Playtime for millionaires is over, someone close to “The Donald” (who he can’t fire for uttering a discouraging word ) has to approach him and let him know that it’s time to put his “abortive” experiment to bed and suspend his campaign. (or douse the dumpster fire, whichever analogy fits)
And while he had a good run and perhaps accomplished a few things like downing political correctness and selling red baseball caps the damage has been excessively conspicuous.
Let’s face it, while politicians aren’t the most sought after in terms of honesty and forthrightness, they do have their place in polite society. You hire a brain surgeon to do brain surgery, a property developer to develop property and a political personality to handle politics. We all have a place on God’s green earth with a purpose to fulfill and one must play to one’s strengths.
The past few weeks has shown that “The Donald” is way out of his element in terms of his innate abilities and weaknesses. A man who cannot hold his tongue (or Tweet as the case may be) shows himself to be particularly unsuitable for high office – especially the first time off the starting blocks. Such “non political” celebrities can be supremely entertaining in the reality show of life, but when it comes to matters of life and death the man (or woman) you want one who takes a considered approach to and thinks before speaking (or tweeting) out lest damage control becomes a repeated functionality in an ever tightening feedback loop.
Each new day brings forth embarrassing manifestations, the man can’t speak without putting his foot in his mouth (Too bad that expression isn’t related to his hands – they might fit with room to spare, but I digress) Instead of unified thought he flies off the handle with insults and gaffes that cost several precious news cycles off message to mitigate the damage.
Consider this enumeration of the succession of debacles that stand out as the most egregious in the past few weeks.
Instead of quickly apologizing to Michelle Fields the Trumpster choose to act like a leftist thug attacking and trying to denigrate her story. Trump fans taunted her with questions of why she didn’t file a police report and why there was no video of the event after which the whole thing blew up in their collectives faces.
The re-tweet attack on the wife of the Ted Cruz – along with his other chauvinistic calamities -should put him is good stead to lose100% of the female vote, which appears to be his sought-after goal.
Donald Trump has LOST several contests in a row, with his polling in a nosedive and his campaign in alert condition Orange.
All of this culminating in the Trumpster’s ignominious defeat in Wisconsin, his 4th in a row. And instead being magnanimous in that defeat Trump choose to be petty and vindictive, along with hurling a spurious accusation of the commission of a Federal crime. These are not the confident actions of a man on a winning streak but the contemptible misdeeds of a failure in a steep decline.
Part of the man’s appeal is his whining. Er.. winning.. but his polls are tanking and he’s losing primaries even with his friends in the media provide him with 5 times the coverage
Trump’s numerous gaffes, missteps and flip-flops makes it plain the man is not ready for prime time, he’s not even ready for late night infomercials for the “Trump network”.
This is not to mention that the man is destined to lose in the November election, an election the right should win with their eyes closed. Bear in mind this is not a candidate who made a few missteps and can recover, this is a man who’s been in the public eye for decades. Trumps is a very a polarizing figure, people either hate the man or have fallen for his scams and schemes. This time around is no different, Trumpfins seem not to care about each new revelation and colossal mistake and blithely go on supporting the man. This aside for the folks supporting Trump from the other side who are salivating at a landslide victory against him.
Side note: Shouldn’t “Republicans” who support Trump be abjectly horrified by all of his antics over the past few weeks? And yet they are not…… makes you contemplate if they are truly “Republicans”?
It’s assured that Trump has some temporary advantages, primarily a fawning media that lets him have full reign with his Trump Scam infomercial with nary a hard question asked. But were the Trumpster to get the nomination that advantage would quickly turn around with the left now out to get him at each turn. The same holds true for all the Temporary cross over voters from the left trying to choose the worst possible candidate for our side.
In summary, we are seeing a campaign fly apart before our very eyes, wrecking itself on the rocks of history. Shouldn’t we put it out of our misery while there is still time to save the country?
@George Wells: Guess who had no ground forces in Nebraska that is going to be another State for Cruz and his awesome team.
Time for him to just call ‘er quits he cant think people paying attention really think he wants to win.
Great on marketing those Made in china hats.
