After a while it becomes painfully obvious and it can no longer be ignored. Barack Obama is first and foremost the President of Black America. Barack Obama sent a convoy to the funeral of Michael Brown. It was a delegation of three officials. He sent three fewer to the funeral of Margaret Thatcher:
The White House sent three officials to attend Monday’s funeral for Michael Brown in St. Louis — three more than it sent for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s funeral last year.
The administration’s handling of the Brown funeral already has started to raise comparisons between the two.
For Monday’s funeral, the White House sent two officials with the White House Office of Public Engagement as well as Broderick Johnson, chairman of the My Brother’s Keeper Task Force.
No White House officials, though, were part of the presidential delegation sent last year to Thatcher’s funeral. For that, the White House sent former secretaries of State George Schultz and James Baker III — as well as the charge d’affaires to the U.K. and the former U.S. ambassador.
At the time, the nature of the delegation stirred controversy in the British media as tabloids claimed British officials felt snubbed that high-level American officials — including President Obama himself — were not attending.
Neither Obama nor any White House officials attended the funeral of the two star General killed in Afghanistan, Harold Greene.
Attending the Chris Stevens Memorial Service?
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee called Stevens a “hero” who led a “distinguished life and sacrificed his life for us…He simply made the world a better place for all of us.”
Other leaders including former Secretary of State George Shultz; retired diplomat Tom Pickering, who was charged to investigate the Benghazi killings; U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) and the Libyan Ambassador to the United States, Ali S. Aujali, spoke at the service. Aujali said there was “no excuse” for what happened, describing Stevens as a man who knew the Libyan people – and their suffering – well.
Now let’s examine other events.
Henry Gates was arrested by Sgt. James Crowley. Without knowing the facts Obama immediately leaped to a podium, saying the white Crowley “acted stupidly.”
Obama took the time off from golf to make emotional statements about Martin and prejudice the case:
But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. And, you know, I think they are right to expect that all of us, as Americans, are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.
Then he compounded it:
“When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said this could’ve been my son. Another way of saying that is, Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago,”
Let’s revisit Obama’s words:
But, obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. And, you know, I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.
So I’m glad that not only is the Justice Department looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what’s taking place. I think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.
When it came to the murder of Hadiya Pendleton Obama knew exactly what the problem was. The cause of that murder was a gun- not those who pulled the trigger- and he seized the opportunity to politicize her death:
“Unfortunately what happened to Hadiya is not unique. It’s not unique to Chicago. It’s not unique to this country. Too many of our children are being taken away from us,” he said in calling for the “commonsense” reforms — comprehensive background checks and a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines — that he says most Americans embrace.”
And why would Obama not blame the shooters?
Michelle Obama attended Hadiya’s funeral.
In an interview Michelle Obama suggested that an automatic weapon was used to kill Hadiya Pendleton but police reports suggest that a revolver was used.
Police say they have not recovered the weapon used to kill Hadiya, but a day after her homicide on Jan. 29, Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said the gunman possibly used a revolver because no bullet casings were found at the shooting scene — as there would be if a semi-automatic or automatic weapon had been used.
Obama sought new laws to restrict weapons that were not used in Pendletons’s death while blaming the weapons for the murder and not the shooters. Curious, no?
Barack Obama interrupted his golf/vacation odyssey to comment on the death of Michael Brown:
“He was 18 years old, and his family will never hold Michael in their arms again. And when something like this happens, the local authorities, including the police, have a responsibility to be open and transparent about how they are investigating that death and how they are protecting the people in their communities,”
Former Navy SEAL and American’s most deadly sniper was killed by a fellow soldier in 2013. Obama noted the passing of Whitney Houston but spent not a word on Kyle.
As the family of an Australian baseball player gunned down in Oklahoma mourns his death, police said today that the athlete was targeted by three teenagers who simply “wanted to see someone die.”
The suspects followed Chris Lane, 22, as he jogged alongside a road in Duncan, Okla., Friday afternoon, shot him in the back and left him to die on the side of the road, said Duncan police Chief Danny Ford.
“They were bored and just wanted to see somebody die,” Ford told ABCNews.com.
Did Obama say “He was 22 years old, and his family will never hold Christopher in their arms again”?
Did he interrupt a golf game to make a special statement to the press?
Non-white cop kills unarmed 20 year old white man.
Dillon Taylor, 20, who is from Salt Lake, was exiting 7-Eleven with his brother and cousin, Adam Thayne, around 7 p.m. on Monday, when Salt Lake City police arrived, responding to a report of a man waving a gun in the area.
The officers ordered the men to the ground. Two of them complied, but Dillon, who police say matched the suspect’s description, did not go down.
“It came in as a 911 call that there was a man with a gun,” said South Salt Lake Police Sgt. Darrin Sweeten. “He was verbally challenged and ultimately was shot.”
Sweeten did not release further details on the shooting….
Did Obama note this?
Did Obama break off his vacation to comfort Taylor’s parents?
Did Obama send Holder in and promise that justice would be served?
Did Obama note the death of a white at the hands of a “non-white” cop?
Barack Obama is very particular about for whom he makes special statements and lamentations. It speaks volumes that Obama’s “go to guy” on race issues is the race baiting Tawana Sharpton. It says volumes that the Attorney General Obama appointed has divided the country in two groups- the rest of us and “his people.” In the Obama-Holder universe hate crimes can only be committed by whites.
A group of those whom Eric Holder described as “his people,” at least six young men, repeatedly punched a 24-year-old white woman in the face, then proceeded to kick her face over and over when she was on the ground helpless. This occurred in Buffalo, New York last week, but the event has received no attention by the mainstream media because the victim was white and the attackers were black. This was no friendly urban jostling: the woman was left with a broken nose and cracked bones in her face.
Despite the fact that virtually all “knockout game” attacks have been black on white, Holder has brought a hate crime charge against a white man following a knockout game attack on a black man.
Obama once claimed
“I want all Americans to have opportunity. I’m not the president of black America.”
