Clarence Thomas vs George Floyd

[struth]

About half the people imprisoned in the US are over drug laws.
About 40 million people are illegally denied their right to vote due to drug convictions.

yep....and i don't thiink you'll get many to join your cause and take up arms against the United States because they can't snort coke

 

[BlindBoo]

Clarence Thomas is a man. George Floyd was a child. And many who vote Prog are the same. We see the Prog children of politics all over the nation now. And they are not taken to task for their massive failures. Government is too large for the people to not be affected by these real non-qualified people put into power.

Well I guess it's just a matter of perspective. I see them both as men. After that, I'm not sure how to put the other stuff in any perspective. It's just a place for pigeons to poop no matter who it looks like!

 

[Rigby5]

1) foreigners.....who aren't protected by our Constitution.
2) hahah the Constitution can't be the bases for legal authority? hahahhaahah
3) The Declaration of Independence is not any sort of legal authority...it's not law.
4) the Constitution creates the Federal Govt, and tells it what it can and can not do.

Wrong.

1) first of all, the Constitution is a division of jurisdiction, NOT at all a source of rights in any way.
Second is that the Constitution includes all under US jurisdiction, not just citizens. It is about inherent individual rights, not privileges granted to citizens.

2) you have to already have legal authority in order to be able to write up a constitution. So it can not possibly be the source of any legal authority. Any dictator can write up a constitution. Does that mean is reign of terror is legal? Of course not.

3) the Declaration of Independence is a statement of where all legal authority comes from, which is individual inherent rights. And it says that when any government violates those inherent rights, the people are legally authorized by the defense of their own inherent rights, to destroy that government that is abusing them. That is a basic definition of the source of all legal authority. After all, you must first have a source of legal authority if you are going to destroy one government and create another.

4) I agree with. The federal constitution creates, empowers, and delineates jurisdiction of the federal government. But clearly we have totally violated the Constitution with things like federal gun laws, federal drug laws, federal medical laws, etc. These things were NOT intended by the founders. It is not like FCC or FAA which the Founders simply had not thought of. The BATF, DEA, FDA, etc., were known to the Founders and rejected as evil.

 

[Rigby5]

yep....and i don't thiink you'll get many to join your cause and take up arms against the United States because they can't snort coke

You miss the point.
The murder spike during Prohibition is why Prohibition was ended.
The War on Drugs caused about the same murder spike, and is the reason to end it as well.
Whether or not one wants to do drugs has nothing at all to do with why the War on Drugs is illegal, stupid, counter productive, and extremely harmful.

 

[struth]

Wrong.

1) first of all, the Constitution is a division of jurisdiction, NOT at all a source of rights in any way.
Second is that the Constitution includes all under US jurisdiction, not just citizens. It is about inherent individual rights, not privileges granted to citizens.

2) you have to already have legal authority in order to be able to write up a constitution. So it can not possibly be the source of any legal authority. Any dictator can write up a constitution. Does that mean is reign of terror is legal? Of course not.

3) the Declaration of Independence is a statement of where all legal authority comes from, which is individual inherent rights. And it says that when any government violates those inherent rights, the people are legally authorized by the defense of their own inherent rights, to destroy that government that is abusing them. That is a basic definition of the source of all legal authority. After all, you must first have a source of legal authority if you are going to destroy one government and create another.

4) I agree with. The federal constitution creates, empowers, and delineates jurisdiction of the federal government. But clearly we have totally violated the Constitution with things like federal gun laws, federal drug laws, federal medical laws, etc. These things were NOT intended by the founders. It is not like FCC or FAA which the Founders simply had not thought of. The BATF, DEA, FDA, etc., were known to the Founders and rejected as evil.

1) No, it's literally got the Bill of Rights in it...outlining some rights. The Constitution doesn't apply to people living in Russia, who have been sanction....they arent in the United States
2) Yes, the framers had legal authority...they were elected by the people to their roles
3) no legal authority comes from the Declaration of Independence. It's simply at statement of independence saying we are no longer Brits....they of course disagreed.
4) The Founders didn't know about the FDA or DEA.....what are you talking aobut? The FDA wasn't formed until 1906, and the DEA not until 1973

 

[WEATHER53]

The net result of drug laws vs no drug laws is that it is better to NOT have any drug laws.
First of all, like with Prohibition, when you criminalize, it increases profits, entices, causes violence over turf and cash, etc.
Drug laws get in the way of medical treatment, which is the best solution.

I am not saying drugs are good, but that drug laws make thing astronomically even worse.

Drug laws are not useless.
Drug users harm more than themselves only.
You tried to skate around. Didn’t work.

 

[struth]

You miss the point.
The murder spike during Prohibition is why Prohibition was ended.
The War on Drugs caused about the same murder spike, and is the reason to end it as well.
Whether or not one wants to do drugs has nothing at all to do with why the War on Drugs is illegal, stupid, counter productive, and extremely harmful.