@Redteam #149:
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
While the Declaration of Independence is neither a Constitution nor a legislated law nor a court decision, its words constitute a fundamental basis for much of our legal documents that followed. A number of our constitutional amendments use that very phrase as justification for the rights that are expressed therein.
Jefferson’s expression of these “equal” rights was penned BEFORE we actually gained independence from England, and so was in essence an established principle at the beginning of the creation of our nation’s laws – EVEN THOUGH Jefferson owned 200 slaves at the time AND the initial agreement between the first states joining the Union was that they would all look the other way regarding slavery, an ignominious decision that was made in order to LURE Southern states into the fledgling union. Those facts do NOT, however, make owning slaves a moral thing to do, even if some slave owners were inclined to treat their slaves well. Neither does the Bible’s apparent acquiescence to slavery make it morally right.
I think that we have to make a distinction between things that were ONCE-upon-a-time CONSIDERED to be right (or wrong) but later were thought of differently, and things for which no rational excuse exists. The long column of examples of the former might include slavery, prohibition, polygamy, taxation and homosexuality. The latter and considerably shorter list might include eating your children when your pantry is full of food. The issue of moral relativism is a debatable one, but as it usually pits religious fundamentalists against secular rationalists, and our nation is NOT a theocracy, the fundamentalists (and the constitutional originalists who sleep with them) usually do not win those debates.
IS there a problem with the statement “someone was ‘given’ a right”?
I don’t think so, for the reasons I’ve explained above. I don’t accept that “rights” actually WERE given (same meaning as Jefferson’s “endowed”) to Man by God. I don’t accept it because I am not convinced that GOD exists, nor am I convinced that He does NOT exist. And without KNOWING for sure, I don’t want to pin all of our agreed-upon rights on a “maybe.” So INSTEAD of giving GOD credit (or blaming Him) for rights, I choose to rationally conclude that, because MAN wrote all of the laws and such that define and delineate our various rights, those rights must COME from MAN… by default. Speaking to my dependence upon Jefferson’s phrase regarding the equality of all men, I agree that he is right, but for the wrong reasons.
I am not sure that your whole line of questioning regarding WHO owns the rights to a slave (or who owns the slave’s rights) isn’t all making the same mistake over and over again. The burglar who steals your television doesn’t legitimately OWN the television simply because he has it in his possession. Neither does he gain a “right” to have it simply because he DOES have it. If and when that television is recovered and returned to its rightful owner, the burglar might indeed be “out” one television, but he has not been deprived of a “right.” The same argument may be convincingly made in the case of a slave. Just because the slave’s freedom was “stolen” when he was enslaved, it doesn’t suddenly make it “right” for a slave-owner to buy him or keep him enslaved. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
@kitt #151:
Cruz is doing all he can, and is certainly demonstrating a political sophistication that Trump is painfully lacking. That doesn’t mean that Trump CAN’T get to the magic number (he WILL do well in the Northeast, and there are many delegates to be had there) but it is looking increasingly like he will not. And if Trump DOESN’T get it on the first ballot, it’s going to be pandemonium, because his delegates will bolt, and he’ll do what he does best – throw a temper-tantrum.
The sad thing for Cruz is that he’s almost exactly as unelectable as Trump is. And the effort to put Kasich or Bush or Rubio (or any combination of them) onto the ticket instead would be, again, pandemonium.I still believe that the BEST thing for the Republican party would be for Cruz to get the GOP nom., and for Trump to run third party. That would sacrifice the White House for sure, but the GOP isn’t likely to win that, anyway. The three-candidate race in November WOULD draw out both Cruz AND Trump supporters, though, and that would make it a lot easier for GOP Senate and House candidates to win in THEIR contests. If Trump OR Cruz runs unopposed by the other, the turn-out of Republicans would be weaker, and the Democrats would likely retake the Senate, which would, in turn, quickly confirm whichever liberal justices he or she chose to nominate to the SCOTUS.
Confusing whats legal to do and actual Rights, Rights should never be infringed, whats legal can change anytime. Slavery was never a right it just happened to be legal. Saying every slaves’ freedom was stolen is not keeping in account indentured servants that sold themselves into slavery to pay debts.