Yes he is. You know how he lies about everything.
We elected a black man twice for the purpose of improving race relations. Instead, he has divided the races even further. In the process, we have learned that leftism is an evil disease. We must mitigate that disease now, in November.
What a spectacle. How will this ‘message’ be interpreted by black thugs of America?
From any reports given there has been nothing written about anything positive or extraordinary Michael Brown did for his community, or anyone. Now we witness the celebration of a 18 year old drug user, a thug, a wanna be gang member – and, at 18, on a path to basically being a loser. His going to college well, by his actions, that is a stretch. Wanna be thugs usually don’t end up in college. They end up somewhere else.
It is a sad day in America to celebrate with such distinction an 18 year old unlawful, disrespectful thug.
Just about anywhere, especially in black news and you will read complaints from the black community that Obama had been given their vote, and Obama has done ‘nothing’ for the black community.
Has all this pageantry been done by Obama to get the black community back into the democrat party’s good graces? Things ‘all better’ now?
Surely we need change in America but, not this kind of change. What a terrible message this sends.
We need a President who puts forth the understanding he works for all Americans and to put the Identity Politics under lock and key.
I have been harping on this since 2004, when I saw and heard him speak at the socialist, er, Democrat Convention. This is a man who, as DJ says, lies all the time- does he lie to Michelle? Probably- Does he lie to his kids? Also probably. Does he lie to himself? Almost certainly, as that is the only way he could be this delusional all the time.
Does he lie to the American People? Constantly.
Without professional intervention and powerful anti psychotics it can only get worse when Hillary is elected
obama is a marxist, racist, muslim sympathizer. his intent is to bring the United States down.
@Timmi: you left put traitor. Among other things, he armed ISIS. Well he be charged when they target a city near you? Something to really think about. The ill winds are blowing.
President of Black America?
No way. He’s just using Blacks to aid and abet his agenda of destroying America. And the thing is that Blacks are, or will, paying the biggest price of all for this.
President of illegal immigrants?
Btw, Blacks had better learn to speak Spanish if they want to remain even remotely relevant over the next decades. And while they’re at it they’d best toss their invalid “race cards” in the trash where they belong. I say this because Hispanics are not, and will not, fall for the “Blacks suffer from racism” nonsense they’re always crying and whining about.
No Hispanics ever kept black American slaves.
And there isn’t a touch of ”white guilt,” in a one of them either.
If only whites would realize, en masse, that virtually none of them are descended from slave owning Southerners we could dump all this white guilt among whites as well.
The white parts of hubby were non-slave owners.
My family came here long after the freeing of the slave and had been slaves (serfs) thermselves in Eastern Europe.
No white guilt in this family!
My wife is from South America. She would never vote Republican. She sees the hard line taken by Repubs like Cruz. Doesn’t like it. Her friends and relatives are also Dems.
Latins will continue to vote Dem. Women will continue to vote Dem. The youth will continue to vote Dem.
The best hope for Repubs. is a very low voter turnout—this could happen in Nov.
Jim Webb for Prez.
Of course. Your wife was raised with a Pan-American view of government, and the authority of government. She would not hold an American concept, unlike those who fled the Communism of the Castro brothers. Most South American nations lean closer to Communism than they do democracy and that leaning is what gives Central/South American nations their oppressive governments.
“Your wife was raised with a Pan-American view of government, and the authority of government… Most South American nations lean closer to Communism than they do democracy…”
Yes… true. Citizens have a right – and a responsibility – to self-determination, and their choice is theirs to make, not ours. You vilify them for choosing differently than you?
Were they “brain-washed?” Is their choice influenced any more than our own choice? We were born here, they were born there. Weren’t you taught the “Pledge-to-the-Flag” long before you had any understanding of its verses or an appreciation of their significance? Weren’t YOU “brain-washed?”
The Democratic Party leans to the “left” – toward “socialism,” while the Republican Party leans toward the “right” – a version of capitalism unfettered by governmental control. While each side attempts to paint the other as accursed traitors, neither approach to governance is fundamentally flawed and neither approach renders its advocates immune to the temptations of corruption or any of the other human frailties that make fair and effective governance difficult.
Racism hurts us all. It keeps us all divided, fighting each other as enemies to the advantage of our enemies abroad. We will continue to aid and abet those foreign enemies as long as we fail to extinguish racism here at home.
By the way, have you been following the court arguments being made in support of gay marriage bans at the appellate level? How embarrassing to hold an elected position that requires you to stand before the nation and attempt to justify hateful laws with nothing but scraps of irrelevant logic. I’m hoping that the 6th Circuit Court upholds the bans in its jurisdiction, insuring that the SCOTUS takes the issue and resolves it soon.
How did I “vilify” anyone? You, once again, seem to be reading into my post words that are not there. Nasty habit that, George. You really need to stop it.
Once again, you make a vague statement that when examined is simply not true. The “right” as you call us, do not object to all governmental control. Capitalism is conducted everyday on our highways and byways. Can you tell me who on the right object to traffic laws, also a form of government control, designed to keep all those who participate in traffic safe? That is just one instance of governmental control.
If you do a little research, I think you will find that the bulk of the name calling and demonization comes from the left, with rare instances of it coming from someone on the right. One only has to look at the comments, and pejoratives that have been thrown at the TEA Party, who have in fact, exercised their right to peaceful protesting.
And if you think that Socialism, or any form of it, which the left subscribes to with more and more vigor, has any merit, please do provide the name of the country where Socialism has been successful.
Of course you are, George. In spite of the fact that marriage laws have fallen under the purview of the 10th Amendment. If you can’t win through public opinion, and public support, you will litigate your agenda.
