It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[koshergrl]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

First - there is no way in HELL that the democrats take the White House. They are going to get the ever-loving shit kicked out of them. Resistance? Vote republican.

Yeah but a Republican prez isn't going to help the Communist State of Oregon.

 

[elektra]

Not true at all...the Legislature did, with their Jim Crow laws. It was the courts and direct action by such groups as the NAACP that made the Legislatures back down with such laws.

You have some serious gaps in your history knowledge.

For those who nothing of history, my knowledge would appear as a gap.
The NAACP was began by Republicans.
James Weldon Johnson REPUBLICAN

Appointed By Theodore Roosevelt, a republican, as US consul in Venezuela and Nicaragua.

James Weldon Johnson (June 17, 1871 – June 26, 1938) was an American author, educator, lawyer, diplomat, songwriter, and civil rights activist. Johnson is best remembered for his leadership of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP), where he started working in 1917. In 1920 he was the first African American to be chosen as executive secretary of the organization, effectively the operating officer.[1] He served in that position from 1920 to 1930. Johnson established his reputation as a writer, and was known during the Harlem Renaissance for his poems, novels, and anthologies collecting both poems and spirituals of black culture.

He was appointed under President Theodore Roosevelt as US consul in Venezuela and Nicaragua for most of the period from 1906 to 1913. In 1934 he was the first African-American professor to be hired at New York University.[2] Later in life he was a professor of creative literature and writing at Fisk University.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

First - there is no way in HELL that the democrats take the White House. They are going to get the ever-loving shit kicked out of them. Resistance? Vote republican.

Yeah but a Republican prez isn't going to help the Communist State of Oregon.

Indeed. States like California, Oregon, Washington and Colorado have a very rude awakening ahead of them.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Title your thread Extremist RW's Only and less of us would stumble in.

Liar. You guys wouldn't leave then

 

[Skylar]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

First - there is no way in HELL that the democrats take the White House. They are going to get the ever-loving shit kicked out of them. Resistance? Vote republican.

You are the one who said there was no way in hell that the Supreme Court would legalize gay marriage.........

Indeed. I am. And, as Roberts said, if there were no judicial activism taking place in the SCOTUS - it would never have happened.

Roberts was overruled by the Supreme Court. You were just wrong.

What's the use of a prediction that doesn't actually predict anything?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

I consider a basic right as those mentioned in the Constitution. Like the right to bear arms. Something both Clinton and Sanders want to restrict.

 

[koshergrl]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

First - there is no way in HELL that the democrats take the White House. They are going to get the ever-loving shit kicked out of them. Resistance? Vote republican.

Yeah but a Republican prez isn't going to help the Communist State of Oregon.

Indeed. States like California, Oregon, Washington and Colorado have a very rude awakening ahead of them.

Oregon is already getting a wakeup call. It's hilarious..it's what, a week, since the whole Burns debacle (which is continuing, incidentally) and the EPA is pushing Portland on "environmental" issues. HARD. Fucking hilarious.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

First - there is no way in HELL that the democrats take the White House. They are going to get the ever-loving shit kicked out of them. Resistance? Vote republican.

You are the one who said there was no way in hell that the Supreme Court would legalize gay marriage.........

Indeed. I am. And, as Roberts said, if there were no judicial activism taking place in the SCOTUS - it would never have happened.

Roberts was overruled by the Supreme Court. You were just wrong.

What's the use of a prediction that doesn't actually predict anything?

Yeah, you're right. Roberts LOVED the decision:

John Roberts’s full-throated gay marriage dissent: Constitution ‘had nothing to do with it’

Roberts issues stern dissent in same-sex marriage case - CNNPolitics.com

And, of course, the best!

The 11 Most Devastating Quotes From John Roberts' Gay Marriage Dissent

Here's the deal....I'm on to you folks. I understand your play of "working to destroy" through the courts. You are kidding no one.

 

[PredFan]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

I consider a basic right as those mentioned in the Constitution. Like the right to bear arms. Something both Clinton and Sanders want to restrict.

The guys I'm going to meet with this weekend are avid gun hobbieists as I am. We will be starting with preserving the 2nd and resisting all restrictions to gun ownership, trade, and sale. At least that's what I'm preparing to present to them.

 

[The VOR]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

I consider a basic right as those mentioned in the Constitution. Like the right to bear arms. Something both Clinton and Sanders want to restrict.

The guys I'm going to meet with this weekend are avid gun hobbieists as I am. We will be starting with preserving the 2nd and resisting all restrictions to gun ownership, trade, and sale. At least that's what I'm preparing to present to them.

You were born to lead this revolution El Jefe!

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!!

 

[RandallFlagg]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

I consider a basic right as those mentioned in the Constitution. Like the right to bear arms. Something both Clinton and Sanders want to restrict.

The guys I'm going to meet with this weekend are avid gun hobbieists as I am. We will be starting with preserving the 2nd and resisting all restrictions to gun ownership, trade, and sale. At least that's what I'm preparing to present to them.

Bravo!

I just returned from a trip to Kansas, where they have "Constitutional Carry". Any person, 18 or older and not a convicted felon can carry, either openly or concealed, without permit or permission from the State of Kansas.

Bet that made the liberals heads explode! And, as of 2017, the same applies to all State Schools.

Now, THERE is a state that believes in the Second!

 

[martybegan]

To me its a question of them being equal enough for courts to force a change in legislated law. If the States want to change it themselves fine, but I don't see any reason that the courts can take power here.

I support changing marriage laws via legislation at the State level to remove the issue of sex from the marriage contract, and I support forcing States to recognize any valid marriage contract from other States, as is currently the case. What I don't see is the right of the SC or any other court to get involved in this.