At one time it was legal without federal government interfering to make and sell liquor, guns and tobacco.
And years ago all cities allowed lemonade stands without a food license.
@George Wells: tRump cant figure out how this pre-election works you think he can figure out a last minute thing and 3rd party to get on ballots of the general? Cruz would not be electable that meme is old sweetie. NJ and PA courts have declared him eligible the other courts found no standing for a case and tossed it. Reagan had just as hard an uphill climb with his bedtime for bonzo history to overcome.
You want weak outcome Clinton is not getting out the youth vote, the college kids will assume Sanders was screwed and have a frat party to console themselves on election day.
Hillary now at 55% Disapproval
Not as high as tRumps but she is working on it.
@kitt #154:
That’s correct, Kitt, but I wish you’d tell Redteam. Please note that I make the corollary argument that same-sex marriage was ALWAYS a “right,” it just happened to be illegal.
Please take note: I never said “EVERY” slave’s freedom was stolen. It only takes one to make the argument true.
@George Wells: 152 Very good, George. You said very little that I would disagree with.
@George Wells: I think it is just as likely that Sanders will run third party if he doesn’t get the nom. He’s going to end up with a higher popular vote then Clinton, but since the Dimocrats long ago ‘fixed’ the process for Hillary, he’s going to lose out. When the election gets to November and a lot of people are going to recognize that Hillary might actually get elected, I think pandemonium will set in.
@George Wells:
George, you’re making an assumption that slaves were slaves against their ‘right’. That might not be true at all. If someone legally bought a person as a slave, then it was their ‘right’ or ownership to own that person. You seem to believe that if a person were a slave, it was against their will to be in that situation. I think that may not be a good assumption.
I don’t agree with that.
Just because some civilization has become more humane does not mean that what they were doing was not their ‘right’ to do. If two tribes of natives fought in the jungle with the understanding that whoever lost would have to serve the winners, then it was their right to participate or not. If they participated and lost, then they just had to uphold their end of the bargain. Their right was to fulfill the role of the loser, that’s what they did. Just because you or I might have a sense of ‘right’ that is different what what those persons did, does not make us correct.
@Redteam #158:
That might be wishful thinking. Personally, I think that Trump’s threats to jump ship are more believable, and I also give more than a little credence to the conspiracy-theory that Sanders is only where he is to make the Democratic contest not look like an outright coronation.
And thanks for your #152 comment. I tried to be careful.
@Redteam #159:
“If someone legally bought a person as a slave, then it was their ‘right’ of ownership to own that person.”
I think you just back-tracked. Go back to the stolen television analogy. If someone BOUGHT that stolen television from the burglar who stole it, then he would be in possession of stolen property, and would NOT have purchased it legally, AND he would not have a “right” to own it. If discovered, that television would be returned to its rightful owner, and the buyer’s only remedy would be to sue the thief to recover his lost money. Now, TECHNICALLY, the analogy isn’t completely parallel, since buying slaves WAS legal in some states, but that doesn’t mean that it was “right.” If the slave had been kidnapped at gun-point from a West African village by a Muslim slave trader and brought to America chained below deck in a slave-trade vessel, it WASN’T a case of voluntary indentureship, the slave’s sale WASN’T morally right, and the slave’s buyer did NOT have a moral right to “own” the slave, no matter what the misguided law of the land was at the time. There were tens of thousands of kidnapped slaves in America, living in conditions no one in their right mind would have voluntarily accepted. The fact that some people voluntarily DID accept servitude and/or indentureship does not erase the terrible history of slavery which, by definition, is an entirely different thing.
And what happened to “All men are created equal”? Are you throwing out the Constitution just to excuse slavery????
And your “explanation” of jungle warfare gentleman agreements isn’t historically accurate. Most often, it was European or Islamic slave raids that forcibly collected slaves at gunpoint for sale in America, not some crazy, “if-yours-is-bigger-I’ll-service-you” sort of agreement between friends who were armed with sticks.
