In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[NYcarbineer]

[ I saw a lot of people buying Duck Commander stuff and the Duck Dynasty was sitting on the shelves.

!

Right. lol. Unbelievable. Am I monopolizing the integrity around here? Is that why we get posts like the above?

 

[Statistikhengst]

[ I saw a lot of people buying Duck Commander stuff and the Duck Dynasty was sitting on the shelves.

!

Right. lol. Unbelievable. Am I monopolizing the integrity around here? Is that why we get posts like the above?

No. And no. We get posts like the above because some are blinded by their hatred of the other side.

 

[hunarcy]

Perhaps if she hadn't said she thinks it should be illegal in the first place, I wouldn't have felt compelled to reply to that comment.

And expression of frustration? To repeatedly say that you think something should be illegal, even arguing about why you think it should be? And has Foxfyre said she doesn't actually think it should be illegal, that she was merely frustrated? I think I'll let her tell me if she didn't actually mean what she said.

Saying something should be illegal is saying there should be legislation making it illegal. That may not be the point of the OP, but it's something she has said on multiple occasions now.

Well, if you are so desperate to score a "win" instead of talking about the main issue, be my guest.

 

[hunarcy]

No. And no. We get posts like the above because some are blinded by their hatred of the other side.

And my observation that Robertson's family made a wise marketing choice indicates my hatred of what?

 

[Statistikhengst]

No. And no. We get posts like the above because some are blinded by their hatred of the other side.

And my observation that Robertson's family made a wise marketing choice indicates my hatred of what?

did I mention you personally, or did you just feel drawn to that like a moth to the light?

 

[koshergrl]

[ I saw a lot of people buying Duck Commander stuff and the Duck Dynasty was sitting on the shelves.

!

Right. lol. Unbelievable. Am I monopolizing the integrity around here? Is that why we get posts like the above?

Still waiting for the link to those statements you claimed Robertson made...

 

[WillReadmore]

In fact, these states usually deny that same sex couples are married even if they ARE married by other states - thus breaking their Article IV constitutional duty.

The Defense of Marriage Act said that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. The Supreme Court stuck down part of DOMA, but let that part of the law stand. Until that is decided differently, the States are not breaking their Article IV duties. However, I do not understand how such a situation can be allowed to stand. I assume it will have to be looked at in the future.

Well, the SCOTUS wasn't asked to rule on Article IV. So, it's no surprise that they didn't.

Beyond that, yes it's strange that Article IV wouldn't apply in this case, especially knowing as we do that it DOES apply with inter-racial marriage.

I agree the states aren't breaking the law (DOMA). The problem is that the law itself is illegal.

 

[hunarcy]

No. And no. We get posts like the above because some are blinded by their hatred of the other side.

And my observation that Robertson's family made a wise marketing choice indicates my hatred of what?

did I mention you personally, or did you just feel drawn to that like a moth to the light?

Since my post was quoted, I assumed it was directed toward me. (I have begun to try to not even read the Self Feeding Troll's words in other's quotes.) If I was mistaken because I didn't read it's quote, I apologize.

 

[hunarcy]

In fact, these states usually deny that same sex couples are married even if they ARE married by other states - thus breaking their Article IV constitutional duty.

The Defense of Marriage Act said that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. The Supreme Court stuck down part of DOMA, but let that part of the law stand. Until that is decided differently, the States are not breaking their Article IV duties. However, I do not understand how such a situation can be allowed to stand. I assume it will have to be looked at in the future.

Well, the SCOTUS wasn't asked to rule on Article IV. So, it's no surprise that they didn't.

Beyond that, yes it's strange that Article IV wouldn't apply in this case, especially knowing as we do that it DOES apply with inter-racial marriage.

I agree the states aren't breaking the law (DOMA). The problem is that the law itself is illegal.

They had the opportunity to strike down the whole law and, in my mind, should have to avoid the confusion that's inevitable when States don't have to give "full faith and credit".

and BTW, laws can't be illegal...they can only be ruled unconstitutional.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, laws can be deemed "illegal", if they violate human rights.

It's how we are enabled to prosecute war criminals and the like who create bad law to facilitate human rights violations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have said, on multiple occasions, that in your opinion it should be illegal to materially or physically harm someone just for a stated opinion. To make something illegal requires legislation. Therefore, you have, in fact, said something about legislation.

If you want to be insulting and rude, fine. Understand that you are doing so based on a lie, though. I read and understood your OP. You simply have made other comments in this thread, I have commented upon them, I have explained that I am discussing those comments. Perhaps if YOU could read and understand that, it might be possible to have a comprehensive discussion with you. Oh well.

Do you see how contemptuous that sounds?

Sure, she said she wishes some things were illegal, but she never specifically called for legislation. It was more of an expression of frustration than demand that government get involved. It was only some of the low browed trolls that seized upon that phrase to create an issue to use to distract that created this non-controversy. Perhaps if you wouldn't have come in and adopted the "make it illegal" argument that she never actually made, you wouldn't have gotten caught up in her ire.

