There is no "right side of history." It is a liberal conceit.My point is on the right side of history.
I'm all too happy to agree to disagree with you on this one Rabbi
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There is no "right side of history." It is a liberal conceit.My point is on the right side of history.
I'm all too happy to agree to disagree with you on this one Rabbi
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?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.
Typical brilliant RW voter...brilliant at math, science, accounting, being a corporate drone, not liberal arts like history, lit. and ethics...There is no "right side of history." It is a liberal conceit.My point is on the right side of history.
I'm all too happy to agree to disagree with you on this one Rabbi
or the centrists or moderates...the ultra left died about 1935...The ultra left wingers aren't going to vote for him anyway.
Nonsense.There is no "right side of history." It is a liberal conceit.My point is on the right side of history.
I'm all too happy to agree to disagree with you on this one Rabbi
Yawn. The usual crap. No substance at all.Nonsense.There is no "right side of history." It is a liberal conceit.My point is on the right side of history.
I'm all too happy to agree to disagree with you on this one Rabbi
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.
Rubio holds exactly the same position Obama and Hillary did up until about 2 years ago. And libs were fine with that.these repub-voter homophobic rants have to stop!!!
they absolutely are with they if promote two men getting "married"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 itThose 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.Religion will be "Forcibly challenged" by the federal government and tyrants like you will cheerPriests of course may be forcibly challenged for homophobia.
The far right religious want to shut up their opponents. Won't happen.
You are a classic example.
The Federal Government isn't "promoting sodomy".
Rubio holds exactly the same position Obama and Hillary did up until about 2 years ago. And libs were fine with that.these repub-voter homophobic rants have to stop!!!
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 throatsHeterosexual 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.Does the fed govt promote sodomy in heterosexual marriage, yet the practice occurs.
Jroc, stay on track, please.
Your comments are becoming increasingly shrill.
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.
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.
LOL..... where?Yes, slavery was recognized in the Constitution. To say it was not is to lie.
Marriage Equality forces nothing on anyone.
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.
bsRubio holds exactly the same position Obama and Hillary did up until about 2 years ago. And libs were fine with that.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.these repub-voter homophobic rants have to stop!!!