deltex1
Gold Member
Nothing infuriates Hazel more than a black man with a moral perspective. I'd love to hear her critique of his brain surgery techniques.
Ben Carson: Vomits more homophobic crap
- Thread starter hazlnut
- Start date
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
I'd like to see his critique of her brain. It will probably something like "you can't fix stupid".
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Why are you playing the race card? ...aside from the fact that you're an idiot...
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Well, look at what Carson is saying this way...
He's educating us. He's helping us all better understand why he'll never be President.
He's educating us. He's helping us all better understand why he'll never be President.
Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
"...Laws should be decided by popular vote." Um, no. Sit down, and shut up.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,070
- 261,850
- 3,615
All he is doing is pandering to right wing extremists
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
If obama can be president, anyone can. He gave hope to everyone. That's what he ran on, right? Hope.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,070
- 261,850
- 3,615
Very true....That a black man of mixed race from a single mother can rise to the Presidency of the United States shows that anyone can become president
No, the Republic lost, and her People lost.
But, just as we see with individual States slowly but surely eroding Roe-v-Wade, decades after the pro-Lifers had supposedly 'lost', and as those State-level initatives set the stage for something more profound on the Federal level, once a sufficiently Conservative majority is attained in all three branches of government simultaneously...
So, too, may we see grass-roots countermeasures on the State level, in the interim, and something far more profound, on the Federal level, once such a majority is attained across the spectrum, for such purposes...
Several recent battles may, indeed, have been lost...
But this war is just beginning, most likely...
Still, it's good to see The Adversary grow smug and complacent and arrogant, given what's almost certain to follow in the not-too-distant future...
Last edited:
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,070
- 261,850
- 3,615
Once Obama leaves the Whitehouse, Ben Carson will become irrelevant
His status as "Look....we have a black man too and he hates Obama" will be gone
His status as "Look....we have a black man too and he hates Obama" will be gone
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
No, he ran on getting us out the mess Bush put us in. And he has.
Spare us the shop-worn Faux Interracial Marriage Analogy playing card... it's been played (and de-bunked) far too often... it's a one-trick-pony's dead-end defense.
True.
But only because those doing the arguing so far have been men of little imagination and even smaller vision.
Thinking more broadly, on a happy future day, after years of State-level pot-shots at the Gay Mafia victories of recent times... on a happy future day when Conservatives hold a majority in all three branches of government...
All it will take is declaring Homosexuality to be an aberration at-law... and dangerous to society... in order to sweep all that shit aside, with a single pen-stroke.
It won't matter whether it's true... merely that it has been declared thusly at-law, and that such declaration(s) are upheld by a Conservative-leaning judicial review.
Hell, under such circumstances, it's entirely possible to see a Constitutional Amendment for such purposes... requiring only a 3/4 majority of States to approve such an Amendment... making such a declaration bullet-proof and removing it from the realm of judicial appeal on the grounds on unconstitutionality.
Think of how many State Legislatures would be licking their chops, eager to ratify such a badly-needed Amendment.
You can't rule something 'unconstitutional' if it's actually PART OF the Constitution.
Now, whether that materializes or not depends upon whether America can find the courage to put the brakes on the Gay Mafia and its recent advances...
And that's where I put away my crystal ball, because I have my doubts on that score.
But, that battle is worth fighting, and, as I mentioned earlier, I think that war has only begun...
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
Wrong. Gitmo is still in operation and Iraq is falling apart due to obama's lack of foresight. Iraq might have been the big issue to you but it wasn't his primary selling point.
nodoginnafight
No Party Affiliation
IMHO: There's nothing there that denotes "fear" so the term "homophobe" is not properly applied.
Now, the notion that the principles of our constitution should be decided by local referendum and applied by local administrations is a joke. Isn't it?
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
That's good fodder for the RW echo chamber.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,070
- 261,850
- 3,615
Homophobe is just a politically correct way of calling Carson a *** hater
jknowgood
Diamond Member
So, do you support the father and daughter who are going to marry?Ben Carson is 100% correct. .....
He's 100% full of shit. He couldn't be more wrong.
nodoginnafight
No Party Affiliation
Maybe - but anytime folks disagree, SOMEONE is gonna call the other one a "__________ a Phobe." The suggests their position is based in fear and we write it off. But in this case, I like "*** hater" better - it's probably more accurate.
DGS49
Diamond Member
I haven't read every single post here, but in the dozens I have read there hasn't been a single one recognizing that this Carson person is absolutely CORRECT in what he said. This is not my opinion; it is a fact.
Any Federal judge who rules that the "right" to marry someone of the same gender is found in the Constitution or in binding precedent is a LIAR or a FOOL, who deserves to be removed from the bench (not that that would ever happen as a practical matter).
