Ted Cruz is 'pandering to the worst kind of bigotry'

[Grace Preston]

Surely you can acknowledge that "most" folks who take umbrage to the notion of gay marriage-- hide behind their religion to do so. YOU may not-- but that is the most common reason.



I'm of the notion that what two people do with their own lives really isn't any of my business. Hell, I built my business in the adult industry on the notion that what I do behind closed doors isn't the business of the government.....

[Yssup Rider]

Mighty big closets in some churches…

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

"They" clearly can not understand this and it is baffling to me. I do understand that some of you want what you want and you want it now, but thank goodness we live in a country where every citizen ( and soon to be non-citizens alike ) gets one vote and another persons vote is no more important than mine. I will not ask anyone, brow beat anyone as to why they voted the way they did, that is their right and it is my right to vote the opposite and I'm under no Constitutional, government authority to explain my vote.

first cruz isnt pandering to "the WORST kind of bigotry" or any bigotry at all, he is calmly discussing what the constitution affords and what it doesn't.

the writer of the article and ms. hoover are the ones doing the pandering

the left doesn't care about the constitution, or federalism, or powers retained by the states - none of that matters to them

they decry any fealty to the constitution as "losing their democracy"

and even then they care even less for "democracy" when it doesn't give them their way

and curiously enough, part of their "democracy" is using courts to "create and pass laws" they like

and when correction is made and the issue is properly returned to the elected representatives of the people, somehow that too is "losing our democracy"

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Attitudes like this is why we fought a civil war.

lol. Way to tell us you got your history from the TV.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Without the federal government and federal bureaucracy we never would have fought in the second world war.

As other have pointed out you don't understand that declaring war is ACTUALLY one of the few jobs the Federal government is explicitly tasked with. So I'm not sure what counterfactual reason you have to believe that the federal government would not have declared war following the attack on Pearl Harbor, but I'd be willing to bet it's lacking.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Communism would be rampant throughout the world.

If the Federal government hadn't involved the US in Europes Great War, there is little reason to believe that the Germans would have shipped Lenin off to Moscow two weeks later. Therefore no Federal Government getting us into WW1, No Russian Revolution. Communism doesn't run rampant through the world.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Nazi Germany might be ascendant in Europe.

No... without US involvement in WW1, the Germans might have prevailed and old Adolph would just be a failed street painter in Vienna who was gassed in the Big One.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

There would be no anti-pollution laws

There would be state laws..

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

or social security, or medicare.

But there would be state versions and they would be far less ripe for abuse. Like anyone under 40 is ever going to see their Social Security money back? LOL... I'd have much rather been allowed to invest my SSN and medicare taxes.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I might not like everything the federal government does but I would say they do more good than bad and I'm glad to have them.

Of course you are... you haven't had them take you to the cleaners yet... YET.

Just remember any government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take it all from you too. And if they haven't gotten to you yet, it just means they are busy taking from your neighbors.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Surely you can acknowledge that "most" folks who take umbrage to the notion of gay marriage-- hide behind their religion to do so. YOU may not-- but that is the most common reason.

I do agree that "most" folks do it for religious reasons but as you say, "what business is that of yours"? "We" the people are free to have religious views, it is the government that may not.

I'm of the notion that what two people do with their own lives really isn't any of my business. Hell, I built my business in the adult industry on the notion that what I do behind closed doors isn't the business of the government.....

"Hide" behind their religion? Interesting choice of words when the Constitution guarantees you the freedom to hold religious views. Maybe they should have left that part out of the Constitution
and made it clear that your religious views will not be allowed AT ALL!



I happen to agree with what you said about the government staying out of things like marriage but then we would have to accept that one person can marry multiple people and that a father can marry his daughter if they both so choose.


Again, we all want to do what ever we want to do, where ever and when ever we want to do it but some things we decide as a society and we call that democracy with one person, one vote on those issues not given to the federal government by the Constitution.


I'm willing to live with that structure as imperfect as it may seem at times.

[Grace Preston]

I honestly have no issues with plural marriage. I would have to stop short at your father/daughter reference, though-- there are reasons that even first cousins can't be married-- just look at the royal bloodlines (or the Russian Czar) to see why generations of inbreeding is a bad idea.