Denying marriage to two people of the same sex is not hateful, no matter how much you want to spin that it is. It is a societal call that you don’t like because you are more interested in ramming your agenda down the throats of those who hold a religious belief that homosexuality is wrong than you are in upholding the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You suffered no harm from not being able to legally marry your male paramour. You could jointly own property, create living wills, create will leaving your entire estate to anyone of your choice, get a job, buy a home, cut your grass with a legally purchased lawnmower. Same sex marriage has not one thing to do with “equal” rights. It has to do with power. Plain and simple. The one thing you could not get was a meager $255.00 check from the Social Security Administration when your partner dies.
But just as the worm has turned against on-demand abortion, so too, will the worm turn on same sex marriage. Americans don’t like being told they must accept anything.
@retire05 # 12:
You asked: “How did I “vilify” anyone?”
I will point out to you that in my #11 post, I ASKED: “You vilify them for choosing differently than you?”
It was a question.
I did NOT say that you vilified anyone. Since I made no such accusation as you are inquiring after, no answer logically follows your question.
The Democratic Party leans to the “left” – toward “socialism,” while the Republican Party leans toward the “right” – a version of capitalism unfettered by governmental control.”
What, precisely, is wrong with this statement? The Left leans toward socialism. The Right leans toward capitalism. The Left loves big government, the Right loves little government. When you combine little government with capitalism, you get capitalism unfettered by government control. The rest of your complaint over this simple statement is nothing more than an effort to completely misconstrue a very simple distinction between the two political parties. The statement has absolutely nothing to do with traffic laws.
““While each side attempts to paint the other as accursed traitors…”
If you do a little research, I think you will find that the bulk of the name calling and demonization comes from the left, with rare instances of it coming from someone on the right.”
I call total BS on your ridiculous denial here. This FLOPPING ACES site is chock-a-block full of Obama’s Treason, Pelosi’s Treason, Hillary’s Treason, etc, etc., as is Fox News and a grab bag of inflammatory Republican congressmen. The “bulk?” As I can’t get through a day without hearing these changes from the Right, I would be VERY suspicious of any suggestion that this sort of angry rhetoric has been accurately quantified and that one side OR the other is primarily at fault. I WOULD speculate that the more outrageous charges are probably made by the side that is not currently holding the particular office in question – the president in office is going to attract more charges of treason than a past president, regardless of party. But the idea that one side or the other has a monopoly on such crap is absurd.
“Of course you are, George. In spite of the fact that marriage laws have fallen under the purview of the 10th Amendment.”
The 10th Amendment failed to prevent the outcome of the Loving v. Virginia case, now, didn’t it? It did not forestall the 14th Amendment in that case, and it will not in this case, either.
“If you can’t win through public opinion, and public support, you will litigate your agenda.”
We have won in all three arenas, and we are now working to equalize the hodge-podge of laws across the land, much as they were equalized by the decision in the Loving case. This does have to be done in the courts, because the 10th Amendment is clearly in conflict with the 14th Amendment with respects to the issues at the core of the gay marriage controversy. This conflict cannot be resolved by state legislatures or by state referenda. The SCOTUS will weigh these competing interests (10th vs. 14th amendment issues) and render a decision as to which better serves the national interest. A decision will slightly diminish either “states’ rights” or “equal protection.” As noted above, the Loving decision likely informs us of how this case will be decided, as the issues are remarkably similar.
You seem to be making the argument that if a state’s majority expresses an unconstitutional position on an issue by referendum and is subsequently over-ruled by the courts, that something is “being shoved down their throats.” There is a winner and a loser in every court case, and the losing side ALWAYS thinks that an unfair verdict has been “shoved down their throat.” Much like the observation that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink, I suppose that those people who, in the face of overwhelming rationale, are still unable to reach the correct conclusion, the courts DO have to step in and facilitate the right outcome. It happens all the time. But calling it “shoving something down throats” is just an inflammatory allusion to forced fellatio and should be beneath your dignity to utter.
“You suffered no harm from not being able to legally marry your male paramour. You could jointly own property, create living wills, create will leaving your entire estate to anyone of your choice, get a job, buy a home, cut your grass with a legally purchased lawnmower. Same sex marriage has not one thing to do with “equal” rights.”
You should really give up on this long-debunked fantasy. I have explained to you at length the specifics of Virginia’s “Marshall-Newman Constitutional Amendment” and the restrictions it places on legal documents constructed on behalf of gay partners. Similar restrictive laws exist in many states and are the subject of many of the nearly 100 cases currently being litigated. The courts have been having no trouble at all appreciating the “unequal” state of gay rights. Even the Attorneys General defending the various state gay marriage bans have conceded this disparity of rights. Blindness does not become you.
Either you don’t know how to construct a sentence, or you are lacking in the use of a question mark. Your question should have been phrased “Do you vilify them for choosing differently than you?” That is a question. “You vilify them for choosing differently than you” can be construed as a statement of fact.
Perhaps you would like to example how anyone at FA has a national voice or the power of the legislative vote? Or even how anyone at Fox has the power of the legislative vote? Yet, just today, a man who DOES have power of the legislative vote, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, said that Republicans were “xenophobic.” That would include you, George, in the “xenophobic” class. Can you honestly say, after Democrats have thrown multiple pejoratives at conservatives, that the lamblasting is equal in frequency? If you think that, once again, you are poorly informed.
In the case you referenced, the SCOTUS determined that you could not discriminate based on race. Being black, a skin tone that can be ascertained visually, is not like being queer, unless you can prove that one can visually identify someone who is queer.
Also, the 14th Amendment was applicable to racial discrimination, not sexual preferences. The states still should retain their ability to determine marriage laws, and only by bastardizing the 14th via judges who also bastardize the U.S. Constitution have gays obtained same-sex marriage laws. There is a reason there is no federal marriage license, just as there is a reason there is no federal driver’s license. If it is against the 14th Amendment to prevent same sex marriage, then it is unconstitutional to create laws against polygamy, adult incestuous relationship, or being able to marry your goat.
