Fucking hell. I hate using the word "evil" but what else is there to say? Truly fucking despicable, inhuman, psychopathic obsession with control and punishment. There's no defense for this, and I've no respect for anyone trying to indulge in such self-serving bullshit.
Then, you have the incentive to incarcerate as many people as possible to create an unpaid labor force. It's an inherent flaw in the system.
People doing bad things to harm people out of some misguided sense of archaic morality, yes. Also, logical fallacy
You have dramatically misunderstood what my principles are. My principles are not, in fact, tied to bueracracy
Completly ignoring the right's role oin that, and the fact it's already causing a significant amount of horror.
If it was such a slam dunk why wasn't it a 9-0 decision, moron
...are something that you can't fathom a different axis of, yes.
If by "historical", you mean older, sure. If by "historical" you mean "has any relevance to the United States Government", no. ************, it's *you* who's claiming it's relevant, not me. The rich white dudes created a system where only landowning men could vote, women couldn't own property, and an entire class of people was legally enslaved. No, they didn't give a *shit* about equality for all.
Hey now, we wouldn't want in an infant to denied the right to live for maybe a day in extreme agony over it's brain slowing being ground down by sheer gravity, that would be evil. The federal government has not right to put a stop to this if a state government wants it to happen.
Bad things only happen to bad people, so she's obviously a bad person for not having a normal baby and must be made to suffer for her sins!
I mean, that's just evangelical Protestantism, specially of the Prosperity Gospel bent
Free speech can be exploited so we shouldn't have free speech then. You can exploit anything...
In the words of Seth Dillon, the CEO of The Babylon Bee - "Two wrongs don't make a right." Just because it's wrong that a fetus has no skull, doesn't mean it's right to abort it. By the way, this is also his stance on 14-year old rape victims. Joe Rogan thinks he's funny though.
okay. So then, by that same token, you believe that one can't be against abortion and against vaccine mandates. Right?
A) We don't have free speech and never did. B) You're justifying slavery
Nice and vague, no relation to specific topic, weaker than normal deflection
For the record, I am also against the government forcing people to get vaccinated on pain of imprisonment with zero exceptions, both state and federal
Right, so we should be worried when the right says that LGBT people should be marginalized and eliminated for their perverse lifestyle, yes? Because the right fights for it's morals?
If this Supreme Court were in session for Obergefell, it would've been 3-6 against. Why do you think it won't go that way if challenged now? They'd *absolutely* detonate Federal marriage benefits to stop gay marriage if they thought all the straight people losing their tax benefits would put up with it.
I mean, most of them went on to write the articles of confederation, the US constitution, and the first federal laws, so yes? Obviously? They didn't have an authority that could overrule them, that's what the war was about
Not giving them welfare won't stop them from being excluded
No, but governmentally enforced segregation is harder to fix than what occurs naturally, and not trying to fix what occured naturally was itself a failure.
You're pretending the culture hasn't changed in 60 years, which is delusional. Black people can get good jobs and live in nice neighborhoods in 2022, some places actively pursue that happening.
It's not all white people being racists, but enough to materially impact the experience of black people in the 1960s. Absolutely there were a ton of white racists in the 60s with the power to exclude people from their community.
I did not, there is no typo. It's "better than if you are excluded", not "better off if you are excluded", you misread a word.
I definitely didn't say that.
en.wikipedia.org
Be more critical of what you read. The poverty rate in 1960 was like 23% and had dropped to like 17% by the time the Great Society programs started. Lyndon Johnson inherited a massive downward trend in poverty. The same is true for black poverty, that 55% in 1960 had already dropped to like 40% in just 5 years before the Great Society. Immediately preceeding the Great Society programs, poverty was falling at probably the fastest rate in US history. By the time Johnson had left office, the poverty rate was leveling off. The red lines below I added to represent the start of the Great Society programs to the end of Johnson's term.No wonder a conservative "christian" would be against this.
"In the long run, statistical analysis shows that the Official Poverty Rate fell from 19.5 percent in 1963 to 12.3 percent in 2017. However, using a broader definition that includes cash income, taxes, and major in-kind transfers and inflation rates, the "Full-income Poverty Rate" based on President Johnson's standards fell from 19.5 percent to 2.3 percent over that period.[56][57]
The percentage of African Americans below the poverty line dropped from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968."
Great Society - Wikipedia
Justices-- it's in the majority opinion. Yes, they did; you've already been provided with the direct quote in which they say so.
For most of the existence of the United States, same-sex marriage was not considered included in the right to marriage. Four of the Justices involved in Obergefell argued that it isn't included. 3 of whom still serve.
I promise you that my occasional posts on this forum about same-sex marriage are not detracting from my ability to care about other issues.
Nope. But not because the Constitution stands in their way; because American society is wholly against slavery, including the vast majority of Republicans.
It's almost like the Founding Fathers knew they couldn't possibly have thought of or gotten support for including every single possible right when they were drafting the Constitution and thus put in the 9th Amendment specifically to allow more rights to be added in the future. Especially for things that society and technology at the time couldn't allow, like the right to an abortion, women's rights in general, and abolishing slavery.
If the founding fathers all believed in these rights they could've absolutely added them all. Allowing a document to be edited does not mean that you get to claim credit for future edits done by other people
I'm pretty sure society was capable of allowing "women's rights in general" and no slavery.
Sure, if the Founding Fathers were stupid. The Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson in particular wanted to include a passage in the Declaration of Independence condemning slavery but took it out because they knew the colonies as a whole would never support the revolution otherwise. Afterward, they didn't ban slavery when the Constitution was drafted because they knew the entire country would be torn apart, like it nearly was a century later. Right after the Revolutionary War was an even worse time to do it since the chaos might have allowed the British to swoop in and reclaim the country.
To be perfectly honest, it doesn't actually matter to the argument whether you think the Founding Fathers personally would've supported true equality if they could or not. The point is they didn't. The point of contention here was whether the Constitution as it exists promised true equality, and it clearly didn't.