@George Wells: Sorry have to back up Red on the interwar slavery trade.
http://www.ironbarkresources.com/slaves/whiteslaves04.htm
The american Indians also had the same practice.
But we all agree on slavery = bad glad we got rid of it.
I have heard the dems may also face a contested convention, may be a bit early to call that as, will happen. But if it comes down to Trump getting to the magic number, and Hillary getting to the magic number, You bet I will not sit home and watch Hillary fly her broom to the oval office. Many Dems will sit home she hasn’t the appeal or likeability to get any kind of landslide, unless she takes Sanders as her VP. Many Dems will cross the line for liberal Donny-boy.He would need a gang-busters VP.
@kitt #162:
Odd that you are picking Redteam’s take on slavery to defend. He has yet to acknowledge that ANY slaves were actually taken against their will. He is of the opinion that slavery was both legal and right, and that slave owners were justified in what they did. The fact that there were indentured servants (there are still such) and that there were also a variety of different conditions of enslavement does not mitigate the fact that large numbers of slaves were forcibly abducted from their homelands AGAINST THEIR WILL and sold into slavery with no prospect of ever gaining their freedom. Redteam’s view is astonishingly abhorrent.
The OTHER thing that I find bizarre is that he has chosen to defend slavery BECAUSE I used it as an example of an “equal right” that was “given” to a class of people at a specific point in our nation’s history. Clearly, the Declaration of Independence DID contain that Jefferson line about “all men being created equal” and an “inalienable right” to pursue “life, liberty and happiness,” but it took many decades to actually free the slaves (to give them a modicum of equal rights) and in the meantime, our laws pertaining to slavery made the practice technically legal but certainly not morally right.
A similar example is found in the case of women suffrage. First, women DIDN’T have the right to vote, then they DID. That also robbed men of some of the political power they enjoyed prior, but Redteam hasn’t bothered to attack THAT Man-given right for some reason…
Now here’s the bizarre part: Redteam has been arguing in slavery’s defense, precisely because he objects to instances where giving someone (or some class) a right necessarily takes something AWAY from someone else (or from a different class.) He has made that argument AGAINST same-sex marriage, although he has NOT provided evidence that gay marriages damage his own or anyone else’s. (He could EASILY have made the same argument against women suffrage as noted above, but inexplicably did not.) His argument essentially requires that no “new” rights ever be given to anyone who doesn’t already have them (as if God-given “inalienable” rights are the only ones that count) and yet he accepts Jefferson’s point about all men being created equal, a condition that he acknowledges is given considerable lip service but was not and still IS not well reflected in our Laws. I think that Redteam has accomplished debating’s equivalent of putting himself into a convoluted “checkmate.”
Redteam can’t have it both ways. Either there is a Grand Heavenly Concept of Moral Right (that the Bible has largely misrepresented in the cases of slavery and homosexuality) or there isn’t. If the former is correct, we are remiss if we follow laws that conflict with the “Moral Right,” and chaos will reign. If the latter is correct, and determining what is right and what is wrong falls exclusively to Man, then we’ll have to accept that we don’t get everything right the first time, and some “rights” that “exist” at one point may not make it to the next. That’s what happened with slavery, and that’s what happened with gay marriage.
The Dems will NOT have a contested convention. Hillary WILL be their nominee. She WILL win the presidency if Trump OR Cruz gets the GOP nod. End of prediction. Sanders appeals to the young, and they aren’t likely to be as involved if HRC is the candidate, but young people don’t vote nearly as much as every other demographic that the Democrats depend on, so I don’t think that they’ll matter to HRC’s chances of victory. She gets more Black votes than Sanders, and they vote in higher proportion than the young. You’ll see.
@kitt: I assure you very few Dems. or Indies will “cross the line” to vote for Trump.
Talk about very few–he’s polling at 25% among women 20% Latins–9% African Americans–hell he’s under 50% with Repubs–
Kitt–No one can win with those #s even against HRC.
He will win with White males–probably 65-70% but he’d need 90% to make it close–he won’t get me .HA
Dems won’t have contested Convention–Repubs will—did you see the terrible treatment Cruz got from N.Y. Repubs.–DON’T GIVE UP ON CRUZ.