The U.S. Constitution is a marvelous document, George. It provided Americans the one thing that guaranteed you the right to live your life as you choose; freedom of movement. If you do not like the laws of one state, there are no fences preventing you from moving to another state. The authors of the Constitution understood that each state would create laws that were suitable to the citizens of that state. I don’t want to pay state income tax so I will never live in a state where that is required. I don’t like the property laws of other states. That affects my decision on what state I will live in.
The courts got it wrong. There are no “unequal” marriage laws. You are free to marry, in any state of the Union, under the same regulations that I am. Being a man, you are free to marry a woman that you are not immediately related to. That same law applies to me. What you want is to add a caveat to that law by saying you should be legally allowed to marry anyone of your choosing. What if you want to marry your sister because it is financially advantageous? Should that also be permitted if you are both of consenting age? What right do you have to say that should not be allowed?
You’re queer. So what? You have all the freedom of anyone else except when it comes to marriage laws that do not sanction sodomy between two adult males. But that is not enough for agenda driven queers like you. You want to change the perimeter of what marriage actually means. If you were honest, you would admit that same sex marriage was NEVER the real goal. The real goal is, and always has been, forced acceptance of your sodomist ways.
Doesn’t it make those on the left wonder if they are on the side of the angels or the demons when:
…they need to rely on the ignorant, the misinformed, and the misled to win elections?
…they won’t reveal their true agenda until after it’s too late to stop it?
…they need to resort to name-calling, character assassination, and hate-mongering to make a point?
…they believe that every weather event is proof of global warming, ridicule those who don’t share their fanaticism as deniers of “science”, and yet refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Earth has not warmed for nearly two decades?
…they vilify the peace-loving Christians and Jews who have built modern civilization, while embracing a cult of thugs who would take the world back to the seventh century and behead them if given the chance?
…they want to replace the most successful and advanced constitutional republic and economic system in human history with one that has historically always resulted in tyranny and genocide?
““You vilify them for choosing differently than you” can be construed as a statement of fact.
No, not “can be construed”… the statement – as you wrote it – IS a statement of fact. Since you chose to omit the question mark that I used, it’s obvious that you appreciate the difference between your statement and mine, and are only being argumentative for fun.
But if that is not the case, and your confusion was not the result of a lazy reading or a desire to argue for the sake of doing so, I am sorry that my artful use of the language confused you. The question mark ((?)) unambiguously identified the sentence type as “interrogative.” The structure at the beginning of the sentence intentionally omitted the modal verb, which could have been “do” (as you suggested), “would” or any other directive modifier, but my reading of the question did not sense a loss of meaning by the absence of that element, as its presence is implied by the sequence of the words which followed the word “you.” As you may have found this structure confusing, I will attempt to be more direct in the future. My apologies.
“Perhaps you would like to example how anyone at FA has a national voice or the power of the legislative vote?”
This was your comment from #12:
“If you do a little research, I think you will find that the bulk of the name calling and demonization comes from the left, with rare instances of it coming from someone on the right.”
I re-read it carefully and found no mention of the “power of the legislative vote” and can construe no implication there-of. If you had intended to restrict your comment to legislators, perhaps you should have mentioned it. Otherwise, your comment simply appears to be a sloppy effort to move a goal post from an uncomfortable position to a friendlier one.
“In the case you referenced, the SCOTUS determined that you could not discriminate based on race. Being black, a skin tone that can be ascertained visually, is not like being queer, unless you can prove that one can visually identify someone who is queer.”
Yes, racial discrimination was a part of the Loving case, and race is not a significant factor in the gay marriage case. It might be worth noting that the Loving decision was a equal protection(14th Amendment) decision, not a racial discrimination (Civil Rights Act of 1964) decision. In any event, the SCOTUS has repeatedly addressed the question of whether classifications need to be visibly discernible in order for a class to qualify for protection from discrimination and for consideration from the perspective of heightened scrutiny, and they have found that visibility of distinguishing characteristic is not required for either. This is how cases in which discrimination based upon religion are decided; the wearing of readily identifiable clothing or symbols is not required. Your repeated return to this idea that a characteristic must be visible in order to deserve protection is simply not born out in legal precedence.
Your much stronger objection would be that freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed, while freedom of sexual orientation is not. This distinction is a deal-breaker for constitutional originalists, but presents no obstacle for judicial pragmatists or those who generally support the notion that the Constitution is a “living” or “evolving” instrument.
(Thomas Jefferson’s asked: “Why should we allow people who lived long ago, in a different world, to decide fundamental questions about our government and society today?”)
Scalia is squarely an originalist, Alito is afraid of the future, Roberts is weighing his legacy on one hand against his conservatism on the other, and Thomas hasn’t a clue why, but will side with Scalia to be safe. The decision will come down 5-4, unless Robert’s vanity trumps his ethic, in which case it will fall 6-3 in favor of gay marriage.
The prospect of marrying goats is a “slippery slope” argument that is beneath you. You can do better.
After your claim that I already had legal options equal to heterosexuals’, I reminded you of my state’s constitutional denial of such rights. So then you moved the goal post, changing your song, inviting me to essentially love it or leave it. A poor excuse to tolerate discriminatory laws or to assume the financial burden of moving to a different state. How highly you value your statutory discrimination! (That is not a question.)
“agenda driven queers like you.”
(And all that tired lament.)
I had a good laugh the other day. Was reading a copy of “OUT” magazine at a friend’s house – a REAL, PAPER M A G A Z I N E ! In it was an article titled “THE GAY AGENDA.”
As we have argued over this term at length, I quickly read the piece. It was a discussion of 21 fashion topics – rising designers, new stores, hot shoes, exciting models, the perfect blazer, etc.
It was the first time I’ve ever run across the term “the gay agenda” in one of “our” publications. While I won’t be searching for more of the same, I thought that you might feel all warm and fuzzy at the prospect of me thinking of you beyond Flopping Aces.
@Angel Artiste #15:
OK, so you asked a question. Happy?
Your egotistical pat on your own back is not warranted, believe me.
