Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[Silhouette]

Until the day I see actual examples of heterosexuals being threatened with arrest and jail time for daring to be publicly heterosexual, I will laugh at any and all whining about how homosexuals are 'threatening' anyone's liberty.

Allowing homosexuals to marry the one they love threatens no ones liberty.

It affects the liberty of children and the liberty of states to protect their formative environment.

Gay marriage guarantees the lack of vital complimentary gendered role model and one blood parent in that child[ren's] home 100% of the time. So gay marriage directly harms children. It puts them at a disadvantage and at psychological risk.

More than that, gay marriage and its judicial sychophants (soon to be impeached) has threatened democracy at its core. Currently several of the lower federal activist circuit courts have defied the latest SCOTUS ruling on the specific question of law "do states have the power and authority to ratify or deny gay marriage". Windsor 2013 found that they indeed do. That is the law of the land today.

Lower circuits courts that ordered states to ratify gay marraige against their democratic Will are in violation and contempt of that Finding just last year. They can no more order the states in their jurisdiction against their Will than a king could order the US to abdicate its Constitution to a foreign power.

So this cult has caused insidious harms to democracy. And it stands to predictably harm the children in the untold 100s of millions into future generations by guaranteeing to deprive them of the complimentary gendered parent and one blood parent 100% of the time. This twice violates the power of the states.

States are interested in marriage not for the adults in it at all. States' only concern with marriage is to create incentives for two complimentary gendered parents to come together to create the best formative environment for the two complimentary genders the state anticipates children will arrive as.

Childless hetero couples do not violate the standard. The state isn't in the business of predicting whether or not they will adopt or become pregnant...only in the business of incentivizing the gold standard. If it could be proved that single parenthood (depriving the child of one of the complimentary gendered parents 100% of the time, like gay marriage) was somehow a benefit to children, the state would say people could marry themselves and get their kids those benefits of marriage.

The state only cares about what is best for children in marriage. That is a father and a mother.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Until the day I see actual examples of heterosexuals being threatened with arrest and jail time for daring to be publicly heterosexual, I will laugh at any and all whining about how homosexuals are 'threatening' anyone's liberty.

Allowing homosexuals to marry the one they love threatens no ones liberty.

It affects the liberty of children and the liberty of states to protect their formative environment.

Gay marriage guarantees the lack of vital complimentary gendered role model and one blood parent in that child[ren's] home 100% of the time. So gay marriage directly harms children. It puts them at a disadvantage and at psychological risk.

That's nonsense but since marriage isn't about children it doesn't matter. How long before you get that. And how long before you stop beating up on the faggots and pick another minority?

 

[HUGGY]

Oh but there is, and we see it in your kind day after day. Don't worry, there's a six feet under solution that will find you eventually and your phobia will be resolved.

As crass a description as that is, its sadly true. There's only so far you can bring some folks of a generation in terms of the abandonment of pointless bigotry. My grandfather is a great man. Yet still drops the n bomb on occasion and refers to the Japanese as 'them Japs'.

He is a product of his age. The generation that came after him can go farther, and the generation that came after them, farther still.

With the attrition of age taking with it much of the sharper edges of irrational bigotry.

What's wrong with Japs?

It's a derogatory term used a lot in ww2 era, my grandfather also uses it.

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

Apples and Oranges.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now. Saying it or writing it to be displayed puts the sender of such a message at least just a little bit on the side of "it is or was OK to oppress a group of people". A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

"Japs" was a derogatory term of born out of a situation where a country was at war for it's very existence. The Japanese were indeed our enemy and at the time as far as anyone knew sneak attacked our Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in our territory protectorate of Hawaii. Our whole nation HAD to come together and focus on a single mission. It was THEM or US.

There was/is no justification for demeaning African Americans. Their recent ancestors didn't ask to be here. OUR white recent ancestors had no moral authority to aid in their capture by buying human beings at this end.

In WWII we definitely had the moral authority to do whatever it took within some reason up to and including dropping atomic weapons on their country to ensure that they knew they were licked.

Our Grandmothers and Grandfathers had every right to be a part of the single mindedness of defeating the Japanese. I for one applaud their efforts and the outcome of that effort.

The Japanese citizens made their own bed by assigning the value of their very being to the whim of their Emperor. Any dehumanization that followed was of their own doing.

 

[Ravi]

As crass a description as that is, its sadly true. There's only so far you can bring some folks of a generation in terms of the abandonment of pointless bigotry. My grandfather is a great man. Yet still drops the n bomb on occasion and refers to the Japanese as 'them Japs'.

He is a product of his age. The generation that came after him can go farther, and the generation that came after them, farther still.

With the attrition of age taking with it much of the sharper edges of irrational bigotry.

What's wrong with Japs?

It's a derogatory term used a lot in ww2 era, my grandfather also uses it.

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

No, everyone DIDNT use the N word. But everyone did say Japs. It wasn't a racial slur until the moronic Left made it one.