[1blackman1]

If you take the Bible literally, I can’t understand why anyone with those beliefs would think incest is either immoral or should be frowned upon . Wouldn’t Adam and Eve’s children have had to have reproduced together and their grandchildren as well. Or after the flood, if the only survivors were Noah and his three sons and the 4 wives. It doesn’t take a genius to realize they had to have incestuous relations to repopulate even a small area of the earth.

Interestingly though it’s implied while the Israelites traveled to the promised land God had Moses forbid incest. (See my prior thoughts on law having nothing to do with morality but necessary to have a structured society). The Israelites were falling into anarchy and they needed some hard rules to prevent it from moving further that way.

Personally I agree with Grace, generally speaking, that incest is a bad idea since we don’t do well with limited genetic diversity. And it’s a bad idea. But for the right wing religinuts just know you came from lots of inbreeding.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

I honestly have no issues with plural marriage. I would have to stop short at your father/daughter reference, though-- there are reasons that even first cousins can't be married-- just look at the royal bloodlines (or the Russian Czar) to see why generations of inbreeding is a bad idea.

But it speaks to why "we the people" make some laws that we make and the need to "get into" some peoples business. What if first cousins promise they won't procreate? Do we give them the right to do as they please?


And they ask, "what business is this of yours"?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

If you take the Bible literally, I can’t understand why anyone with those beliefs would think incest is either immoral or should be frowned upon . Wouldn’t Adam and Eve’s children have had to have reproduced together and their grandchildren as well. Or after the flood, if the only survivors were Noah and his three sons and the 4 wives. It doesn’t take a genius to realize they had to have incestuous relations to repopulate even a small area of the earth.

Interestingly though it’s implied while the Israelites traveled to the promised land God had Moses forbid incest. (See my prior thoughts on law having nothing to do with morality but necessary to have a structured society). The Israelites were falling into anarchy and they needed some hard rules to prevent it from moving further that way.

Personally I agree with Grace, generally speaking, that incest is a bad idea since we don’t do well with limited genetic diversity. And it’s a bad idea. But for the right wing religinuts just know you came from lots of inbreeding.

The Americans were falling into anarchy and they needed some hard rules to prevent it from moving further away.


FTFY

[Grace Preston]

Y'know what.. if they want to suffer the consequences, that's their business at the end. At the end of the day-- not my problem.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

If you take the Bible literally, I can’t understand why anyone with those beliefs would think incest is either immoral or should be frowned upon . Wouldn’t Adam and Eve’s children have had to have reproduced together and their grandchildren as well. Or after the flood, if the only survivors were Noah and his three sons and the 4 wives. It doesn’t take a genius to realize they had to have incestuous relations to repopulate even a small area of the earth.

Interestingly though it’s implied while the Israelites traveled to the promised land God had Moses forbid incest. (See my prior thoughts on law having nothing to do with morality but necessary to have a structured society). The Israelites were falling into anarchy and they needed some hard rules to prevent it from moving further that way.

Personally I agree with Grace, generally speaking, that incest is a bad idea since we don’t do well with limited genetic diversity. And it’s a bad idea. But for the right wing religinuts just know you came from lots of inbreeding.

You aren't going to tell us there aren't any Left wing nutcases are you?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Y'know what.. if they want to suffer the consequences, that's their business at the end. At the end of the day-- not my problem.

And at the end of the day, you get a voice if you do think it is a problem, you can vote.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

You aren't going to tell us there aren't any Left wing nutcases are you?

Of course there aren't... I mean you can justify anything when you're fighting literal Nazis!! That's why they've spent the last 20 years comparing every Republican to Hitler... so that someday soon, they can try and use every kind of force they can against us because after all...we're Nazis.

They're going to find out the hard way that there isn't a damn thing they can do to us while we remain armed.

That's why their most precious goal is eliminating the right to keep and bear arms.

[Yssup Rider]

This meltdown brought to you the letters J and L.

Get a grip bro. You’re going to hurt something.

Now what’s your take on your favorite Texas Senator?

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

You aren't going to tell us there aren't any Left wing nutcases are you?

Sure there are, plenty of them, but if it’s religion, typically it’s a right wing nut.