Racial discrimination was ALL of the Loving case, not just a part of it. It was based on laws that did not allow bi-racial marriages, and no matter how you want to spin it, that is fact. The 14th Amendment preceded the CRA of 1964, and based on the “life, liberty and property” part of the 14th so it was determined that preventing the marriage of two consulting adults, one male and one female, of difference races was unconstitutional.
There is but one way to interpret the Constitution, George. That is in the manner the authors of the document intended it. Judges who use other standards, such as penumbras and foreign law, are not pragmatists, they are revisionists. I will also remind you that Jefferson was of the belief that the United States would remain an agrarian nation and society. He was wrong, as he was wrong on so many things.
Laws are not discriminatory when they are applied equally to everyone. Do you deny that you, as a male, has the legal right to marry a female as any other male, gay or straight, does? Your claim of discrimination would only be applicable if gays were not allowed to marry at all. Stop propagating the lie of the gay movement.
You flatter yourself thinking that I care what you think. Again, an egotistical pat on your own back that is not warranted. Frankly, I don’t care what you think. You are just another propagandizing leftist that throws a fit (as in your support for the gay agenda) when you don’t get your way. If you were to never post here again, I would not miss you. You’re not that important nor do you offer much in the way of meaningful debate.
You continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. You seem to possess the ability to assemble large quantities of information from time to time without having the capacity to understand that which you have gathered.
The SCOTUS has already answered the question of whether marriage is a fundamental right: the Loving case affirmed that it is, simply by refusing to accept the argument that it isn’t.
The SCOTUS has already affirmed that homosexual acts are not criminal and that gay people deserve equal protection under the Law. Lawrence affirmed that.
The SCOTUS has already determined that the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of Equal Protection trump the States’ Rights set forth in the 10th Amendment. Loving, again, affirmed that.
These individual decisions are not in question. A simple combination of these separate precedents should convince anyone possessing a modicum of logic that the case soon to come before the SCOTUS will be decided in favor of gay marriage.
Republican- and Democratic- appointed jurists – professionals at the top of their field – have reached this same conclusion with practical unanimity. What possible corpuscle of as-yet undiscovered illogic do you expect to miraculously appear and sway the opinion of the Supreme justices away from the cumulative affirmation voiced thus far? Certainly not the pathetic opposing arguments offered to date…
I must conclude that you are simply stuck in your contrary mode, and have no more worthy posts to antagonize than mine.
“Do you deny that you, as a male, has (sic) the legal right to marry a female as any other male, gay or straight, does?”:
Actually, I’m glad that you (again) brought that point up. According to the current law (at least in the 31 states where same sex marriage is forbidden, and quite possibly the rest as well) I DO have the right to marry someone to whom I feel absolutely no attraction. I can marry a total stranger, so long as that stranger is of a different gender than me. It doesn’t matter if I love the person, whether or not we can make babies, if we even speak the same language, of if there is or isn’t a chance that the marriage can be consummated. In fact, very little at all stands in the way of my marrying a wide assortment of the worst possible candidates for precisely who I am, and I simply cannot accept that this current state of the Law serves any legitimate state interest, much less my own. That is why I advocate for these laws to be changed. Not because I have some secret, evil “agenda” in common with other gays, and not because I relish shoving things down unwilling throats.
No, I don’t deny that the current laws allow me to do things that I have no moral right to do. “Equal treatment under the law” isn’t satisfied if my marriage requires me to break my moral covenant. Your moral covenant may be different, as is your right. But you intend to deny mine, while I don’t interfere with yours. That’s the difference.
My brain is quite capable of processing the data I read, research, etc. I, unlike you, do not suffer from any cognitive disability.
Wrong, Loving simply affirmed that two people, who would otherwise be eligible to marry under Virginia’s state laws, could not be denied on the basis that the two people were of different races.
“MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Note: there is no mention by Warren that marriage, being a fundamental right, was denied. It was all about race, not fundamental rights.
Not all of them. Some have held that same sex marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.
While SCOTUS justices are reluctant to go against stare decisis, it is done. i.e. Dred Scott. Not to mention that the 9th Circuit is the most overturned lower court in the nation.
Your attraction to another is not the determining factor in the laws of marriage. Marriages were often arranged when the laws of our nation were passed.
Ideally, laws are created for the benefit of the majority to serve the good of the society. Same sex marriage serves no common good and provides no societal benefit.
Oh, please. You have no morals. You are a sodomist, a practice that has been rejected by every society since humanity began.
Look, George, I hold no animus toward you for your sexual preferences. I personally believe homosexuality is a mental illness, and I would not treat you harshly any more than I would treat anyone else with a mental illness harshly. I think you have convinced yourself that being a homosexual is just as “normal” as being a heterosexual, except that nature did not design a man to have sex, or be the recipient of sexual actions, with another man.
I actually feel sorry for you, and anyone of your ilk, who struggles so hard to defend being homosexual. Down deep, I think you know that there is a wire loose somewhere but ego, or pride, will not allow you to admit that.
“Down deep, I think you know that there is a wire loose somewhere but ego, or pride, will not allow you to admit that.”
Perhaps you forgot that in one of my much earlier discussions I DID agree that homosexuality is a regularly occurring biological error. Your term “wire loose” is perhaps a more colorful but less accurate way of putting this, but in-so-far as both expressions connote the same meaning, you can see that I do in fact admit to this. There is no ego or pride associated with or lost by this agreement in principle. None of God’s children are perfect, presumably by HIS design, and our laws don’t require us to be perfect, either. Most people are largely ignorant of the details of the homosexual condition save for the wildly exaggerated myths that circulate in the popular vernacular, and I believe that it is that ignorance that is at the root of society’s dwindling discomfort with homosexuality. We fear what we do not understand.
You need not feel sorry for me any more than you need to feel sorry for anyone else’s imperfections. Being gay has been difficult at times, but it has also had its rewards. Sometimes what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. You have helped to convince me that, although the details of my arguments are sometimes flawed, the conclusions I reach are usually correct. When you resort to insulting me, I know that I have made a good point.
