10-16-2016, 09:40 AM
I need to draw the "Trumpenstein" monster. Put the head of Donald Trump onto the Frankenstein monster, and one has a very scary costume in a liberal neighborhood.
(10-16-2016, 09:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Late breaking news! SNL is part of the 'vast left wing conspiracy' that is rigging the election in Hillary's favor.
Never mind that The Donald has hosted the show twice.
Quote:“There’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time,” he continued. “And so, I‘d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.”
(10-19-2016, 05:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]It's ironic... Barack Obama will probably be recognized as one of the better Presidents, and he is still 'something that rhymes with the name of Roy Rogers' horse'. People at Trump rallies can't wait for the 'baboon' to leave office... never mind that his term is over in three months. Oh, yes, Hillary Clinton is a vagina (well, a not-so-nice word).
Oh, yes.... and 'gay marriage' must be outlawed, never mind that the Supreme Court has ruled upon that.
(10-19-2016, 07:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](10-19-2016, 05:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]It's ironic... Barack Obama will probably be recognized as one of the better Presidents, and he is still 'something that rhymes with the name of Roy Rogers' horse'. People at Trump rallies can't wait for the 'baboon' to leave office... never mind that his term is over in three months. Oh, yes, Hillary Clinton is a vagina (well, a not-so-nice word).
Oh, yes.... and 'gay marriage' must be outlawed, never mind that the Supreme Court has ruled upon that.
Well, you have to remember that some people consider the Constitution to be a broad suggestion, that anything written there can be overwritten by a five of nine vote of the Supreme Court. There isn't actually anything said in the Constitution about marriage rights or legislating against sodomy. If you look at common law precedent set during the colonial era, which the court is supposed to do when inventing new rights, you can find a lot more law banning sodomy than rights to marry who you want to marry.
If you believe in a 'living constitution', that five old men can rewrite the Constitution at whim, marriage rights is being sustained only by the tradition that one doesn't revisit cases until some time has passed.
(10-20-2016, 07:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]But even same-sex marriage won the majority on the US Supreme Court as laws prohibiting it were proved in violation of basic human rights. Even that had some restrictions; like heterosexual marriages, same-sex marriages would have to involve consent and age of majority and preclude incest. Marriages would have to be between human beings and not with animals, plants, or inanimate objects. Nobody got the right to marry a dog, a tree, a car, or a gun -- let alone a child.
Flagrant inequality, and not denial of selfish or destructive indulgence, is the essence of Supreme Court decisions such as Brown vs. Board of Education, Loving vs. Virginia, and Obergfell vs. Hodges.
The Bill of Rights Wrote:IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(10-20-2016, 07:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](10-20-2016, 07:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]But even same-sex marriage won the majority on the US Supreme Court as laws prohibiting it were proved in violation of basic human rights. Even that had some restrictions; like heterosexual marriages, same-sex marriages would have to involve consent and age of majority and preclude incest. Marriages would have to be between human beings and not with animals, plants, or inanimate objects. Nobody got the right to marry a dog, a tree, a car, or a gun -- let alone a child.
Flagrant inequality, and not denial of selfish or destructive indulgence, is the essence of Supreme Court decisions such as Brown vs. Board of Education, Loving vs. Virginia, and Obergfell vs. Hodges.
I don't know that incest is an issue in same sex marriages?
Quote:The Bill of Rights Wrote:IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This had traditionally meant that if a right existed in the colonial era as part of Common Law, the fact that it wasn't included in the Bill of Rights shouldn't mean the Common Law right should be disregarded. Living Constitution advocates are advocating five old men being able to invent brand new rights, including rights for corporations, and including rights that definitively did not exist under colonial Common Law, rights that are in direct conflict with colonial Common Law.
I can say that in general progressive justices rewriting the Constitution from the bench generally have their hearts in the right place. Alas, to the extent they have made the Constitution worthless, the conservative justices have been just as abusive, only it is corporate wallets they are concerned with. I would as soon the Court honor their oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.