Right, the moronic left that single handedly won ww2.

 

[GreenBean]

Act stupid it fits you well.
As if you and your cohorts add anything substantial to the discussion.
You have a very typical closed-minded ignorant attitude. Which deserves what the picture denotes.
Thank for advocating your stupidity.

And here you are again with your pompous and condescending attitude like you are a scholar.
You are so , partly , entertaining if it were not for the fact that you really believe all your own bullshit.

The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

Hamilton you say? Federalist Paper 78 you say? Why lets dig in.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78

Huh. Its almost as if you never read Federalist Paper 78, have no idea what's in it, and have never once fact checked your claims.

See, Mike, that's the difference between us. You copy and paste lists. I actually do research and read the sources.

Incorrect as usual, and I'm sure you're just as much a "constitutional scholar" as the poop stain in the White House.

Alexander Hamilton argued for a Supreme Court that was confirmed by the Senate and not the House of Representatives saying:

A body so fluctuating and at the same time so numerous, can never be deemed proper for the exercise of that power. Its unfitness will appear manifest to all, when it is recollected that in half a century it may consist of three or four hundred persons. All the advantages of the stability, both of the Executive and of the Senate, would be defeated by this union, and infinite delays and embarrassments would be occasioned.

In retrospect, Hamilton could only have been arguing for input from the States on judiciary appointments since at the time, Senators were appointed by state legislators, not by popular vote. Hamilton pointedly warned of the danger of judges being appointed by popular winds, saying:

the necessity of their [the Senate’s] concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

One can only guess that Hamilton might have had a different view of Senate confirmations if the 17th Amendment were already passed. It might also be noted that the Constitution would never have been ratified to begin with had it been written in such way as to give the States no representation whatsoever in Washington D.C.

What, pray tell is that image supposed to be - are you picking your nose and flinging your boogers ? because it's obvious you have nothing of any value to add -regards booger finger.

LMAO _ You posted it , and the implication was - it was YOU flinging boogers at your superiors - have a nice day booger flinger.

 

[GreenBean]

As crass a description as that is, its sadly true. There's only so far you can bring some folks of a generation in terms of the abandonment of pointless bigotry. My grandfather is a great man. Yet still drops the n bomb on occasion and refers to the Japanese as 'them Japs'.

He is a product of his age. The generation that came after him can go farther, and the generation that came after them, farther still.

With the attrition of age taking with it much of the sharper edges of irrational bigotry.

What's wrong with Japs?

It's a derogatory term used a lot in ww2 era, my grandfather also uses it.

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

Apples and Oranges.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now. Saying it or writing it to be displayed puts the sender of such a message at least just a little bit on the side of "it is or was OK to oppress a group of people". A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

"Japs" was a derogatory term of born out of a situation where a country was at war for it's very existence. The Japanese were indeed our enemy and at the time as far as anyone knew sneak attacked our Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in our territory protectorate of Hawaii. Our whole nation HAD to come together and focus on a single mission. It was THEM or US.

There was/is no justification for demeaning African Americans. Their recent ancestors didn't ask to be here. OUR white recent ancestors had no moral authority to aid in their capture by buying human beings at this end.

In WWII we definitely had the moral authority to do whatever it took within some reason up to and including dropping atomic weapons on their country to ensure that they knew they were licked.

Our Grandmothers and Grandfathers had every right to be a part of the single mindedness of defeating the Japanese. I for one applaud their efforts and the outcome of that effort.

The Japanese citizens made their own bed by assigning the value of their very being to the whim of their Emperor. Any dehumanization that followed was of their own doing.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now

Well ...... not really - in the current evolutionary stage of the language - it is more commonly used by African American juveniles as a greeting to one another such as " wassup my ****** " .

A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

Slavery arose from African BY Africans ...Arabs first jumped into the slave trade followed by Europeans and Americans.

Slaves arriving in North America were in most instances acquired from Africans and Arabs by Europeans and Americans. The origins of most slaves was as currency for goods purchased by their own kings and chiefs. Historians estimate that between 10 and 12 million Africans were sold by other Africans to Europeans before the USA even existed. Nearly 20 Million more were sold to Arabs. The legends of European pirate-merchants storming peaceful villages in the jungle are basically nonsense . It may have happened on rare occasion, but was never the norm. There was no need for European - American slave traders to risk their lives, or expend capital on mercenaries , they simply purchased slaves from the Moslems and African Chiefs.

By the time Lee surrendered to Grant at the Appomattox court house and the last vestiges of slavery were vanquished from American shores there were still many more slaves in Black Africa owned by Blacks than in all the Americas combined. To this day slavery is still practiced on a diminished scale in the Islamic World and sub Saharan Africa.

"Japs" was a derogatory term

Poor analogy . If "Japs" was a derogatory term - than how comes "yanks" or "rebs" or "Brits" wasn't ... as is generally the case with simple minded liberals such as yourself - your logic is flawed and lop sided.

