Rubio goes on homophobic rant ending political career.

[The Rabbi]

My point is on the right side of history.

I'm all too happy to agree to disagree with you on this one Rabbi

There is no "right side of history." It is a liberal conceit.

 

[francoHFW]

I'm glad Marco Rubio said this. Please, I hope that more GOP candidates say this kind of stuff. Because the crazy-assed stuff that wins an Elephant the nomination will lose him the GE, because in the GE, that stuff is a poison pill.

So, Sen. Rubio, you just keep on talking. I'm cool with that.

Keep thinking that. I guess he struck a nerve.

From what the SJW's are doing in general, the progressive playbook is known to everyone.

Not with me. I'm not gay, but I am acutely aware that the more hateful stuff Righties like Rubio say, the more they hurt the GOP in the GE. Or have you Righties learned absolutely nothing from 2012?

I prefer the lessons from 2014.

That Pubs are GREAT at brainwashing the careless and ignorant, at making people sick to death of politics, so in off years their moronic, hatefull base wins?

 

[francoHFW]

My point is on the right side of history.

I'm all too happy to agree to disagree with you on this one Rabbi

There is no "right side of history." It is a liberal conceit.

Typical brilliant RW voter...brilliant at math, science, accounting, being a corporate drone, not liberal arts like history, lit. and ethics...

 

[francoHFW]

The ultra left wingers aren't going to vote for him anyway.

or the centrists or moderates...the ultra left died about 1935...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My point is on the right side of history.

I'm all too happy to agree to disagree with you on this one Rabbi

There is no "right side of history." It is a liberal conceit.

Nonsense.

It can be factually demonstrated that conservatives have been on the wrong side of history during at least the last 60 years, if not longer – the consequence of the right's reactionaryism and fear of change, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty.

Conservatives were on the wrong side of history with regard to their defense of segregation and discrimination during the 1950s, conservatives were on the wrong side of history with regard to their opposition to laws protecting African-Americans' civil rights and voting rights in the 1960s, conservatives were on the wrong side of history with regard to their opposition to privacy rights for women in the 1970s, their opposition to due process rights for immigrants during the 1980s and their opposition to equal protection rights for gay Americans during the 1990s and this century.

Decade after decade, case after case, one Supreme Court ruling after another, conservatives consistently failed to justify their efforts to deny citizens their civil rights, where history has in fact demonstrated conservatives to have been consistently wrong on the issues.

And decades from now Americans will look back at the first quarter of the 21st Century and realize that conservatives were once again on the wrong side of history with regard to their hostility toward gay Americans and transgender Americans.

 

[Dot Com]

these repub-voter homophobic rants have to stop!!!

 

[francoHFW]

Conservatives have been on the wrong side of history forever. It's in their name, for the status quo and holding on to their money to shortsighted extremes....hateful tools when they "think".

 

[The Rabbi]

My point is on the right side of history.

I'm all too happy to agree to disagree with you on this one Rabbi

There is no "right side of history." It is a liberal conceit.

Nonsense.

It can be factually demonstrated that conservatives have been on the wrong side of history during at least the last 60 years, if not longer – the consequence of the right's reactionaryism and fear of change, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty.

Conservatives were on the wrong side of history with regard to their defense of segregation and discrimination during the 1950s, conservatives were on the wrong side of history with regard to their opposition to laws protecting African-Americans' civil rights and voting rights in the 1960s, conservatives were on the wrong side of history with regard to their opposition to privacy rights for women in the 1970s, their opposition to due process rights for immigrants during the 1980s and their opposition to equal protection rights for gay Americans during the 1990s and this century.

Decade after decade, case after case, one Supreme Court ruling after another, conservatives consistently failed to justify their efforts to deny citizens their civil rights, where history has in fact demonstrated conservatives to have been consistently wrong on the issues.

And decades from now Americans will look back at the first quarter of the 21st Century and realize that conservatives were once again on the wrong side of history with regard to their hostility toward gay Americans and transgender Americans.

Yawn. The usual crap. No substance at all.

 

[The Rabbi]

these repub-voter homophobic rants have to stop!!!

Rubio holds exactly the same position Obama and Hillary did up until about 2 years ago. And libs were fine with that.

 

[Jroc]

Priests of course may be forcibly challenged for homophobia.

The far right religious want to shut up their opponents. Won't happen.

Religion will be "Forcibly challenged" by the federal government and tyrants like you will cheer

Those are your silly words only, kid. You will be opposed constitutionally as you may oppose others constitutionally. You cry when you can't take what you dish. Social conservative Christian right wingers simply can't hang in the American way of debate and opposition.

You are a classic example.

I'm Jewish, and Sodomy is a sin for good reason. If individuals wish to practice it, that's fine, but the federal government shouldn't be promoting it

The Federal Government isn't "promoting sodomy".

they absolutely are with they if promote two men getting "married"

 

[NYcarbineer]

these repub-voter homophobic rants have to stop!!!

Rubio holds exactly the same position Obama and Hillary did up until about 2 years ago. And libs were fine with that.

Times have changed. Like my sig says, it happened while you were asleep.

