who passed a thorough criminal background check. You must also present a valid legal identification. In our state, you are fingerprinted when you apply for the license and fingerprinted again with each renewal. What does it take to get a student ID?

My mother never drove in her live, that's why she went to the DMV and got a State ID. It looks just like a drivers license and she has voted with it her entire life.

Five percent might be a bit of a stretch but I'm not so sure. I bet if someone was able to get an accurate count of all the people who live totally off the grid you could get close to that number. Montana, Idaho, Minnesota, Alaska and other such places are home to millions. Especially folks with arrest warrants, criminal backgrounds or people who just want to be left alone, period.

Basically I was talking about people who had no ability to get an ID or very difficult to get one for some reason which I think are very few and far under 5%.

 

[danielpalos]

Voter suppression is a Republican initiative
Make it more difficult to vote, Strict ID standards, limit voter hours, selectively reduce the number of voting machines, cut back early voting

A photo ID is not a strict standard voter hours are generally 7am to 7pm 12 hours I have seen no one reduce the number of voting machines you might have to cut back early voting if you don’t have enough people to work at polls.

Almost 95% of Americans have an acceptable photo ID. Determining what is acceptable is a way Republicans suppress the vote.
A gun permit is acceptable while a student ID is not
Drivers licenses are acceptable, but many legitimate voters in urban areas do not drive

5% not having ID is not that big a deal until you realize many elections are won by 1-2%
If most of the people without an acceptable ID vote Democrat, Voter ID laws are an effective means of suppression

Utter bull. Where do you get this 5% number from? How does 5% of our society function in this country with no valid ID? How do they borrow money, buy alcohol, get on a plane, get a passport, get a loan from the bank? Cash a check?

In most states (if not all) gun licenses are issued to people who passed a thorough criminal background check. You must also present a valid legal identification. In our state, you are fingerprinted when you apply for the license and fingerprinted again with each renewal. What does it take to get a student ID?

My mother never drove in her live, that's why she went to the DMV and got a State ID. It looks just like a drivers license and she has voted with it her entire life.

Five percent might be a bit of a stretch but I'm not so sure. I bet if someone was able to get an accurate count of all the people who live totally off the grid you could get close to that number. Montana, Idaho, Minnesota, Alaska and other such places are home to millions. Especially folks with arrest warrants, criminal backgrounds or people who just want to be left alone, period.

Basically I was talking about people who had no ability to get an ID or very difficult to get one for some reason which I think are very few and far under 5%.

all foreign nationals should have a federal ID.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Really? Well people 40 years ago thought the same thing about gay marriage: it's never going to happen. Guess what?????

There's a big difference between fucking your sister, and fucking someone of the same sex Ray. You might not have guessed what it is yet, but you can have a try. Go on, have a try, tell me what the difference is.

I'll give you a clue. Queen Victoria's Hemophilia

Actually people back then thought both ideas were repulsive. Of course thanks to liberalism, one changed.......for now........

There's a difference between thinking an idea is repulsive and there actually being good reasons to stop something from happening.

Do you get this point or not?

Did you get the hemophilia thing at all? Or did it just end up going straight over your head? Because you've not spoken about it (yet another thing in a long list).

No, I didn't get the hemophilia thing at all. What I do get is that the foundation of marriage is religious and less government. Government got involved with marriage to aid the nuclear family.

Now that government is no longer needed (since most families are two-income) they should step aside.

Liberalism is like cancer. It doesn't have a stopping point. With liberalism, they cross the line in the sand. When the line gets drawn further back, they cross that line, and then the next, and then the next........

You don't think that somebody will use the SC ruling to marry a family member? Like I said, liberalism is like a cancer that continues spreading. Of course somebody will try to marry a family member perhaps to inherit their SS payments or just for the sake of advancing perversion.

Since the founding of this country, marriage (by law and religious rites) was the union between one man and one woman until this ridiculous Supreme Court decision. Now it's open season for everybody.

Exactly Ray, you didn't get something. You didn't ask. You just ignored it, like you ignore everything else that isn't convenient.

Queen Victoria gave Hemophilia to her children and grandchildren.

Her son Prince Leopold had it (It goes mostly to males through the female line).
Her two daughters passed on the hereditary illness to their children.

The disease came about due to INBREEDING. We know INBREEDING causes serious diseases. So we ban it.

It hurts people.

What you get is that marriage has been around LONGER than Christianity. Jesus was probably married, his parents were probably married. Marriage probably existed BEFORE any religion that exists in the modern era. So, it's not just religious. Also, are you suggesting non-religious people should not get married? It's neither here nor there.

What we're talking about is the 14th Amendment. Certain things are granted to those who get married by governments. That's fact. The 14th says if this is so, then all people should get these. So, if Alabama says all married people can inherit from their dead spouse, then all people should have the right to be able to get this.

Maybe government should step aside from marriage. But this isn't the argument you are making. You're not saying "no gay marriage and no straight marriage under the law", you're saying just no gay marriage under the law. Which is against the 14th Amendment. Stop trying to twist things.

No Ray, liberalism isn't like cancer. You come on here and you don't understand most of the things you talk about, then you complain that those who understand what you don't understand are bad. That's fucked up.

No Ray, I don't think anyone will use this SC ruling to marry a family member. Why? Because it's illegal. It goes against human nature, it goes against Human Rights.

Hemophilia Ray, think about it.

It's like saying if you let someone use a gun, then they're going to kill people. So ban all guns. Is that true?