Their recent ancestors didn't ask to be here.

True - but despite the oppression their ancestors were subjected to the descendants of the slaves - for the most part have lived a much more prospereous and productive life than they would have had they born to their ancestral tribes - had they been born at all - given the high infant mortality rate and sub human living standards endured by primitive Africans over the past Century. I will however bow to the addage - "Live Free or Die" or "Lewwer duad üs Slaav", or "Better dead than a slave."

 

[Syriusly]

Until the day I see actual examples of heterosexuals being threatened with arrest and jail time for daring to be publicly heterosexual, I will laugh at any and all whining about how homosexuals are 'threatening' anyone's liberty.

Allowing homosexuals to marry the one they love threatens no ones liberty.

It affects the liberty of children and the liberty of states to protect their formative environment.
.

No it doesn't affect the liberty of children.

Gay marriage doesn't affect any children other than the children of gay couples- who go from having unmarried parents to having married parents.

And states do not have the liberty to pass unconstitutional laws. That is why the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws at least 3 times.

 

[Syriusly]

What's wrong with Japs?

It's a derogatory term used a lot in ww2 era, my grandfather also uses it.

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

Apples and Oranges.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now. Saying it or writing it to be displayed puts the sender of such a message at least just a little bit on the side of "it is or was OK to oppress a group of people". A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

"Japs" was a derogatory term of born out of a situation where a country was at war for it's very existence. The Japanese were indeed our enemy and at the time as far as anyone knew sneak attacked our Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in our territory protectorate of Hawaii. Our whole nation HAD to come together and focus on a single mission. It was THEM or US.

There was/is no justification for demeaning African Americans. Their recent ancestors didn't ask to be here. OUR white recent ancestors had no moral authority to aid in their capture by buying human beings at this end.

In WWII we definitely had the moral authority to do whatever it took within some reason up to and including dropping atomic weapons on their country to ensure that they knew they were licked.

Our Grandmothers and Grandfathers had every right to be a part of the single mindedness of defeating the Japanese. I for one applaud their efforts and the outcome of that effort.

The Japanese citizens made their own bed by assigning the value of their very being to the whim of their Emperor. Any dehumanization that followed was of their own doing.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now

Well ...... not really - in the current evolutionary stage of the language - it is more commonly used by African American juveniles as a greeting to one another such as " wassup my ****** " . "

In the current evolutionary stage of language N*gger is used by two groups of people:

a) African Americans speaking to themselves- anyone who has ever known any ethnic group knows how that works- they steal the derogatory term from bigots and use it to address themselves- most of us have heard some version of it- personally I have heard Italians call each other 'wops' and Poles call each other 'polacks'- but all of us know that this is only acceptable within that group- if you are part of the discriminated minority you can call each other that- but it is offensive for anyone else to call them that.

b) And of course Bigots. Bigots use words like n*gger, f*ggot, q*eer, k*ke, c*nt, sp*c- because they are bigots.

Because they hate people for their race or their country of origin or their religion or because of their gender or because they think that they might be homosexual.

But its all about hate. If you aren't black and you are calling a black person a n*gger- then you are a bigot.

If you aren't gay and you call someone a f*ggot, then you are a bigot.

Luckily today, bigots are largely socially ostracized- if they talk like that in public, people shun them. So they retreat to where they can converse with their fellow bigots on Stormfront and like sites- or with the cover of anonymity like on this site.

We can do our part by identifying them as bigots and calling them out on it every time.

 

[Syriusly]

What's wrong with Japs?

It's a derogatory term used a lot in ww2 era, my grandfather also uses it.

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

Apples and Oranges.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now. Saying it or writing it to be displayed puts the sender of such a message at least just a little bit on the side of "it is or was OK to oppress a group of people". A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

"Japs" was a derogatory term of born out of a situation where a country was at war for it's very existence. The Japanese were indeed our enemy and at the time as far as anyone knew sneak attacked our Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in our territory protectorate of Hawaii. Our whole nation HAD to come together and focus on a single mission. It was THEM or US.

There was/is no justification for demeaning African Americans. Their recent ancestors didn't ask to be here. OUR white recent ancestors had no moral authority to aid in their capture by buying human beings at this end.

In WWII we definitely had the moral authority to do whatever it took within some reason up to and including dropping atomic weapons on their country to ensure that they knew they were licked.

Our Grandmothers and Grandfathers had every right to be a part of the single mindedness of defeating the Japanese. I for one applaud their efforts and the outcome of that effort.

The Japanese citizens made their own bed by assigning the value of their very being to the whim of their Emperor. Any dehumanization that followed was of their own doing.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now

Well ...... not really - in the current evolutionary stage of the language - it is more commonly used by African American juveniles as a greeting to one another such as " wassup my ****** " .