You really think electing Rubio is going to result in a rollback of gay rights?

You probably thought electing Reagan or Bush I or Bush II was going to balance the budget too, didn't you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Definitely the GOP should nominate a candidate who's going to go around preaching how dangerous gays are.

I'm sure that will really up their chances of winning some of those purple states that McCain and Romney couldn't win.

 

[Jroc]

Does the fed govt promote sodomy in heterosexual marriage, yet the practice occurs.

Jroc, stay on track, please.

Your comments are becoming increasingly shrill.

Heterosexual marriage should be promoted, unlike you leftist who promote single parent homes, too many of which are subsidized and promoted by the federal government through our crony tax code.

So you're proposing that nobody gets tax breaks for children or only that married people get tax breaks for children? Should nobody get married tax breaks or should only heterosexuals get married tax breaks?

1. Nobody gets tax breaks for children: I'm good with that, go for it.
2. Only married people get tax breaks for children: I'm good with that, go for it.
3. Nobody get's married tax breaks: I'm good with that, go for it.
4. Only heterosexuals get married tax breaks: Nope, unconstitutional.

There is something called the marriage penalty... Two men can't have children neither can two women. A relationship between two men and two women is not the same as a relationship between man and women not in the least. It has always been my belief that homosexuality is a psychological disorder and of course it is and shouldn't be promoted as normal. what you do in your private life is your business i could give a shit really. Now quit trying to force this crap down the throat of the American people..How many sexes are there? there are not five, or six or ,whatever, that'll be next thing forced down our throats

 

[Jroc]

An interesting thing that people sometimes fail to realize is that yes, the Constitution is a clearly written document, but, as society changes, so too does that particular document via amendments. We once allowed slavery, but, because of that document and changing attitudes of the day, eventually it became illegal. At one time, alcohol was made illegal via Constitutional amendment, and then (again because of the changing ideas of the people), we made it legal again.

The Constitution is a living document, continually changing with the times, and yes, depending on what the country is doing and thinking at the time determines how we interpret it to match what is going on NOW.

It's not a static document.

Wrong...And there is no slavery in the constitution

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, slavery was recognized in the Constitution. To say it was not is to lie.

Marriage Equality forces nothing on anyone.

 

[Jroc]

Yes, slavery was recognized in the Constitution. To say it was not is to lie.

Marriage Equality forces nothing on anyone.

LOL..... where?



As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery.



Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery.

If anyone still doubted the new position Douglass had adopted, he made his views crystal clear in a speech he gave on July 5, 1852, in Rochester, New York. James Colaiaco, in his book Frederick Douglass and the Fourth of July, makes the point that this speech given to the Rochester Ladies Anti-Slavery Society is arguably the most powerful abolition speech of the time. Colaiaco examines this shift in the thinking of Douglass regarding the Constitution, and he dissects the speech in which Douglass made a serious challenge to America to resolve the seeming contradiction between slavery and the country’s founding documents. This speech was powerful and has been dramatically revived and publically presented in recent years.

Frederick Douglass cut into the very heart of the matter of slavery within the Land of the Free. Rev. Martin Luther King’s powerful “I Have A Dream” speech echoed the sentiments of Frederick Douglass when King demanded, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, that America live up to the Founding Father’s promise when he said: “…we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”



Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution Communities Digital News

 

[JakeStarkey]

Digital History

Slavery certainly was part of the Constitution.

Art I Sec 2
Art IV Sec 3
13th Amendment

The framers consciously avoided the word, recognizing that it would sully the document. Nevertheless, slavery received important protections in the Constitution. The notorious Three-fifths clause--which counted three-fifths of the slave population in apportioning representation--gave the South extra representation in the House and extra votes in the Electoral College. Thomas Jefferson would have lost the election of 1800 if not for the Three-fifths compromise. The Constitution also prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years. A fugitive slave clause required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. The Constitution gave the federal government the power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections.

 

[Jroc]

Digital History

Slavery certainly was part of the Constitution.

Art I Sec 2
Art IV Sec 3
13th Amendment

The framers consciously avoided the word, recognizing that it would sully the document. Nevertheless, slavery received important protections in the Constitution. The notorious Three-fifths clause--which counted three-fifths of the slave population in apportioning representation--gave the South extra representation in the House and extra votes in the Electoral College. Thomas Jefferson would have lost the election of 1800 if not for the Three-fifths compromise. The Constitution also prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years. A fugitive slave clause required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. The Constitution gave the federal government the power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections.

LOL... you're pretty stupid for an old man the 3/5th clause was not pro slavery and I added to my previous post for you

 

[francoHFW]

these repub-voter homophobic rants have to stop!!!

Rubio holds exactly the same position Obama and Hillary did up until about 2 years ago. And libs were fine with that.

bs

 

[JoeB131]

these repub-voter homophobic rants have to stop!!!

Rubio holds exactly the same position Obama and Hillary did up until about 2 years ago. And libs were fine with that.

Hillary and Obama were smart enough to see public opinion had changed.

Rubio is still playing to the rubes after the question has been decided.