Justice Thomas makes it clear decisions support our rights are next

[barefootboy]

23 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Do you ever get tired of feeling like a victim? Do you think that's accidental, or possibly intentional? For years now the democratic party has been sounding alarms for all of its followers to keep them in a constant despair and an agitated state. From a psychological standpoint, the fastest way to unite people is to get them to hate someone or something, and that's what the party has been doing for years. Do you ever wonder why many of the problems you face every day never get solved, even during the numerous instances in which the democrats had a majority in the house and senate and the presidency, but yet these simple issues, which could be solved quickly by an act of congress, never get solved?? My believe is it is intentional, because they need to keep these issues alive to keep you angry and to get you to donate money. If you really want to see how little the democrats have solved, watch the 1960's television show "All In The Family" and see how little has been solved in the last 50 years and the things that actually got worse in the last 50 years. Back in the 60's and 70's, the black community has a mentality of "we shall overcome". Advance 50 years and now they, along with many other minorities, have become "victims" of everyone and everything and have been trained to become dependent on the government to solve their problems, which we all know will never happen. White people are encouraged to "hate themselves because of their privilege". Critical race theory further induces people to believe the odds are already stacked against them, thus making them further dependent on the government for assistance. I think it's sad so many democrats choose to wake up every morning, run to their liberal news sources such as CNN and MSNBC (which, by the way, are falling faster in the ratings than a penny dropped from the Eiffel tower, while Fox news soars - that alone should tell you something) and find something new to be angry about that day.

If you want to live your life in a continuous spiral of misery and victim-hood, that's your choice. Keep tuning into CNN and keep finding new reasons to be angry and miserable and keep believing the propaganda you're being fed, and keep hoping the democrats will solve your problems. Or, you can choose to get off that roller coaster and start living a more happy and productive life.

Oh, I am not a victim. I am a Pragmatist gathering data to keep up with what is going on around me. That way, I can assess situations and take action if need be. 

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

The fact is that democract Bill Clinton signed the bill. Nobody forced his hand. I'm sorry if this is another "inconvenient truth" about the democratic party, but as they say "the truth hurts". To me, it shows the true colors of the party - say one thing, do another.

In other words, political realities don't matter to you. Not surprising in the least. 

[hntnhole]

12 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

to prevent birth defects by inbreeding.

That won't get very far .... the republiKans want more white babies, not fewer ..... 🙃

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

The fact is that democract Bill Clinton signed the bill. Nobody forced his hand. I'm sorry if this is another "inconvenient truth" about the democratic party, but as they say "the truth hurts". To me, it shows the true colors of the party - say one thing, do another.

11 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Oh, and by the way, thanks for the continued attempts to insult me. Nice try, but I'm not insulted.

Like I said, this subject is larger that the constructed fight between Republicans and Democrats.

 

12 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

Within the topic of this thread:
Human Rights should be universal and have 'direct effect' for every human being be it man, women, transgender or child and wherever they are.
With this I mean that no government should be allowed to limit our freedoms or rights; Not your local government, regional, state / countries or federal / union government, and not the United Nations.

Your rights can and should be limited when they trespass on the rights of someone else, and protected by a and all (democratically elected) governments.
When the right to being treated equal - or other rights that guarantee your personal freedoms - conflict with the freedom of religion or political convictions those two rights can and should be limited:
a. To protect us against totalitarian rule;
b. Because faith is a choice just as political beliefs are. 

Abortion is a complicated issue not because it's about 'choice' versus 'life' (as it has been oversimplified and framed) and not only because the rights of two humans may conflict;
Mostly it's a difficult question because we grow into a human being and people differ in their views on the moment after the fertilisation of an egg-cell / ovum we should be considered human and alive with the full protection of our right to live (or die in a humane fashion, for that matter). 
 

The right to have sex is mostly a no-brainer to me, consenting adults should be able to do what they fucking want, but it is a sensible idea to forbid reproduction (by having sex) between siblings and first-cousins, to prevent birth defects by inbreeding.
Incest as such is little tougher as I have serious doubts about how healthy it is mentally or psychologically. If it concerns consenting adults and only when no children can be conceived from such a union, and although I question it and have concerns about the mental health of these people, I'd choose to give them the benefit of the doubt and allow it.

As I mentioned some Human rights - as the right to life - are fundamental and others - like the right to religion or political thought - are of a slightly lesser category. That means that although Human Rights are universal and inviolable, one may be sentenced to lose some political rights in extreme cases that involve crimes like rape and murder, when it shows a inherent disregard for the value of someone else. But such limiting of freedoms should be only imposed very, very cautiously. 