A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

Slavery arose from African BY Africans ...Arabs first jumped into the slave trade followed by Europeans and Americans."

Is that the accepted revisionist history from Stormfront?

Europe always had slavery.

The history of the colonization of the Americas is one of slavery- but it didn't start with African slavery.

The first act of slavery by Europeans in the Americas was done by Columbus himself- taking natives as slaves and sending them back to Spain to be sold. Slavery already existed after all.

African slavery started because natives slaves were dying. So Europeans started importing slaves from Africa.

Yes- African's participated in the slave trade also.

And did the United States.

It was a terrible wrong, but we can't change the facts- we did participate. We did have legal slavery- and slavery was terrible.

 

[Syriusly]

As crass a description as that is, its sadly true. There's only so far you can bring some folks of a generation in terms of the abandonment of pointless bigotry. My grandfather is a great man. Yet still drops the n bomb on occasion and refers to the Japanese as 'them Japs'.

He is a product of his age. The generation that came after him can go farther, and the generation that came after them, farther still.

With the attrition of age taking with it much of the sharper edges of irrational bigotry.

What's wrong with Japs?

It's a derogatory term used a lot in ww2 era, my grandfather also uses it.

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

No, everyone DIDNT use the N word. But everyone did say Japs. It wasn't a racial slur until the moronic Left made it one.

It wasn't a racial slur when the Japanese were our enemies.

Japan is now one our closest allies- and yes it is a slur to call a Japanese American a Jap.

Most Americans understand that.

 

[GreenBean]

It's a derogatory term used a lot in ww2 era, my grandfather also uses it.

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

Apples and Oranges.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now. Saying it or writing it to be displayed puts the sender of such a message at least just a little bit on the side of "it is or was OK to oppress a group of people". A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

"Japs" was a derogatory term of born out of a situation where a country was at war for it's very existence. The Japanese were indeed our enemy and at the time as far as anyone knew sneak attacked our Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in our territory protectorate of Hawaii. Our whole nation HAD to come together and focus on a single mission. It was THEM or US.

There was/is no justification for demeaning African Americans. Their recent ancestors didn't ask to be here. OUR white recent ancestors had no moral authority to aid in their capture by buying human beings at this end.

In WWII we definitely had the moral authority to do whatever it took within some reason up to and including dropping atomic weapons on their country to ensure that they knew they were licked.

Our Grandmothers and Grandfathers had every right to be a part of the single mindedness of defeating the Japanese. I for one applaud their efforts and the outcome of that effort.

The Japanese citizens made their own bed by assigning the value of their very being to the whim of their Emperor. Any dehumanization that followed was of their own doing.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now

Well ...... not really - in the current evolutionary stage of the language - it is more commonly used by African American juveniles as a greeting to one another such as " wassup my ****** " . "

In the current evolutionary stage of language N*gger is used by two groups of people:

a) African Americans speaking to themselves- anyone who has ever known any ethnic group knows how that works- they steal the derogatory term from bigots and use it to address themselves- most of us have heard some version of it- personally I have heard Italians call each other 'wops' and Poles call each other 'polacks'- but all of us know that this is only acceptable within that group- if you are part of the discriminated minority you can call each other that- but it is offensive for anyone else to call them that.

b) And of course Bigots. Bigots use words like n*gger, f*ggot, q*eer, k*ke, c*nt, sp*c- because they are bigots.

Because they hate people for their race or their country of origin or their religion or because of their gender or because they think that they might be homosexual.
n*gger, f*ggot, q*eer, k*ke, c*nt, sp*c- because they are bigots
But its all about hate. If you aren't black and you are calling a black person a n*gger- then you are a bigot.

If you aren't gay and you call someone a f*ggot, then you are a bigot.

Luckily today, bigots are largely socially ostracized- if they talk like that in public, people shun them. So they retreat to where they can converse with their fellow bigots on Stormfront and like sites- or with the cover of anonymity like on this site.

We can do our part by identifying them as bigots and calling them out on it every time.

Bigots use words like n*gger, f*ggot, q*eer, k*ke, c*nt, sp*c- because they are bigots.

Somewhat true - Bigots us words like nig*er, k*ke, c*nt and sp*c. Informed people use words such as Faggot and queer - as well as cum guzzler, turd burgalr, fruit cake, pervert etcetra.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

Apples and Oranges.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now. Saying it or writing it to be displayed puts the sender of such a message at least just a little bit on the side of "it is or was OK to oppress a group of people". A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

"Japs" was a derogatory term of born out of a situation where a country was at war for it's very existence. The Japanese were indeed our enemy and at the time as far as anyone knew sneak attacked our Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in our territory protectorate of Hawaii. Our whole nation HAD to come together and focus on a single mission. It was THEM or US.

There was/is no justification for demeaning African Americans. Their recent ancestors didn't ask to be here. OUR white recent ancestors had no moral authority to aid in their capture by buying human beings at this end.