@George Wells:
As usual, you remain blatantly dishonest.
Gays have always had the right to marry, under the same rules, and restrictions, as heterosexuals. Never was there a question as to one’s sexual proclivity on any marriage license in any state in our Union. To accept your premise of gays being denied the right to marry is like saying that although I am of legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages, because I choose not to do so, my rights are being denied.
As to slavery, especially slavery from the African continent: it was not white slavers, or even Arab slavers, that initially sold Africans into slavery. It was other Africans who were at war with another tribe, took the enemy tribe captive, loaded the captive up and took them to the coast line where the captives were sold. If we want to lay the blame for African slavery, it should be laid at the feet of the African tribes that took captives for the purpose of selling those captives.
White slavers did NOT venture inland to capture slaves. That is just one of the politically correct lies about the history of slavery.
Your comparison of the treatment of gays being remotely similar to the treatment of slaves is laughable. Gays were never shackled to a post on a large rock and sold. Gays were never bred for the sole purpose of reproducing another gay. Gays were not discriminated against because of the color of their skin. Gays were never denied the right to freedom of movement, to vote, hold jobs, learn to read and write or own property. And to try to make the comparison shows that you have no real argument, just hyperbole.
But alas, that is all that can be expected of you.
@Rich Wheeler:
While I find it uncomfortable to agree with you, I must. Trump cannot defeat Hillary. Independent women will vote Hillary, Republican women will stay home. Same with every demographic of Independents. So while the Trumpeteers trumpet Trumps wins, and whine about his losses, the bottom line is he is more unfavorable than favorable among Republicans. The Trumpeteers whine about Colorado, but were mute when it came to Florida where he did not win a majority.
And what a moron Trump must be to think that his notoriety will win delegates when he has a lousy ground game. Winning delegates is what Hillary has been doing since 2012.
@George Wells: I m not defending anything but historical accuracy of the post, Blacks were the ones who captured
blacks and sold them to the slave traders. I make no claim any of them went willingly.
As far as a right to own slaves that is not in our constitution but the ability to do things that are legal even if morally wrong, prostitution is legal in Nevada you can go there and partake.
Indies and Kennedy Dems will cross the line to vote for Cruz, the more exposure he gets to his platform the more people get to hear him speak they will come to the realization between him and Hillary get off your butt and keep her from taking the WhiteHouse. He admits it will be an uphill battle to get some of his policies in place but will take to the airwaves and get people motivated to call their reps in DC the way Reagan did.
@kitt: Kasich worked for Reagan-helped him turn around the economy. Trump ain’t no Reagan.
I’m a Kennedy Dem. who inspired by his “Ask not” speech joined The Marines.
Trust me Kitt–Kennedy Dems WILL NOT vote for Trump or Bernie. They may vote.for Cruz. Large #S could vote Kasich. Most will vote HRC.
It took a fight to get full rights for women, African Americans and now gays–‘”The Arc of the Moral Universe is long but it bends toward Justice.” MLK JR.
@Rich Wheeler: Bernie has a snowballs chance in hades, Trump may muscle the nomination I dont find him electable. Kasich has all the appeal of a week old bananna.(thats a joke son read it again with the voice of foghorn leghorn) He is big government solution for everything. Our Federal government has grown well past sustainability, unaccountable, uncaring & bloated, it needs to go on a crash diet. Cruz isnt a homeboy he has no chance but maybe for a few delegates in NY. May a song month for the Northeast, not cruz country, June is the wild West thats where Cruz is favored.
Cruz just has to find the 4 or 5 Conservatives left in California (jk)
@retire05 #165:
Pure nonsense. Not a rational argument. That statement is about as true as: “DEAD men have always had the right to marry.” It doesn’t matter that they can’t actually LOVE their spouse, or can’t CONSUMATE the union, right? Doesn’t MATTER that they’re DEAD. The law is the law. One man can marry one woman, DEAD OR ALIVE. Nobody ever said that dead people DIDN’T have the right, correct? Why? Because it would be a NONSENSICAL TRAVESTY to marry a dead person to ANY other person, man or woman, dead or alive. JUST as nonsensical a travesty as it would be to marry a homosexual to a person of the opposite sex. Pure nonsense! NOT a “right.”