Within this framework I cannot justify the death penalty in any case. And even life sentences - let alone more than one life sentence - are punishments I have great concerns about. Mass murder or serial killing may warrant a life sentence though.
- For one thing it sends the message that the right to life and liberty are conditional and not fundamental;
- It sends the message that there is such a thing as a 'lesser human'.

 

Outside of the scope of this thread, It seems illogical and impractical when local and regional governments can disregard laws made by the higher State / National or Federal / Union governments. 
As your States at one point voluntarily joined the federation, it seems they can also be burdened with the right to choose to leave such a treaty they once made.

Did I answer your question @Close2MyBro?

On 8/4/2022 at 8:44 PM, BareLover666 said:

That's a fair point.

But could we now get back on subject, being the reproductive and sexual rights that are apparently to some, are not protected by the US Constitution?

I might even say you are helping this cause along by being critical about Democrats in power. As I may have written earlier I agree that something like this should not be a partisan thing because it is a matter of principal and especially given that the US seems to be split 50/50 between the two big parties.

How do you feel we can change that? How do we keep the rights we have - me as well when visiting your great nation - and further them?

I know I was longwinded in my reply to your question, but could you answer mine please?
- How do you feel we can change that? How do we keep the rights we have - me as well when visiting your great nation - and further them?

I really don't think Republican voters trashing Democratic voters and vice versa is very helpful. 

Edited August 5, 2022 by Guest

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

That won't get very far .... the republiKans want more white babies, not fewer ..... 🙃

Yes very funny
Sounds like someone is asking for a spanking. 😈

[hntnhole]

2 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

I really don't think Republican voter trashing Democratic voters and vice versa is very helpful

Neither do I ..... but dayam ..... they're such easy targets .... very difficult to resist .... and doing it politely has to count for something, right ?😈

[hntnhole]

5 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Sounds like someone is asking for a spanking. 😈

Nah .... I just want the MPX vaccine ... starting to go cuckoo here .....

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

Nah .... I just want the MPX vaccine ... starting to go cuckoo here .....

Good luck with that. (Seriously)

The government health clinics (GGD their called in the Netherlands) in the area where I live have stopped screening for HIV and STD's, they cancelled the waiting list for PrEP  but yeeeees... they have started taking appointments for vaccinating some - only the ones in their files - of the gay and bisexual men.

Any cynicism you might read into my words is directed at the bunch of fascist civil servants that populate the institution and who seem to outnumber the doctors and nurses on staff.

You think you have problems in the US?
Dutch bureaucrats have taken George Orwell's dystopian '1984' not as the warning he intended it to be, but as a guideline.

*sigh*

Edited August 5, 2022 by Guest

[Wjpeters]

On 8/4/2022 at 11:17 AM, Close2MyBro said:

How well do you know your "gay history"? Are you aware that the first person to ban gay marriage on the federal level was none other than democrat Bill Clinton, when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996? This after  he heavily lobbied the gay community for his re-election and promised them gay marriage and then turned his back on the gay community. Joining him in voting for the ban on gay marriage was also then-senator Joe Biden. The law stood until 2015, when the Supreme Court struck it down altogether. This means that democrat Barack Obama and his democract super majority did nothing to overturn the Defense of Marriage act when they could have.

So may people seem to think that the democratic party is the solution to all problems. Then things like this happen and you can see the true colors come to the surface.

As a minority myself, I refuse to allow the democrats to exploit me for votes or sympathy. I don't need the government to "prop me up", I'm capable of doing just fine by myself, thank you.

Context matters: Clinton’s administration opined the the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unnecessary.  DOMA originated from a republican and passed in republican-controlled houses.  

Obama’s administration - which only had a supermajority for a short time (72 working days) - prudently waited to see what the outcome of litigation would be. Since arguments reached the Supreme Court in 2013 and 2015, no doubt lawsuits had been working their ways there years. Context would also include what else was going in our world economies, continuing wars, and our elections which led to quickly losing the supermajority.

A decision needs to be made as to which party is increasingly gaslighting others to lobby for taking rights away and who looks to expand them, who incites violence and Capitol Hill poop-smearing, and who comes to the table seeking solutions.  The modern Republican Party is consistently being found lacking with regard to liberty, modernity, progress and learning from history.  Conservatism shouldn’t mean stagnation or devolution.  