In a few weeks I will be welcoming a 75-year disabled, morbidly obese woman into our home from the nursing facility in which she currently resides. From that point on, I expect to be quite busy trying to keep her alive, and will probably have little time to continue our conversation. But I have enjoyed our talks and I appreciate the time that you have devoted to our conversations. Thanks!
@George Wells: I didn’t think so.
Glad I didn’t disappoint you.
Since you resorted to the same sarcastic misrepresentation of Democrats that is standard mantra here at Flopping aces, only a sarcastic response was in order.
“Have you stopped beating your wife?”
You all stroke each other’s anger without any interest what-so-ever in constructively working together to correct the problems that BOTH sides have created.
If you’ve been reading, you’d know that many of my leanings are Republican, but that I am liberal on gay rights issues because I am gay.
Since I’m not your standard, cookie-cut, FA dogmatic ideologue, you probably dismiss me as a “RINO.”
Swell. Keep paring down the Grand Old Party until virtually no one is left, and see where that gets you.
And don’t forget to whine loudly when “the ignorant, the misinformed, and the misled” Democrats overwhelm the remaining “ignorant, misinformed and misled” Southern white male Republicans at the polls.
If you understand that we are, none of us, perfect, then you must also acknowledge that in order to follow His Word, we must all struggle against that imperfection, defeating it. One might think about stealing that lawnmower sitting in front of the Sears store. Defeating that urge is and praying for guidance is following in His Word. You succumbed to your urges, not defeating them. You made a personal choice in which way to go. So please, do not involve God in your poor decisions.
I am not one of them.
You mistake tolerance for “dwindling” discomfort.
I feel sorry for all of us who are imperfect, but I respect only those that actively fight against those imperfections to become more acceptable in the eyes of God.
So when you resort to insulting me through the snarky use of language, do you think you have made a good point? There is no difference in insults except I am more open with them while you think your word smithing makes your insults less obvious.
Stroking your ego, once again, trying to prove what a good person you are, George? It is immaterial to anyone here at FA what you are intending to do. How sad that you feel the need to throw out a “See what a good boy I am” moot point.
Out of the ashes rises the Phoenix.
“snarky word smithing?”
I use the language accurately. I don’t make sloppy errors like confusing billions with trillions, mistaking a question for a statement of fact, or mistaking “word smithing” for wordsmithing.
Merriam Webster defines a wordsmith as “a skillful writer.” I’ll accept the compliment.
Regarding God’s intentions for mankind and his tolerance of human frailties, I do not accept every last proscription set to print in the Bible – particularly those found in the Old Testament. Your choice to selectively accept some and reject others of the various “abominations” which may or may not have been inspired by God but which were without doubt authored by men thousands of years ago is your own business, and it is a business which does not intrude upon my faith.
“and I believe that it is that ignorance that is at the root of society’s dwindling discomfort with homosexuality.”
“You mistake tolerance for “dwindling” discomfort.”
Cute “wordsmithing,” but no, I don’t make that mistake. When gays were largely “in the closet,”people did not know them personally, and their ignorance fed their fears of the unknown. But gays are coming out of the closet by the millions, and people are getting to know us for who and what we are, and they are “evolving” on the subject as a result. This feature of the politics of gay rights has been noted by left- and right-leaning scholars alike, and is the reason why both sides acknowledge the fact that this “trend” is unlikely to reverse direction.
My comments regarding Ellen’s “visit” were no more a cry for validation than was your reference to caring for AIDS victims. It was a forewarning that after September 9th I will be too busy to further engage in conversations here, and I did not want my absence to be misconstrued. Pardon me for once again being honest with you, as you so rarely recognize the trait when it hits you in the face.
Because I acknowledge your word smithing, don’t assume that it eliminates the snark you often resort to as a vague covering of an insult.
I am a Christian. I accept the Word of Jesus Christ. Christ was often in conflict with the Old Testament. His teachings were thought radical at the time, but are time tested. You also reject (cherry pick) the teachings of the New Testament to suit your personal preferences. Have I failed to adhere to every rule that Christ mandated? Certainly, but I also try to make amends and do not make the same mistake again. You do not seem to understand what it means to subscribe to Christianity.
You, on the other hand, dismiss the teachings you don’t like and continue (from a Christian POV) to sin. Redemption, which is the Christian goal, does not come from knowingly committing the sin over and over and over again.
People have always known who gays are. Gays are defined by their sexual choices. Nothing more, nothing less. Public opinion against sodomy may have changed in your mind, but when you discuss the actual activity that defines homosexuals, a majority of people still find it as repugnant as they did 100 years ago.
Nice attempt at personalizing your actions. But major fail.
I have already stated, multiple times, that if you no longer posted here at FA, I would not miss you. Why do you persist in thinking I would?
Again, the cloaked insult. You are not half as smart as you think you are, George.
Your faith and my faith are different. I find no conflict between my faith and my life, and I make no accusations toward either your faith or your life. The “sin” which you so intemperately accuse others of is not a sin in my faith. In this country, “Freedom of Religion” accommodates such differences.
You recently asked: What harm comes from not allowing gays to marry?
Indiana’s attorney general (being questioned by Justice Posner at the appellate hearing on Indiana’s and Wisconsin’s gay marriage bans) conceded that the children of same-sex couples would “undoubtedly” be better off if their parents could marry.
That would be an example of a harm, would it not?
Then the Wisconsin attorney was asked to “speculate” about what the “possibilities” (of harm that may result from allowing gays to marry) might be. “The harmful possibilities are, ‘We don’t know,’” was his answer.
Pretty convincing, right?
“Indiana agreed that discrimination against homosexuals would not serve any legitimate state interest in any other context. Recall that during the Prop 8 litigation, Cooper conceded in oral argument before the Supreme Court that all discrimination against homosexuals was irrational.”
Tell you what: If the SCOTUS accepts such arguments as sufficient to uphold gay marriage bans, I will happily acknowledge that you were right and that I was wrong, and that coincidentally, pigs fly.