In WWII we definitely had the moral authority to do whatever it took within some reason up to and including dropping atomic weapons on their country to ensure that they knew they were licked.

Our Grandmothers and Grandfathers had every right to be a part of the single mindedness of defeating the Japanese. I for one applaud their efforts and the outcome of that effort.

The Japanese citizens made their own bed by assigning the value of their very being to the whim of their Emperor. Any dehumanization that followed was of their own doing.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now

Well ...... not really - in the current evolutionary stage of the language - it is more commonly used by African American juveniles as a greeting to one another such as " wassup my ****** " . "

In the current evolutionary stage of language N*gger is used by two groups of people:

a) African Americans speaking to themselves- anyone who has ever known any ethnic group knows how that works- they steal the derogatory term from bigots and use it to address themselves- most of us have heard some version of it- personally I have heard Italians call each other 'wops' and Poles call each other 'polacks'- but all of us know that this is only acceptable within that group- if you are part of the discriminated minority you can call each other that- but it is offensive for anyone else to call them that.

b) And of course Bigots. Bigots use words like n*gger, f*ggot, q*eer, k*ke, c*nt, sp*c- because they are bigots.

Because they hate people for their race or their country of origin or their religion or because of their gender or because they think that they might be homosexual.
n*gger, f*ggot, q*eer, k*ke, c*nt, sp*c- because they are bigots
But its all about hate. If you aren't black and you are calling a black person a n*gger- then you are a bigot.

If you aren't gay and you call someone a f*ggot, then you are a bigot.

Luckily today, bigots are largely socially ostracized- if they talk like that in public, people shun them. So they retreat to where they can converse with their fellow bigots on Stormfront and like sites- or with the cover of anonymity like on this site.

We can do our part by identifying them as bigots and calling them out on it every time.

Bigots use words like n*gger, f*ggot, q*eer, k*ke, c*nt, sp*c- because they are bigots.

Somewhat true - Bigots us words like nig*er, k*ke, c*nt and sp*c. Informed people use words such as Faggot and queer - as well as cum guzzler, turd burgalr, fruit cake, pervert etcetra.

Things just so slow for you over at Stormfront that you decided to come over here to tells us about your fascination with feces and anal sex?

 

[GreenBean]

It's a derogatory term used a lot in ww2 era, my grandfather also uses it.

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

Apples and Oranges.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now. Saying it or writing it to be displayed puts the sender of such a message at least just a little bit on the side of "it is or was OK to oppress a group of people". A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

"Japs" was a derogatory term of born out of a situation where a country was at war for it's very existence. The Japanese were indeed our enemy and at the time as far as anyone knew sneak attacked our Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in our territory protectorate of Hawaii. Our whole nation HAD to come together and focus on a single mission. It was THEM or US.

There was/is no justification for demeaning African Americans. Their recent ancestors didn't ask to be here. OUR white recent ancestors had no moral authority to aid in their capture by buying human beings at this end.

In WWII we definitely had the moral authority to do whatever it took within some reason up to and including dropping atomic weapons on their country to ensure that they knew they were licked.

Our Grandmothers and Grandfathers had every right to be a part of the single mindedness of defeating the Japanese. I for one applaud their efforts and the outcome of that effort.

The Japanese citizens made their own bed by assigning the value of their very being to the whim of their Emperor. Any dehumanization that followed was of their own doing.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now

Well ...... not really - in the current evolutionary stage of the language - it is more commonly used by African American juveniles as a greeting to one another such as " wassup my ****** " .

A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

Slavery arose from African BY Africans ...Arabs first jumped into the slave trade followed by Europeans and Americans."

Is that the accepted revisionist history from Stormfront?

Europe always had slavery.

The history of the colonization of the Americas is one of slavery- but it didn't start with African slavery.

The first act of slavery by Europeans in the Americas was done by Columbus himself- taking natives as slaves and sending them back to Spain to be sold. Slavery already existed after all.

African slavery started because natives slaves were dying. So Europeans started importing slaves from Africa.

Yes- African's participated in the slave trade also.

And did the United States.

It was a terrible wrong, but we can't change the facts- we did participate. We did have legal slavery- and slavery was terrible.

WTF is this stormfront shit you keep spouting - thats not anyones slant on History - it is simply History . Sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative or Agenda - but is unfortunate fact

 

[HUGGY]

What's wrong with Japs?

It's a derogatory term used a lot in ww2 era, my grandfather also uses it.

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

Apples and Oranges.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now. Saying it or writing it to be displayed puts the sender of such a message at least just a little bit on the side of "it is or was OK to oppress a group of people". A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

"Japs" was a derogatory term of born out of a situation where a country was at war for it's very existence. The Japanese were indeed our enemy and at the time as far as anyone knew sneak attacked our Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in our territory protectorate of Hawaii. Our whole nation HAD to come together and focus on a single mission. It was THEM or US.