Perhaps if she hadn't said she thinks it should be illegal in the first place, I wouldn't have felt compelled to reply to that comment.

lol, perfect. The penchant that the 'nuts on this forum have for responding to getting called on something stupid they said by simply denying they said it,

when it's preserved forever right there for all to see, is truly fascinating.

 

[koshergrl]

You have the link that supports your fake quote, NYC?

 

[Statistikhengst]

And my observation that Robertson's family made a wise marketing choice indicates my hatred of what?

did I mention you personally, or did you just feel drawn to that like a moth to the light?

Since my post was quoted, I assumed it was directed toward me. (I have begun to try to not even read the Self Feeding Troll's words in other's quotes.) If I was mistaken because I didn't read it's quote, I apologize.

I did not quote your post, but the way you pounced so quickly, you proved my point for me.

Seems to me that both sides are overheating over Mr. Duck Ducky, here.

The dude can say what he wants, I don't care. If he reaps more rewards, then that's this thing. If he has to take lumps for it, then that is also his thing.

But all this bullshit about "intolerance! from the left, when lefties that are boycotting are doing exactly the same thing that FRC or One Million Moms do when they want to make a point, is just ridiculous.

Moving on....

 

[NYcarbineer]

[ I saw a lot of people buying Duck Commander stuff and the Duck Dynasty was sitting on the shelves.

!

Right. lol. Unbelievable. Am I monopolizing the integrity around here? Is that why we get posts like the above?

Still waiting for the link to those statements you claimed Robertson made...

It was right in my other post, now quit trolling:

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

 

[WillReadmore]

The Defense of Marriage Act said that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. The Supreme Court stuck down part of DOMA, but let that part of the law stand. Until that is decided differently, the States are not breaking their Article IV duties. However, I do not understand how such a situation can be allowed to stand. I assume it will have to be looked at in the future.

Well, the SCOTUS wasn't asked to rule on Article IV. So, it's no surprise that they didn't.

Beyond that, yes it's strange that Article IV wouldn't apply in this case, especially knowing as we do that it DOES apply with inter-racial marriage.

I agree the states aren't breaking the law (DOMA). The problem is that the law itself is illegal.

They had the opportunity to strike down the whole law and, in my mind, should have to avoid the confusion that's inevitable when States don't have to give "full faith and credit".

and BTW, laws can't be illegal...they can only be ruled unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on cases as presented to them. It is not their job to rule on law in general. So, it's not surprising that they only ruled on the specific questions in the cases as presented.

They DID give some hints, though. The comments from the majority on Loving v. Virginia were a good indication that the Supremes see a role in determining whether state marriage law is acceptable. And, there are several Article IV cases working through the courts right now - and it seems likely that one side or the other will keep pushing until the Surpremes make a decision.

Of course you are right about laws being unconstitutional (v. illegal). Thanks.

 

[hunarcy]

did I mention you personally, or did you just feel drawn to that like a moth to the light?

Since my post was quoted, I assumed it was directed toward me. (I have begun to try to not even read the Self Feeding Troll's words in other's quotes.) If I was mistaken because I didn't read it's quote, I apologize.

I did not quote your post, but the way you pounced so quickly, you proved my point for me.

Seems to me that both sides are overheating over Mr. Duck Ducky, here.

The dude can say what he wants, I don't care. If he reaps more rewards, then that's this thing. If he has to take lumps for it, then that is also his thing.

But all this bullshit about "intolerance! from the left, when lefties that are boycotting are doing exactly the same thing that FRC or One Million Moms do when they want to make a point, is just ridiculous.

Moving on....

"Pounced"? I merely asked what I said indicated hate. Further, I have REPEATEDLY said that everyone has the right to boycott whatever they want, and only object to "researching" people to put them on a blacklist. I don't support that on either side.

Yeah, you probably should be moving on...you don't really seem to understand what's going on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Meanwhile, in Utah of all places, gay couples, in both the eyes of the law and God,

are getting married.

"Dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

...back in your kennel, Phil.

 

[hunarcy]

The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on cases as presented to them. It is not their job to rule on law in general. So, it's not surprising that they only ruled on the specific questions in the cases as presented.

They DID give some hints, though. The comments from the majority on Loving v. Virginia were a good indication that the Supremes see a role in determining whether state marriage law is acceptable. And, there are several Article IV cases working through the courts right now - and it seems likely that one side or the other will keep pushing until the Surpremes make a decision.

Of course you are right about laws being unconstitutional (v. illegal). Thanks.

No worries, glad to help. I hope the Article IV issues are cleared up soon. Nothing worse than uncertainty.

 

[WillReadmore]

Actually, laws can be deemed "illegal", if they violate human rights.

It's how we are enabled to prosecute war criminals and the like who create bad law to facilitate human rights violations.

Interesting situation.

That's a case that doesn't come under anybody's constitution. So, saying a law isn't constitutional makes no sense.

I haven't ever looked into how that works - I thought it was simply a matter of judging the actual acts vs. such standards as the Geneva Conventions (which have a section that is not restricted just to those who signed).

 

[koshergrl]

Meanwhile, in Utah of all places, gay couples, in both the eyes of the law and God,

and getting married.

"Dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

...back in your kennel, Phil.

In the eyes of..GOD?

Lolol...