On the other hand, if the SCOTUS overturns the bans, I will graciously remind you that I predicted this outcome.
And what “faith” would that be, for you certainly do not follow the teachings of Christ in order to call yourself a Christian.
So if we are going to create law based on the benefit to children, and children are better off with married parents, then why are people allowed to co-habitat and have children together without being married? See Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie who have six kids but just recently married.
Study after study has proven that children more greatly benefit from having two parents, of opposite genders. Not two mommies or two daddies. So, that destroys the argument you pose, doesn’t it?
“And what “faith” would that be(?)”
Who elected you High Priestess of the Spanish Inquisition?
What business is it of yours?
Freedom of Religion keeps you out of my affairs of faith. Thank God!
“Study after study has proven that children more greatly benefit from having two parents, of opposite genders. Not two mommies or two daddies. So, that destroys the argument you pose, doesn’t it?”
Not at all, and you know it.
We don’t prevent single women from giving birth, and we don’t sterilize retarded people or in any other way prevent them from conceiving children. The fact – and I grant it as fact TENTATIVELY – that children may be best of in one particular environment or another in no way infringes upon the right of people to bring them into less than optimal environments. Should jobless folk be sterilized? I can’t imagine where your logic intended to take this line of reasoning, but it clearly has taken a road fraught with pot-holes.
Not to mention the fact that the “baby’s best” argument was offered by the opponents of gay marriage, not the proponents. In court case after court case, the “baby’s best” argument has been laughed out of the courtroom – it has won its advocates nothing. If you choose to follow the example of those advocates, prepare to tuck your tail between your legs as you back away in disgrace.
OK, so you are ashamed to tell me. Got it!
Moot and another strawman.
And you assume that all single women who give birth do so with out a man involved in the rearing of that child? Based on what? Or are you, in typical George fashion, simply offering another strawman? Until just a few days ago, Angelina Jolie was a “single” mother. Are you going to claim that Brad Pitt had no influence on their children? How about Goldie Hawn? The fact that joint custody of children is now common place in divorces prove that children are better off with two parents of the opposite genders.
In what cases because I would like to see what judges allow such rollicking laughter in their court rooms.
Does the thought of a “tail” between your legs excite you, George?
I have given you my prediction, along with my assurance that if I am wrong, I will humbly acknowledge my failure to correctly anticipate the outcome.
If you believe that this case will be decided differently, state such for the record.
Your argumentative prattle has otherwise become tiresome and is not worthy of response.
Glad you feel that way. Maybe now you will stay away from me.
“I have given you my prediction, along with my assurance that if I am wrong, I will humbly acknowledge my failure to correctly anticipate the outcome.
If you believe that this case will be decided differently, state such for the record.”
Challenged to predict a different outcome of the SCOTUS gay marriage case to come, you retreated, choosing instead to complain about being hounded.
Clearly, you agree with my assessment, or you would have jumped at the opportunity to dispute it.
That reveals just how empty your arguments against gay marriage have been – that you have no confidence that they will convince anyone other than the mindless adherents to your archaic logic.
Your surrender in absentia is all the sweeter for its revelation of your lack of courage.
If counting coup makes you feel good about yourself, have at it. But I am not into hypotheticals, nor am I into divining, sooth-saying, crystal ball gazing, tarot card reading, throwing the bones, or reading tea leaves.
I have no opinion on your prediction. If you want to be the Resident Guesser, have at it.
My argument against same-sex marriage is solid, and you have yet been able to dismantle it. So now you’re into a game of Guess, which is absurd on its face.
Because I did not answer your silliness, doesn’t mean I lack courage, but if thinking I am a coward strokes your ego (which seems to need regular feeding), have at it. How depressing it must be for you to be so insecure that you want to count coup on a rhetorical question.
“My argument against same-sex marriage is solid, and you have yet been able to dismantle it.”
Your Biblical arguments against gay marriage are so “solid” that the opponents (of gay marriage) haven’t even attempted to offer them to the courts, and the biological arguments have found almost no traction there either.
When the pre-SCOTUS dust has settled, the 6th circuit court (Tennessee case) and the 5th circuit court (Texas case) will likely side with you, but most if not all of the remaining circuit courts will disagree that the “argument against same-sex marriage is solid,” as you put it. As I have been essentially paraphrasing the winning arguments from the cases decided to date, one might think that these arguments which have been so compelling at court might also enlighten you. Your intransigence is reminiscent of the racists in the South who still believe that the Confederacy will rise again.
Your lame refusal to predict the future of gay marriage after spending so much time explaining how Islam will attack us IN THE FUTURE and how illegally immigrating children will inflict economic catastrophe on us IN THE FUTURE reveals your true belief that your cause is all but lost already. If you had any conviction at all that your argument would prevail, you would stand behind it on its merits instead of camouflaging it under mountains of insult.
“I have no opinion on your prediction.”
Sure you do. You have repeatedly challenged every word of mine that you thought might be flawed. It is only when you agree with my statements that you remain silent. The proof is in the pudding. You know that I am right, you just can’t admit it.
If you were honest, which you are not, you would admit that I rarely argue against same sex marriage from a “Biblical” POV.
Apples and oranges.
Believe that if it makes you feel better about yourself. I frankly don’t care.
I respond to you, so that is hardly remaining silent. Just because I don’t give you the answers you want, doesn’t mean I am silent.
No, I don’t know you are right, not unless you can prove to me that you can enter the heads of the SCOTUS justices and know what they think. But……………….if you need to tell yourself that in order to stroke your ego, have at it.
Frankly, debating you has simply become boring.
@ retire05 #37:
“Frankly, debating you has simply become boring.”
Of course it’s boring.
That’s because you give up debating me every time I’m right and instead switch to spitting insults. That kills the debate, which at least had the potential of being intellectually interesting – something the exchange of insults is not.