There was/is no justification for demeaning African Americans. Their recent ancestors didn't ask to be here. OUR white recent ancestors had no moral authority to aid in their capture by buying human beings at this end.

In WWII we definitely had the moral authority to do whatever it took within some reason up to and including dropping atomic weapons on their country to ensure that they knew they were licked.

Our Grandmothers and Grandfathers had every right to be a part of the single mindedness of defeating the Japanese. I for one applaud their efforts and the outcome of that effort.

The Japanese citizens made their own bed by assigning the value of their very being to the whim of their Emperor. Any dehumanization that followed was of their own doing.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now

Well ...... not really - in the current evolutionary stage of the language - it is more commonly used by African American juveniles as a greeting to one another such as " wassup my ****** " .

A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

Slavery arose from African BY Africans ...Arabs first jumped into the slave trade followed by Europeans and Americans.

Slaves arriving in North America were in most instances acquired from Africans and Arabs by Europeans and Americans. The origins of most slaves was as currency for goods purchased by their own kings and chiefs. Historians estimate that between 10 and 12 million Africans were sold by other Africans to Europeans before the USA even existed. Nearly 20 Million more were sold to Arabs. The legends of European pirate-merchants storming peaceful villages in the jungle are basically nonsense . It may have happened on rare occasion, but was never the norm. There was no need for European - American slave traders to risk their lives, or expend capital on mercenaries , they simply purchased slaves from the Moslems and African Chiefs.

By the time Lee surrendered to Grant at the Appomattox court house and the last vestiges of slavery were vanquished from American shores there were still many more slaves in Black Africa owned by Blacks than in all the Americas combined. To this day slavery is still practiced on a diminished scale in the Islamic World and sub Saharan Africa.

"Japs" was a derogatory term

Poor analogy . If "Japs" was a derogatory term - than how comes "yanks" or "rebs" or "Brits" wasn't ... as is generally the case with simple minded liberals such as yourself - your logic is flawed and lop sided.

Their recent ancestors didn't ask to be here.

True - but despite the oppression their ancestors were subjected to the descendants of the slaves - for the most part have lived a much more prospereous and productive life than they would have had they born to their ancestral tribes - had they been born at all - given the high infant mortality rate and sub human living standards endured by primitive Africans over the past Century. I will however bow to the addage - "Live Free or Die" or "Lewwer duad üs Slaav", or "Better dead than a slave."

A lot of wordage to present a totally weak case. I certainly do not admire those taken as slaves because I am better than that. Slavery was/is wrong. There is no amount of words that make it OK.

 

[boilermaker55]

Still trying to act stupid because you made such an ass of yourself.
Again. Nice try fool

Act stupid it fits you well.
As if you and your cohorts add anything substantial to the discussion.
You have a very typical closed-minded ignorant attitude. Which deserves what the picture denotes.
Thank for advocating your stupidity.

And here you are again with your pompous and condescending attitude like you are a scholar.
You are so , partly , entertaining if it were not for the fact that you really believe all your own bullshit.

Hamilton you say? Federalist Paper 78 you say? Why lets dig in.

Huh. Its almost as if you never read Federalist Paper 78, have no idea what's in it, and have never once fact checked your claims.

See, Mike, that's the difference between us. You copy and paste lists. I actually do research and read the sources.

Incorrect as usual, and I'm sure you're just as much a "constitutional scholar" as the poop stain in the White House.

Alexander Hamilton argued for a Supreme Court that was confirmed by the Senate and not the House of Representatives saying:

A body so fluctuating and at the same time so numerous, can never be deemed proper for the exercise of that power. Its unfitness will appear manifest to all, when it is recollected that in half a century it may consist of three or four hundred persons. All the advantages of the stability, both of the Executive and of the Senate, would be defeated by this union, and infinite delays and embarrassments would be occasioned.

In retrospect, Hamilton could only have been arguing for input from the States on judiciary appointments since at the time, Senators were appointed by state legislators, not by popular vote. Hamilton pointedly warned of the danger of judges being appointed by popular winds, saying:

the necessity of their [the Senate’s] concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

One can only guess that Hamilton might have had a different view of Senate confirmations if the 17th Amendment were already passed. It might also be noted that the Constitution would never have been ratified to begin with had it been written in such way as to give the States no representation whatsoever in Washington D.C.

What, pray tell is that image supposed to be - are you picking your nose and flinging your boogers ? because it's obvious you have nothing of any value to add -regards booger finger.

LMAO _ You posted it , and the implication was - it was YOU flinging boogers at your superiors - have a nice day booger flinger.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

Apples and Oranges.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now. Saying it or writing it to be displayed puts the sender of such a message at least just a little bit on the side of "it is or was OK to oppress a group of people". A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

"Japs" was a derogatory term of born out of a situation where a country was at war for it's very existence. The Japanese were indeed our enemy and at the time as far as anyone knew sneak attacked our Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in our territory protectorate of Hawaii. Our whole nation HAD to come together and focus on a single mission. It was THEM or US.