Where did I say that?
Oh. That’s right. I didn’t.
I used the example of slavery to demonstrate a “right” (to be free) that slaves first did NOT have, and then DID have.
The only similarity I evoked was that same-sex marriage was a right that gays first did NOT have, and then DID have.
All that other comparison stuff you wrote is crap that YOU MADE UP.
I did NOT mention “treatment” of gays anywhere.
Where did I say that they DID?
Oh. That’s right. I didn’t.
Who is laying “blame for AFRICAN slavery”? I only discussed the right – or LACK of right – to OWN slaves in the United States prior to their emancipation. I don’t give a damn where they came from, or who enslaved them. The WRONG that WE were responsible for was the purchase and KEEPING of slaves. WE should have known better. WE were not without guilt.
And as if we shouldn’t blame American drug dealers and drug users for the drug problems here in America. We should blame the Afghan farmers who grow opium poppies, the Colombian coca growers for their cocaine and the Mexican pot growers for all the weed being sold on the streets of Chicago. I’m glad our drug problem isn’t OUR fault!
You arguments are predictably misleading.
You put words in my mouth that I never said, and create arguments where none exist. And when you actually attempt logic, you miss the most important points and consequently get mired in irrelevant side issues THAT YOU STILL GET WRONG!
Go back to agreeing with Rich Wheeler and trashing Trump. You are correct there.
@George Wells:
Not withstanding the fact that you have veered off into the realm of total absurdity, the requirement that a marriage must be consummated is found where? If you choose to marry a woman, for any reason, there is no requirement that the marriage must be consummated. So as with all things you argue, you’re full of crap. BTW, no dead people, of either gender, have no rights. They’re dead, you dimwit.
Projecting again, George? How many times have you claimed I said something I did not? How many times have you claimed Redteam, and others, said things they did not? And then when pressed on it and asked to prove your claims, you whine about FA not having an archive that is easy for you to manage.
Now, perhaps you would like to tell us all what state prevented a gay man from marrying a gay woman since you claim gays were denied the right to marry?
You can’t defend that argument without adding a caveat to it, and you damn well know it.
@retire05 #171:
Give it a REST. Your lame excuses that you pass off for argument opposing same-sex marriage have all been heard in the highest court in the land, and the majority decision on them has been reached. THE SCOTUS DECISION AGREED WITH ME. YOU have been found WRONG. The majority of Americans ALSO think YOU are wrong. The issue is decided. LET IT GO.
YOU resurrected this settled question. YOU needn’t re-litigate same-sex marriage every time somebody makes an example of a gay right. That’s all I did, and YOU flew off your rocker, attempting to resuscitate an issue that isn’t one any more. GIVE IT UP! Go back to your needlepoint.
And for Christ’s sake, stop defending slavery. It makes people think that you’re a racist.
@George Wells:
The SCOTUS is not always correct, i.e. Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade and Kelo.
And I defended slavery where, you lying jerk? I stated its history, not a defense of it. You are too mentally weak to even comprehend the difference.
Go back to your sodomy. You long ago became a broken record.
@retire05 #173:
You GLORIFIED slavery. You EXCUSED America’s participation in slavery. You redirected blame for slavery to African tribal conflicts and never once hinted that White Southern plantation owners who bought, sold and worked slaves to death had any moral obligation to do otherwise. Without using the words “defend” or “support,” you did just that.
What, you can’t find a single word in what you wrote that hints at your slightest discomfort over slavery? I can’t find one either.
Seems to me, you’re still a racist.
@George Wells:
Where?
How so? By giving you part of the actual history of slavery?
So it was not what I said, but what I didn’t say that you think allows you to distort my opinion on slavery? You really are stretching there, bubba. No surprise. Misconstruing what others say is your forte.
Up your Aracept.
@retire05 #173:
(Yawn)
How do YOU decide which SCOTUS decisions are right and which ones are wrong?