Because there is nothing in the Constitution even remotely addressing homosexuality or marriage, nor has the USSC ever found such a right in the Constitution. (Parenthetically, there is NO "right of privacy" in the Constitution, but we have it anyway). The "equal protection" clause does not apply, for a number of reasons. It does not apply to "couples" but rather to individuals. And homosexuality is not analogous to race, so the cases voiding anti-miscegenation laws are not applicable or analogous. Homosexuality, from a legal standpoint, is ENTIRELY based on behavior and declaration. The law doesn't know or care whom or what you prefer to copulate with, and it only becomes an issue with behavior or declaration, which is not the case with race or ethnicity or gender. Indeed many "homosexuals" are married to people of the opposite gender and are leading conventional lives with no problem.
It appears - but it is not certain - that the USSC will finally weigh-in on the question of whether there is a Constitutional right to marry someone of the same gender this year, and in today's climate it is a mathematical certainty that at least four of the justices will find that there is such a right, regardless of whether it was ever intended or discerned before. Where Justices Roberts and Kennedy go will determine the question, constitutionally. As I have posted here before, our contemporary "Constitutional Law" has very little connection with the Constitution.
But the question is largely moot anyway. The Constitution does require that every state respect the legal determinations of every other state, so if a same-sex couple living in, say, Utah, wants to get married, all they have to do is go to a state that has gay marriage, get married, then return to Utah, where that state must accept their married status.
Judges who ignore the constitution and binding precedents, or who "go off the reservation" and make up their own shit are a pox on our legal system, and should be removed from office, one way or another. And by the way, ignoring for a moment the fact that anyone who even uses the non-word, "homophobia" is a TOOL, there is nothing hateful about excoriating judges who make up their own law. We should all do it more often.
Any Federal judge who rules that the "right" to marry someone of the same gender is found in the Constitution or in binding precedent is a LIAR or a FOOL, who deserves to be removed from the bench (not that that would ever happen as a practical matter).
Because there is nothing in the Constitution even remotely addressing homosexuality or marriage, nor has the USSC ever found such a right in the Constitution. (Parenthetically, there is NO "right of privacy" in the Constitution, but we have it anyway). The "equal protection" clause does not apply, for a number of reasons. It does not apply to "couples" but rather to individuals. And homosexuality is not analogous to race, so the cases voiding anti-miscegenation laws are not applicable or analogous. Homosexuality, from a legal standpoint, is ENTIRELY based on behavior and declaration. The law doesn't know or care whom or what you prefer to copulate with, and it only becomes an issue with behavior or declaration, which is not the case with race or ethnicity or gender. Indeed many "homosexuals" are married to people of the opposite gender and are leading conventional lives with no problem.
It appears - but it is not certain - that the USSC will finally weigh-in on the question of whether there is a Constitutional right to marry someone of the same gender this year, and in today's climate it is a mathematical certainty that at least four of the justices will find that there is such a right, regardless of whether it was ever intended or discerned before. Where Justices Roberts and Kennedy go will determine the question, constitutionally. As I have posted here before, our contemporary "Constitutional Law" has very little connection with the Constitution.
But the question is largely moot anyway. The Constitution does require that every state respect the legal determinations of every other state, so if a same-sex couple living in, say, Utah, wants to get married, all they have to do is go to a state that has gay marriage, get married, then return to Utah, where that state must accept their married status.
Judges who ignore the constitution and binding precedents, or who "go off the reservation" and make up their own shit are a pox on our legal system, and should be removed from office, one way or another. And by the way, ignoring for a moment the fact that anyone who even uses the non-word, "homophobia" is a TOOL, there is nothing hateful about excoriating judges who make up their own law. We should all do it more often.
nodoginnafight
No Party Affiliation
So, do you support the father and daughter who are going to marry?Ben Carson is 100% correct. .....
He's 100% full of shit. He couldn't be more wrong.
I know this isn't directed at me, but can I butt in?
I am absolutely revolted by the idea of this union, I think the father who seduces his daughter is about as low an individual as there is on the planet.
But if you believe government is too big and too intrusive, and you believe they have no business intruding into people's personal lives ...
How can we reconcile government prohibiting this union? Personally, I may go the public health route, but if they have the means and ability to care for whatever orc this union may produce, how do we justify our intrusion?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
How are people feeling about the fact, that their tax dollars are funding the war in Iran?
- Started by cwise76
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
Counter Cartel Coalition- After Rubio delivers speech in Spanish…Pete Hegseth says; “I only speak American.”- Started by BrokeLoser
- Replies: 0
-