There was/is no justification for demeaning African Americans. Their recent ancestors didn't ask to be here. OUR white recent ancestors had no moral authority to aid in their capture by buying human beings at this end.

In WWII we definitely had the moral authority to do whatever it took within some reason up to and including dropping atomic weapons on their country to ensure that they knew they were licked.

Our Grandmothers and Grandfathers had every right to be a part of the single mindedness of defeating the Japanese. I for one applaud their efforts and the outcome of that effort.

The Japanese citizens made their own bed by assigning the value of their very being to the whim of their Emperor. Any dehumanization that followed was of their own doing.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now

Well ...... not really - in the current evolutionary stage of the language - it is more commonly used by African American juveniles as a greeting to one another such as " wassup my ****** " . "

In the current evolutionary stage of language N*gger is used by two groups of people:

a) African Americans speaking to themselves- anyone who has ever known any ethnic group knows how that works- they steal the derogatory term from bigots and use it to address themselves- most of us have heard some version of it- personally I have heard Italians call each other 'wops' and Poles call each other 'polacks'- but all of us know that this is only acceptable within that group- if you are part of the discriminated minority you can call each other that- but it is offensive for anyone else to call them that.

b) And of course Bigots. Bigots use words like n*gger, f*ggot, q*eer, k*ke, c*nt, sp*c- because they are bigots.

Because they hate people for their race or their country of origin or their religion or because of their gender or because they think that they might be homosexual.
n*gger, f*ggot, q*eer, k*ke, c*nt, sp*c- because they are bigots
But its all about hate. If you aren't black and you are calling a black person a n*gger- then you are a bigot.

If you aren't gay and you call someone a f*ggot, then you are a bigot.

Luckily today, bigots are largely socially ostracized- if they talk like that in public, people shun them. So they retreat to where they can converse with their fellow bigots on Stormfront and like sites- or with the cover of anonymity like on this site.

We can do our part by identifying them as bigots and calling them out on it every time.

Bigots use words like n*gger, f*ggot, q*eer, k*ke, c*nt, sp*c- because they are bigots.

Somewhat true - Bigots us words like nig*er, k*ke, c*nt and sp*c. Informed people use words such as Faggot and queer - as well as cum guzzler, turd burgalr, fruit cake, pervert etcetra.

Things just so slow for you over at Stormfront that you decided to come over here to tells us about your fascination with feces and anal sex?

That's the gay agenda.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Skylar]

It affects the liberty of children and the liberty of states to protect their formative environment.

The courts haven't found this to be true. In explicit contradiction to your claims, they've found the exact opposite: that denying gay marriage to same sex parents of children causes harm to those children.

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Windsor V. US

You ignore this. The courts overwhelmingly don't. Nor would any rational person.

Gay marriage guarantees the lack of vital complimentary gendered role model and one blood parent in that child[ren's] home 100% of the time. So gay marriage directly harms children. It puts them at a disadvantage and at psychological risk.

Several problems with your reasoning, all of which you're familiar with. First, gays and lesbians are already having kids. So the recognition of marriage is irrelevant to the issues you've cited. If gay marriage is recognized, if its not, gays and lesbians will still have kids. Rendering your entire point moot.

Second, your claim that gay marriage 'directly harms chilren' by the lack of complimentary gendered role models is speculative nonsense. Children raised in same sex couples are just as healthy and well adjusted as those raised by hetero couples. So the 'harm' you imagine, isn't. You're imagining harm that doesn't exist. And ignoring actual harm of denying gay marriage to the same sex parents of children. Which does exist, as Justice Kennedy so eloquently demonstrated in the Windsor Decision.

Third, since gays and lesbians are having children anyway, regardless of being married, the question is what harm is done to those children by refusing to affirm the marriage of their parents. And the courts have firmly established, denying marriage to the parents of those children does harm those children. While the imaginary 'harm' that you've fallaciously posited would exist regardless of the recognition of same sex marriage. If it were actually real, which it isn't.

So no harm from gay marriage in truth, no harm from gay marriage in theory, and harm from the denial of gay marriage in truth.

Rendering your perspective triply irrational.

More than that, gay marriage and its judicial sychophants (soon to be impeached) has threatened democracy at its core.

None of them are being impeached. You're simply making more useless predictions based on what you want to happen rather than what the evidence strongly indicates will happen.

urrently several of the lower federal activist circuit courts have defied the latest SCOTUS ruling on the specific question of law "do states have the power and authority to ratify or deny gay marriage". Windsor 2013 found that they indeed do. That is the law of the land today.

Obvious and intentional nonsense. There's no portion of the Windsor decision that includes 'do states have the power and authority to ratify or deny gay marriage'. No portion of the Windsor decision authorizes the States to deny gay marriage. Here's the Windsor ruling.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Show me. You'll find you just lied your ass off, as no such passages exist anywhere in the ruling. As you already know, having read it.