Now you hint that predicting the outcome of a SCOTUS case is tantamount to reading tea leaves or gazing into a crystal ball, while predicting an imminent catastrophe at the hands of illegally immigrating children is a science that you have mastered.
Apples and oranges, indeed.
What a coward.
You’re a liar.
Not being able to read the minds of nine Justices has no parallel equation to watching a million illiterate, unskilled human beings flooding across our southern border. There is a history of the effect of illegal immigration on this nation. There is no history (stare decisis) with the SCOTUS on same sex marriage in the terms you frame.
So yes, apples and oranges.
I’ll take that as a compliment from a mentally deranged queer.
“Not being able to read the minds of nine Justices…”
“unless you can prove to me that you can enter the heads of the SCOTUS justices and know what they think.”
You don’t HAVE to “read MINDS” or “enter heads,” you need only READ the thousands of pages of decisions these justices have authored (all in the public record) to know with fair certainty how and what they think. When you apply what you know about their positions to what you know about the arguments that will be presented to them, (these are also easily found in the public record) it does not require exceptional skills of deductive reasoning to anticipate the outcome. For example, knowing that Scalia is a rabid originalist leaves you certain that he will be unsympathetic to any effort to create or expand rights not already enshrined in the Constitution.
I don’t believe that I am being overly generous when I assume that you possess this intellectual capacity. You simply refuse to speculate in THIS case because you understand that taking ANY position other than the one I have taken will likely be wrong, and you don’t want to give me the satisfaction of your acknowledgment that I am right. But in this you are also wrong. I satisfies me more that you retreat from this challenge, revealing the truth and surrendering your dignity, which I graciously accept.
But what will your like-minded friends here at Flopping Aces think of your disgrace? Will your luster as the shining Queen of Bile be tarnished? See how many times you can include the words “Queer,” “Sodomite” and “Disgusting” in your answer to regain their favor.
I have told you already; I am not into reading tea leaves, throwing bones, or gazing into crystal balls. So take your satisfaction where ever you can find it, I will not be goaded by you. You just are not intelligent enough to accomplish that goal.
I see not satisfied with your original prodding, you decided to add to it, thinking that anyone who might agree with my opinions will come, rushing to my defense. You also seem to think that I care. I don’t. But I do have a suggestion for you, George. You seem to be fixated on trying to goad me into a game of Guess. That is your personal problem so I suggest you call some mental health professional on Tuesday and get some counseling for your fixations. You really do need some help for your “neener, neener, neener” attitude.
Once again you predictably ignore the one paragraph that presents a logical argument – that would be the second paragraph in my post #40 – and instead focus on the fluff.
“thinking that anyone who might agree with my opinions will come, rushing to my defense.”
No, no one will rush to your defense, as you have carved out an indefensible position and defended it with nothing but personal attacks.
I am certain that when my prediction proves accurate, you will dismiss it as the consequence of accidental luck. But it has been my experience that when predictions are based upon sound comprehension of the factors involved so that the conclusion logically follows, the accuracy of the prediction is not so much a matter of accidental luck as it is a matter of understanding cause-and-effect relationships. I do not make predictions lightly, and no “guessing” is involved.
I retract my earlier assumption that you have the intellectual capacity to engage in deductive reasoning, as you have proven otherwise.
No one will come to my defense because they know I don’t need it. I am an adult, quite capable of defending myself.
This, coming from the very person that in the same post whined about personal attacks? Pot meet kettle.
Ignore my advise that you seek mental health counseling on Tuesday, George. Take your little self to the ER and explain to the doctors there that you are suffering from not only acute fixations but also delusions as you think that an anonymous poster on a blog site is refusing to meet your demands that they predict the future. There is something radically wrong with a person who is so fixated on the opinions of an anonymous person who posts on a blog.
Symptoms of delusional disorder:
The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
Seek help, George.
“The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.”
The doctor treats the life-threatening condition with force and persistence, as the patient’s life weighs in the balance. Is he suffering from an emotional disorder?
The soldier fighting for his life and to take his opponents life exerts his maximum effort to prevail… is he suffering from an emotional disorder?
House Republicans vote over fifty times to repeal or defund “ObamaCare.” That’s “unusually persistent,” wouldn’t you say? Are they suffering from an emotional disorder?
The battlefield of ideas is no less real than a field across which tanks skirmish; despotic regimes rise and fall on their success or failure to control ideas.
Flopping Aces is one such battlefield, albeit an insignificant one. I would be remiss were I not to dedicate what I consider a worthy effort to adequately support my arguments on this battlefield, once the task is chosen. It takes little time, and I fill the rest of my days with admittedly more productive activity. But the short respites taken between such work allow for some amusement on the computer, and you humor me. Your dependable insults and your need to get in the last words make me laugh, and that’s why I keep visiting you. If you simply agreed with me – and we agree on many things – I wouldn’t bother. But you cannot resist your habit of spitting at liberals, and this makes you a comic figure that appeals to my sense of humor, much like the subject of a Gahan Wilson cartoon.
As dependable as your own insult lobbing, George.
Then feel free to take the last word on this issue. Blather away to your little heart’s content. Your impending insults will go unanswered. I have truly tired of your mental problems and your childishness.
“As dependable as your own insult lobbing, George.”
True. May I remind you that you have led us both down this path with your “Georgie is a queer sodomist” spiel. You reap what you sow.
I have tried to redirect our conversations to more interesting topics, but you don’t seem to want that.
Here’s a genuine question that I don’t have a good answer to:
Which party has a better chance of winning a national election: A Democratic Party choked with past-their-expiration-date politicians who reached their levels of incompetence decades ago, or a Republican Party that devours every candidate that shows any capacity for independent thought. The recent raft of Republican “stars” who have risen high enough to be noticed are the intellectual masters of their Democratic counterparts, but they keep getting trashed – not by Democrats but by other Republicans. Rubio is presently licking multiple, Republican-inflicted wounds and has gone into hiding. Hillary’s positions shift with the polls, while Rand Paul at least has the courage to speak his own mind. Don’t you agree?