Yes, marriage used to be between a man and a woman. However from 1868 it should have included gay marriage. It didn't. But legally it should have done. So, a hundred and fifty years of people ignoring the Constitution doesn't mean that the Constitution shouldn't be obeyed, does it?

What planet are you from?

If something is ruled unconstitutional, you can't create laws against it and you can't keep current laws against it. If the court rules (down the road) that a man wanting to marry his dog is protected by the Constitution (like gays) then he gets to marry his dog and no law can be created or stay in existence against such marriage. This is exactly what happened with gays. Voters in states decided not to accept gay marriage, and now they can no longer have that standard. They have to accept it against their will.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

Uh, no. You want to make an assertion, you get to prove yourself right, not demand that OTHER people do your homework for you and try to prove a negative, which intelligent people know is impossible.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There's a big difference between fucking your sister, and fucking someone of the same sex Ray. You might not have guessed what it is yet, but you can have a try. Go on, have a try, tell me what the difference is.

I'll give you a clue. Queen Victoria's Hemophilia

Actually people back then thought both ideas were repulsive. Of course thanks to liberalism, one changed.......for now........

There's a difference between thinking an idea is repulsive and there actually being good reasons to stop something from happening.

Do you get this point or not?

Did you get the hemophilia thing at all? Or did it just end up going straight over your head? Because you've not spoken about it (yet another thing in a long list).

No, I didn't get the hemophilia thing at all. What I do get is that the foundation of marriage is religious and less government. Government got involved with marriage to aid the nuclear family.

Now that government is no longer needed (since most families are two-income) they should step aside.

Liberalism is like cancer. It doesn't have a stopping point. With liberalism, they cross the line in the sand. When the line gets drawn further back, they cross that line, and then the next, and then the next........

You don't think that somebody will use the SC ruling to marry a family member? Like I said, liberalism is like a cancer that continues spreading. Of course somebody will try to marry a family member perhaps to inherit their SS payments or just for the sake of advancing perversion.

Since the founding of this country, marriage (by law and religious rites) was the union between one man and one woman until this ridiculous Supreme Court decision. Now it's open season for everybody.

Exactly Ray, you didn't get something. You didn't ask. You just ignored it, like you ignore everything else that isn't convenient.

Queen Victoria gave Hemophilia to her children and grandchildren.

Her son Prince Leopold had it (It goes mostly to males through the female line).
Her two daughters passed on the hereditary illness to their children.

The disease came about due to INBREEDING. We know INBREEDING causes serious diseases. So we ban it.

It hurts people.

What you get is that marriage has been around LONGER than Christianity. Jesus was probably married, his parents were probably married. Marriage probably existed BEFORE any religion that exists in the modern era. So, it's not just religious. Also, are you suggesting non-religious people should not get married? It's neither here nor there.

What we're talking about is the 14th Amendment. Certain things are granted to those who get married by governments. That's fact. The 14th says if this is so, then all people should get these. So, if Alabama says all married people can inherit from their dead spouse, then all people should have the right to be able to get this.

Maybe government should step aside from marriage. But this isn't the argument you are making. You're not saying "no gay marriage and no straight marriage under the law", you're saying just no gay marriage under the law. Which is against the 14th Amendment. Stop trying to twist things.

No Ray, liberalism isn't like cancer. You come on here and you don't understand most of the things you talk about, then you complain that those who understand what you don't understand are bad. That's fucked up.

No Ray, I don't think anyone will use this SC ruling to marry a family member. Why? Because it's illegal. It goes against human nature, it goes against Human Rights.

Hemophilia Ray, think about it.

It's like saying if you let someone use a gun, then they're going to kill people. So ban all guns. Is that true?

Yes, marriage used to be between a man and a woman. However from 1868 it should have included gay marriage. It didn't. But legally it should have done. So, a hundred and fifty years of people ignoring the Constitution doesn't mean that the Constitution shouldn't be obeyed, does it?

What planet are you from?

If something is ruled unconstitutional, you can't create laws against it and you can't keep current laws against it. If the court rules (down the road) that a man wanting to marry his dog is protected by the Constitution (like gays) then he gets to marry his dog and no law can be created or stay in existence against such marriage. This is exactly what happened with gays. Voters in states decided not to accept gay marriage, and now they can no longer have that standard. They have to accept it against their will.

I'm from the planet of logic Ray.

Your argument is basically, if they let something slightly different happen, then everything will happen. That's not logical. There are certain reasons why certain things WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HAPPEN. I've told you why. You ignore them, or you didn't bother to read them in the first place.

Voters decided not to accept gay marriage in a country which has a constitution which says people should have equality of the law and human rights.

So, you think mob rule should outweigh human rights and equality of the law do you?

 

[Gareyt17]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

Prove you wrong? All you have provided as evidence is a bombastic accusation, here is an idea, PROVE yourself right by posting just one example....only one is required. Are you up to it?

 

[Gareyt17]

An example of how LBJ enslaved people? You've never heard of the "Great Society? You have never heard his DIRECT quote as to his reasons for creating it? Let me educate you, "I will introduce so many programs I will have those N's voting for Democrats for 200 years"....that is a direct quote from LBJ on Air Force One.

 

[danielpalos]

An example of how LBJ enslaved people? You've never heard of the "Great Society? You have never heard his DIRECT quote as to his reasons for creating it? Let me educate you, "I will introduce so many programs I will have those N's voting for Democrats for 200 years"....that is a direct quote from LBJ on Air Force One.

all the right wing had, was tax cuts for the rich.