The Democratic Party, at the very least, genuinely invites different dialogues to the table and learns from previous, problematic legislation, typically refraining from doubling down and digging in.  Their platform is less exploitative than it is about facilitating equity. Few people want to be propped up since that leads to the vulnerability of being let down.

We are, however, vulnerable to the world, it’s event and elements. It’s time to evolve our humanity.  It is an impossibility to pull one’s self up by their own bootstraps yet one party clings to those erroneous standards and the other unifies with community in (perhaps flawed but) incremental achievements.  

Justice Thomas’ rhetoric is in error. Democrats only have some of the answers. When not in power, Republicans in large numbers have shown themselves to be unable to cope opting to overturn, destroy and make war rather than work within the framework that they helped to create and break.

[rawTOP]

On 8/4/2022 at 2:17 PM, Close2MyBro said:

How well do you know your "gay history"? Are you aware that the first person to ban gay marriage on the federal level was none other than democrat Bill Clinton, when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996?

Not sure your age, but I was alive and paying attention back when this was happening. Here's a historical run down of Clinton and gay issues. Bottom line he was promoting gay rights during his campaign - which was radical for the time. There were two things that really caused him problems the first year of his presidency - 1) his support of gay rights and 2) Hillary's attempts to get the ball moving on universal healthcare.

The Clintons understand that politics is about compromise (unlike Bernie who has accomplished almost nothing because with him it's all or nothing). So when Clinton couldn't get the full recognition of gays in the military he settled for Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It was still a step forward. There are some battles where you take what you can and fight another day.

DOMA was one of those battles. To say Democrats or Clinton didn't support gay rights when they were at the forefront of the battle (in terms of mainstream politics of their time) is just ignorant. That's not how it happened.

On 8/4/2022 at 6:24 PM, ErosWired said:

No. The right to determine whether a woman should have legal sovereignty over her own body cannot be returned to the states because the right has never justly belonged to the states. A human being’s right to determine what happens to his or her own body is the absolutely fundamental individual human right, and must not be subject to the whims of the political majority. If the patchwork of state legislative overreach shows us anything at all, it is that states individually can be expected to support the national Constitution on when it is convenient to them - fundamental rights must be safeguarded by the Federal Constitution for precisely this reason. A line has to be drawn in the sand that says: This far, and no further; behind this line, the rights are inalienable; you may not touch them.

^^^ THIS ^^^ is brilliant!  Civil rights should never be voted on. It's always the place of the courts to point that out and change things.

I'd add that I think the Jewish religion has it right on abortion issues. They believe life begins when you take your first breath and ends when you take your last breath. Which means the fetus is part of the woman until it's born. And being part of the woman - it's her body which she can do with as she wants.

[BTW - I happen to disagree with the Jews on the life ends when you take your last breath bit. I think brain death is when you die, but that's the topic for another day.]

[Guest]

11 hours ago, rawTOP said:

Here's a historical run down of Clinton and gay issues. Bottom line he was promoting gay rights during his campaign - which was radical for the time. There were two things that really caused him problems the first year of his presidency - 1) his support of gay rights and 2) Hillary's attempts to get the ball moving on universal healthcare.

The Clintons understand that politics is about compromise (unlike Bernie who has accomplished almost nothing because with him it's all or nothing). So when Clinton couldn't get the full recognition of gays in the military he settled for Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It was still a step forward. There are some battles where you take what you can and fight another day.

DOMA was one of those battles. To say Democrats or Clinton didn't support gay rights when they were at the forefront of the battle (in terms of mainstream politics of their time) is just ignorant. That's not how it happened.

True and compromise to move things forward seems the thing that's become harder-and-harder over the last decade.

Whoever is or remains / becomes President in the future US election faces the difficulty of having to work with a Senate that's split. Right now it's devided exactly 50/50 with the Vice-President giving the deciding vote to make it 51/50 in favour of the Democrats, and only because the 2 independent senators (one of which Bernie) substantively vote pro-Democratic.

This leads to a situation that to a large extant compromises have to be sought with the non-republican senators by the current administration. And regardless of ones view on the actual political issues it's a feather in his cap every time that President Biden's succeeds in getting majority votes by ALSO convincing individual Republican senators to vote with this administration.

I sincerely hope the US voters will reward this ability to dialogue, convince, compromise and nuance in the next election(s). 

(On a personal note: I'm a little smitten with the unassuming style of Bernie; And with his mittens for that matter).

 

 

 

[viking8x6]

On 8/31/2022 at 4:23 AM, BareLover666 said:

And with his mittens for that matter

Yeah... we know what you get up to when you're all alone with his mittens.