The “Dred Scott” decision of 1857 was a bad decision that maintained the status quo. It didn’t change civil rights in America, it kept them exactly where they were.
That is fundamentally different from what the Rowe v. Wade and Obergefell decisions accomplished. BOTH of these decisions FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED civil rights in America. THESE decisions instantaneously created rights that did not previously exist in the Law. At this point in time, hundreds of thousands of gay people have legally married, and an effort to undo those marriages would create a legal catastrophe, with every voided marriage suing to recover lost marital rights and the other 900 some consequences of matrimony. This essential impossibility of undoing civil-rights-once-granted is precisely why Rowe v. Wade hasn’t been reversed. It established a right – granted a right that you find objectionable – that never-the-less created a new paradigm in jurisprudence. It might be a good decision, and it might not be. But once out of the bottle, you can’t put the genie back in.
Note that while The Dred Scott decision was superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (it WAS a bad decision), it wasn’t actually reversed by a subsequent SCOTUS decision. Neither was the Rowe v. Wade decision reversed. It still stands today, in spite of Republican efforts to undo it.
And finally, the Obergefell decision hasn’t been challenged, much less reversed.
Not good examples of whatever it is you’re trying to show.
You GLORIFIED slavery. You EXCUSED America’s participation in slavery. You redirected blame for slavery to African tribal conflicts and never once hinted that White Southern plantation owners who bought, sold and worked slaves to death had any moral obligation to do otherwise. Without using the words “defend” or “support,” you did just that. Go ahead an KEEP defending slavery.
Racist.
@George Wells:
Where did I say Dred Scott changed civil rights? Oh, wait, I DIDN’T. Seems you are hearing voices again, George.
You have no idea how I feel about the institution of slavery, but I know how you feel about the unnatural acts of sodomy.
Give it up, George. You’ve already crossed the Rubicon. You’re just an old lying fraud who comes here to promote your sick lifestyle and try to make excuses for it.
@George Wells:
I understand history is not your strong suit, but surely even an historical idiot like you knows that the largest port for slaves was in Boston (hardly in the South) and the largest slave auction was in Washington, D.C. (again, hardly Southern).
I think all that queer sex has damaged your brain.
@retire05:
My:
Brought your response:
Fair enough. Buy if your comment WASN’T a rebuttal of MY points that “same-sex marriage was a right that gays first did NOT have, and then DID have”, AND that the “arguments opposing same-sex marriage have all been heard and decided by the highest court in the land,” what WAS it?
Why, in your #173, did you bother to point out the debatable:
???
Nobody is ALWAYS correct. Fine. But what was your point? Connect the dots.
I already have shown that, right or wrong, the SCOTUS DIDN’T reverse itself on ANY of the decisions you noted, and in fact the ONLY one of them that isn’t now in effect is the Dred Scott decision that was VOIDED by the Civil War! That hardly puts your Scott/Wade/Kelo comment into a successful rebuttal column, does it? At best it’s an incidental sidebar of debatable validity and irrelevant to my point. I’ll ask again: WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP?
Retire05 is the quintessential racist homophobe. This self-proclaimed compassionate conservative intentionally excuses, defends and supports the slavery that made the Old South prosperous, and she rails against homosexuals as if they have harmed her personally. While claiming to be a “Christian,” she cannot resist putting into her posts hateful and sexually suggestive insults that would make a sailor blush. No refined person, this.
Retire05 will die in her home state of Texas a bitterly hateful, lonely old woman, angry at a World she cannot find peace with and an Old Testament God she cannot find. One wonders where she will be going next…
@George Wells:
George, I’ve never seen you make the argument before that homosexuality is racist. Interesting.
@George Wells:Word of advice I’ve learned not to read or respond to RT—Waste of time
Re 05 You might consider the same unless you somehow actually enjoy the endless non productive back and forth.
You stated you enjoy the concept of debate—find those on here that will do so in a civil manner. They do exist Word-Brother Bob-Dr Pete-Another Vet-Kit- come immediately to mind—of course there are others. RW
@Rich Wheeler:
And you’re still practicing lying. Your ‘response’ is to RT. So George, RW still responds to RT even though he will lie about it.