And since federal justice can't defy passages in a USSC ruling that don't exist, your impeachment babble is proven inaccurate drivel of no consequence or predictive value. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have needed to lie as you just did to support it.

Lower circuits courts that ordered states to ratify gay marraige against their democratic Will are in violation and contempt of that Finding just last year. They can no more order the states in their jurisdiction against their Will than a king could order the US to abdicate its Constitution to a foreign power.

Nope. There was no such passage in the Windsor ruling that authorized any denial of gay marriage, anywhere. And I defy you to quote the passage that does. Just remember to include 'subject to certain constitutional guarantees' with the quote. Its the portion you usually omit. The ruling speaks only to the recognition of gay marriage in some states and the federal statutes covered in DOMA.

So this cult has caused insidious harms to democracy. And it stands to predictably harm the children in the untold 100s of millions into future generations by guaranteeing to deprive them of the complimentary gendered parent and one blood parent 100% of the time. This twice violates the power of the states.

Nope. As the Loving v. Virginia decision demonstrated in 1967, the States don't have the authority to violate the constitutional rights of federal citizens. Which every US citizen is. When the marriage laws of a State conflict with the constitutional rights of the individual, the constitutional rights of the individual prevail. Rendering your 'harms to democracy' claims more pseudo legal drivel of no consequence.

States are interested in marriage not for the adults in it at all. States' only concern with marriage is to create incentives for two complimentary gendered parents to come together to create the best formative environment for the two complimentary genders the state anticipates children will arrive as.

Then why all the infertile couples being allowed to marry or remain married? Why don't the incentives occur when a child is born, rather than when a couple marries if the goal is the child? If children is the purpose of marriage, why doesn't any state in the union require that the ability to procreate in order to get married? No one?

The standard you are insisting we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one. Why then would we make it up, inexplicably exempt all straights, and then apply it only to gays?

There is no reason.

Childless hetero couples do not violate the standard.

They absolutely do. As they demonstrate there's a perfectly valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with having children or being able to have them. And having firmly established that such a valid basis exists, there's no reason to deny that basis to gays.

Worse, you're laughably contradicting yourself. As your argument opened with the harm to children because of gay marriage. And are now arguing that gays can't be married because their unions have nothing to do with children. Those are mutually exclusive positions. And neither is valid.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

Apples and Oranges.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now. Saying it or writing it to be displayed puts the sender of such a message at least just a little bit on the side of "it is or was OK to oppress a group of people". A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

"Japs" was a derogatory term of born out of a situation where a country was at war for it's very existence. The Japanese were indeed our enemy and at the time as far as anyone knew sneak attacked our Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in our territory protectorate of Hawaii. Our whole nation HAD to come together and focus on a single mission. It was THEM or US.

There was/is no justification for demeaning African Americans. Their recent ancestors didn't ask to be here. OUR white recent ancestors had no moral authority to aid in their capture by buying human beings at this end.

In WWII we definitely had the moral authority to do whatever it took within some reason up to and including dropping atomic weapons on their country to ensure that they knew they were licked.

Our Grandmothers and Grandfathers had every right to be a part of the single mindedness of defeating the Japanese. I for one applaud their efforts and the outcome of that effort.

The Japanese citizens made their own bed by assigning the value of their very being to the whim of their Emperor. Any dehumanization that followed was of their own doing.

The "N" word was/is a term of oppression then as it is now

Well ...... not really - in the current evolutionary stage of the language - it is more commonly used by African American juveniles as a greeting to one another such as " wassup my ****** " .

A lot of so-called good people condoned if not in fact participated in slavery. It is a stain on our nation that will never wash out of our fabric.

Slavery arose from African BY Africans ...Arabs first jumped into the slave trade followed by Europeans and Americans."

Is that the accepted revisionist history from Stormfront?

Europe always had slavery.

The history of the colonization of the Americas is one of slavery- but it didn't start with African slavery.

The first act of slavery by Europeans in the Americas was done by Columbus himself- taking natives as slaves and sending them back to Spain to be sold. Slavery already existed after all.

African slavery started because natives slaves were dying. So Europeans started importing slaves from Africa.

Yes- African's participated in the slave trade also.

And did the United States.

It was a terrible wrong, but we can't change the facts- we did participate. We did have legal slavery- and slavery was terrible.

WTF is this stormfront shit you keep spouting - thats not anyones slant on History - it is simply History . Sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative or Agenda - but is unfortunate fact

It is a Stormfront revisionist history- all to excuse our American culpability in slavery.

Certainly other nations were involved.

But to deny our own involvement in it is just bigotry on parade.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

These threads are going to have to stop at some point, they're really gay...

 

[HUGGY]

I just love it when the losers start saying a thread is dead. IMHO there is no gun at anyone's head.. There is the door...see ya ..