Your sight is irrelevant. It's done and we are NOW treated equally under the law, just like the interracial couples bigots didn't think were on par with them.

Again, my issue is with the process and not the end result, how does that make me a bigot?

What was wrong with the process?

The Federal courts had no jurisdiction over the State level marriage contract in this situation.

They most certainly do...Supreme Law of the Land.

They are limited the constitution itself, something they have chosen to ignore these past few decades.

 

[bodecea]

Your sight is irrelevant. It's done and we are NOW treated equally under the law, just like the interracial couples bigots didn't think were on par with them.

Again, my issue is with the process and not the end result, how does that make me a bigot?

What was wrong with the process?

The Federal courts had no jurisdiction over the State level marriage contract in this situation.

They most certainly do...Supreme Law of the Land.

They are limited the constitution itself, something they have chosen to ignore these past few decades.

They are not. And it's the Constitution.....not constitution.

 

[defcon4]

They are not. And it's the Constitution.....not constitution.

Is the Constitution a constitution, sweetheart?

 

[martybegan]

Again, my issue is with the process and not the end result, how does that make me a bigot?

What was wrong with the process?

The Federal courts had no jurisdiction over the State level marriage contract in this situation.

They most certainly do...Supreme Law of the Land.

They are limited the constitution itself, something they have chosen to ignore these past few decades.

They are not. And it's the Constitution.....not constitution.

Yes they are, and nobody likes a capitalization nazi, They are slightly better than punctuation nazis, and worse than grammar nazis.

 

[bodecea]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

I consider a basic right as those mentioned in the Constitution. Like the right to bear arms. Something both Clinton and Sanders want to restrict.

The guys I'm going to meet with this weekend are avid gun hobbieists as I am. We will be starting with preserving the 2nd and resisting all restrictions to gun ownership, trade, and sale. At least that's what I'm preparing to present to them.

Bravo!

I just returned from a trip to Kansas, where they have "Constitutional Carry". Any person, 18 or older and not a convicted felon can carry, either openly or concealed, without permit or permission from the State of Kansas.

Bet that made the liberals heads explode! And, as of 2017, the same applies to all State Schools.

Now, THERE is a state that believes in the Second!

Why would that make my head explode? That sounds like a great idea.

 

[bodecea]

They are not. And it's the Constitution.....not constitution.

Is the Constitution a constitution, sweetheart?

It is...but that is its name...just like I don't call Mary mary.

 

[Seawytch]

Not for most it isn't. Sure, it's a discussion for bigots...but those same kind of bigots don't think interracial marriages are equal to non interracial marriages. Bigots are a small minority.

To me its a question of them being equal enough for courts to force a change in legislated law. If the States want to change it themselves fine, but I don't see any reason that the courts can take power here.

I support changing marriage laws via legislation at the State level to remove the issue of sex from the marriage contract, and I support forcing States to recognize any valid marriage contract from other States, as is currently the case. What I don't see is the right of the SC or any other court to get involved in this.

Your sight is irrelevant. It's done and we are NOW treated equally under the law, just like the interracial couples bigots didn't think were on par with them.

Again, my issue is with the process and not the end result, how does that make me a bigot?

If your issue was only with the "process" then there was no need to infer that gay couples are not on par with straight couples.

Only when it comes to marriage contracts as they have been written for centuries. There is no precedent to be found for it. For a change as drastic as going from husband and wife to husband/husband wife/wife a vote by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is not the process to use. Going State by State, petitioning them to change the Marriage Contract (and using the Courts to make sure States have to recognize marriage licenses issued by other States as valid) was the proper process to take.

Of course there was precedent for it. It was called Loving v Virginia...drastically changing marriage contracts as they had been written for hundreds of years to prevent the mixing of the races.

I would have been perfectly fine with the SCOTUS only ruling on the FF&C issue. I'm happier they went "all the way".

 

[defcon4]

It is...but that is its name...just like I don't call Mary mary.

..just fucking with you honey… I knew what you were talking about.

 

[martybegan]

To me its a question of them being equal enough for courts to force a change in legislated law. If the States want to change it themselves fine, but I don't see any reason that the courts can take power here.

I support changing marriage laws via legislation at the State level to remove the issue of sex from the marriage contract, and I support forcing States to recognize any valid marriage contract from other States, as is currently the case. What I don't see is the right of the SC or any other court to get involved in this.

Your sight is irrelevant. It's done and we are NOW treated equally under the law, just like the interracial couples bigots didn't think were on par with them.

Again, my issue is with the process and not the end result, how does that make me a bigot?

If your issue was only with the "process" then there was no need to infer that gay couples are not on par with straight couples.

Only when it comes to marriage contracts as they have been written for centuries. There is no precedent to be found for it. For a change as drastic as going from husband and wife to husband/husband wife/wife a vote by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is not the process to use. Going State by State, petitioning them to change the Marriage Contract (and using the Courts to make sure States have to recognize marriage licenses issued by other States as valid) was the proper process to take.

Of course there was precedent for it. It was called Loving v Virginia...drastically changing marriage contracts as they had been written for hundreds of years to prevent the mixing of the races.

I would have been perfectly fine with the SCOTUS only ruling on the FF&C issue. I'm happier they went "all the way".

Most miscegenation laws only dated from the early 1800's, not "centuries". They were further re-enforced during the 1870's, aka the "redemption" period in the South.

Race and sex are two different things. There is ample evidence of marriage between different races and ethnic groups throughout history. Same sex marriage? Not so much.