Prohibition ended because it was a horrible idea...one of many from the Progressive Era...and FDR wanted to get people back to work during the Great Depression.

I don't disagree with you about the War on Drugs, it is another hold over from the "Progressive Era"

 

[WEATHER53]

Prohibition of numerous things is a good idea.

 

[Marener]

Those programs incentivize poverty. Did you not see how difficult it was to get people to go back to work during Covid since the gov was giving out free money? That’s welfare mentality. Welfare is a culture.

Then why isn’t everyone on welfare?

Because we can make way more money by working. Not to mention the stipulations of welfare make it difficult to live off it for any extended period of time.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Wrong.
Polls show the majority did not want Roe vs Wade overturned, and it came about by SCOTUS candidates lying about their stand on Roe Vs Wade.

If I said a majority didn't, it was my mistake, but I don't think I did.

I realize the majority didn't want it overturned...which was the the main point of my last post.

Lying about their stance, while dirty politics, makes no difference in the law.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Then why isn’t everyone on welfare?

Because we can make way more money by working. Not to mention the stipulations of welfare make it difficult to live off it for any extended period of time.

It’s about culture. We have an entire underclass carefully cultivated and perpetuated by democrat policy. They know welfare as a way of life and will remain in the pocket of the democrats in perpetuity. These welfare sloth view accessing gov money as an occupation. The democrats would love nothing more than expanding their dependent constituency.

 

[Independent thinker]

Well George Floyd wasn't killed by the cops, George Floyd was killed by George Floyd. If he hadn't been a criminal piece of shit he would still alive right now.

But no, Clarence Thomas doesn't deserve a statue just for being black anymore than Floyd deserves one for being black. No black person deserves any special attention or recognition just for the color of their skin.

If blacks want to be equal then it's time we started treating them as equals and since no one else gets recognized for their skin color neither should they. First order of business is to remove all "first black so and so" awards, trophies, plaques, statues, paintings and so on.

Except that he is a Supreme Court justice. Don't all Supreme Court justices deserve a statue in at least their home town, if not other places? Doesn't matter what skin color they are.

 

[Independent thinker]

George Floyd used drugs, but that harmed no one.
Clarence Thomas harmed everyone with his legal opinions that are not based on law.
Humans obviously have the reproductive rate of prey, but have now become predators that can not survive such a high reproductive rate.
The War on Drugs, Federal gun laws, and most of what the SCOTUS does is totally illegal these days.

LOL. So, you are questioning our democracy, AKA the big lie? Things are only legal if you agree with them? If you don't then they are not legal?

 

[Independent thinker]

Clarence Thomas is a piece of shit!

He made something of himself all the way up to the Supreme Court. George Floyd did nothing.

 

[Independent thinker]

I heard some piece of shit black politician call Clarence an UNCLE TOM.

**** THAT RACIST GARBAGE. CLARENCE THOMAS IS A FANTASTIC AMERICAN.

And remember, if you didn't vote for Biden then you aren't black.

 

[Independent thinker]

Compared to John Lewis?

Not even close.

Methinks you need to reread the thread title. It was a question between Clarence Thomas and George Floyd.

 

[Independent thinker]

Clarance Thomas is an Uncle Tom.
When he finally does the world a favor and keels over, he isn't going to be remember for any brilliant legal decision.

He's going to be remembered because the GOP rammed through his nomination after he was accused of sexual harassment.

(For the record, I don't believe a word Anita Hill said.)


Will it be holding a Coke can with a pubic hair on it?

The Supreme Court is made up of 9 justices. They decide cases as a group. That's why there are nine of them. No one judge determines anything, even in a 5-4 vote. Without the other justices, one person's decision means nothing.

 

[rightwinger]

Methinks you need to reread the thread title. It was a question between Clarence Thomas and George Floyd.

Read the OP

Democrats, who are in the minority, instead offered to erect a statue of the late John Lewis, a civil rights legend and Georgia congressman. Unsurprisingly, Republicans didn’t go for it.

 

[Independent thinker]

Read the OP

Democrats, who are in the minority, instead offered to erect a statue of the late John Lewis, a civil rights legend and Georgia congressman. Unsurprisingly, Republicans didn’t go for it.

I must have missed your response to the thread question. A reminder, it was between Clarence Thomas and George Floyd.

 

[Independent thinker]

I'm not a fan of our tax dollars being confiscated for any purpose other than those originally set forth in the Constitution.
Same goes for state govts, they should not be taking public funds for anything but the necessities of govt.

Less public spending = more money taxpayers keep = more individual freedom

To play devil's advocate, the Constitution gives Congress the right to spend money. I guess it is up to Congress and the state legislators what they actually want to spend the money on. Of course we are now in the 21st century and there is bound to be spending that couldn't even be conceived of back in the day.