It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[martybegan]

I said it would be almost impossible in my State.

And in the 50s, it looked almost impossible to legalize homosexuality...but we did it....in the 60s it looked almost impossible to have legalized gay adoption...but we did it...in the 70s it looked almost impossible to have legalized gay marriage...but we did it.

It's called determination, presistence and effort over the long term.

All except for the last one you did the right way. And I don't recall gay marriage being an issue until the 90's.

Odd...we did all the same way, thru the courts....why would 2 successes thru the court be "the right way" and one success thru the courts NOT "be the right way?....and gay marriage wasn't an issue until the 90s because we were smart enough and persistent enough to go one small step at a time.

Because criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong, and legalizing doesn't impact others in any meaningful way. Because when it comes to adoption, I say the more the merrier.

However gay marriage was changing an existing contract that never even considered the concept prior to the 1990's. The proper way would have been to petition state legislatures to change the laws, while going to court to force full faith and credit on any issued marriage license from another State.

And who determined that criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong...the courts did. And who determined that gay adoption was ok...the courts did. Just like the courts determined that gay marriage was also ok.

The only difference is your opinion on the decisions.

No shit, really? I never would have figured it out, just like it is only your opinion that the court was right in all of these cases as opposed to 2 out of 3.

 

[bodecea]

And in the 50s, it looked almost impossible to legalize homosexuality...but we did it....in the 60s it looked almost impossible to have legalized gay adoption...but we did it...in the 70s it looked almost impossible to have legalized gay marriage...but we did it.

It's called determination, presistence and effort over the long term.

All except for the last one you did the right way. And I don't recall gay marriage being an issue until the 90's.

Odd...we did all the same way, thru the courts....why would 2 successes thru the court be "the right way" and one success thru the courts NOT "be the right way?....and gay marriage wasn't an issue until the 90s because we were smart enough and persistent enough to go one small step at a time.

Because criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong, and legalizing doesn't impact others in any meaningful way. Because when it comes to adoption, I say the more the merrier.

However gay marriage was changing an existing contract that never even considered the concept prior to the 1990's. The proper way would have been to petition state legislatures to change the laws, while going to court to force full faith and credit on any issued marriage license from another State.

And who determined that criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong...the courts did. And who determined that gay adoption was ok...the courts did. Just like the courts determined that gay marriage was also ok.

The only difference is your opinion on the decisions.

No shit, really? I never would have figured it out, just like it is only your opinion that the court was right in all of these cases as opposed to 2 out of 3.

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

 

[martybegan]

All except for the last one you did the right way. And I don't recall gay marriage being an issue until the 90's.

Odd...we did all the same way, thru the courts....why would 2 successes thru the court be "the right way" and one success thru the courts NOT "be the right way?....and gay marriage wasn't an issue until the 90s because we were smart enough and persistent enough to go one small step at a time.

Because criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong, and legalizing doesn't impact others in any meaningful way. Because when it comes to adoption, I say the more the merrier.

However gay marriage was changing an existing contract that never even considered the concept prior to the 1990's. The proper way would have been to petition state legislatures to change the laws, while going to court to force full faith and credit on any issued marriage license from another State.

And who determined that criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong...the courts did. And who determined that gay adoption was ok...the courts did. Just like the courts determined that gay marriage was also ok.

The only difference is your opinion on the decisions.

No shit, really? I never would have figured it out, just like it is only your opinion that the court was right in all of these cases as opposed to 2 out of 3.

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

 

[elektra]

I said it would be almost impossible in my State.

And in the 50s, it looked almost impossible to legalize homosexuality...but we did it....in the 60s it looked almost impossible to have legalized gay adoption...but we did it...in the 70s it looked almost impossible to have legalized gay marriage...but we did it.

It's called determination, presistence and effort over the long term.

All except for the last one you did the right way. And I don't recall gay marriage being an issue until the 90's.

Odd...we did all the same way, thru the courts....why would 2 successes thru the court be "the right way" and one success thru the courts NOT "be the right way?....and gay marriage wasn't an issue until the 90s because we were smart enough and persistent enough to go one small step at a time.

Because criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong, and legalizing doesn't impact others in any meaningful way. Because when it comes to adoption, I say the more the merrier.

However gay marriage was changing an existing contract that never even considered the concept prior to the 1990's. The proper way would have been to petition state legislatures to change the laws, while going to court to force full faith and credit on any issued marriage license from another State.

And who determined that criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong...the courts did. And who determined that gay adoption was ok...the courts did. Just like the courts determined that gay marriage was also ok.

The only difference is your opinion on the decisions.

And who made blacks sit in the back of the bus, the courts did. They can be wrong, and were, and are, the only difference is, wait there is no difference demicrats are in charge again

 

[bodecea]

And in the 50s, it looked almost impossible to legalize homosexuality...but we did it....in the 60s it looked almost impossible to have legalized gay adoption...but we did it...in the 70s it looked almost impossible to have legalized gay marriage...but we did it.

It's called determination, presistence and effort over the long term.

All except for the last one you did the right way. And I don't recall gay marriage being an issue until the 90's.

Odd...we did all the same way, thru the courts....why would 2 successes thru the court be "the right way" and one success thru the courts NOT "be the right way?....and gay marriage wasn't an issue until the 90s because we were smart enough and persistent enough to go one small step at a time.

Because criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong, and legalizing doesn't impact others in any meaningful way. Because when it comes to adoption, I say the more the merrier.

However gay marriage was changing an existing contract that never even considered the concept prior to the 1990's. The proper way would have been to petition state legislatures to change the laws, while going to court to force full faith and credit on any issued marriage license from another State.

And who determined that criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong...the courts did. And who determined that gay adoption was ok...the courts did. Just like the courts determined that gay marriage was also ok.

The only difference is your opinion on the decisions.

And who made blacks sit in the back of the bus, the courts did. They can be wrong, and were, and are, the only difference is, wait there is no difference demicrats are in charge again

Not true at all...the Legislature did, with their Jim Crow laws. It was the courts and direct action by such groups as the NAACP that made the Legislatures back down with such laws.

You have some serious gaps in your history knowledge.

 

[bodecea]

Odd...we did all the same way, thru the courts....why would 2 successes thru the court be "the right way" and one success thru the courts NOT "be the right way?....and gay marriage wasn't an issue until the 90s because we were smart enough and persistent enough to go one small step at a time.

Because criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong, and legalizing doesn't impact others in any meaningful way. Because when it comes to adoption, I say the more the merrier.

However gay marriage was changing an existing contract that never even considered the concept prior to the 1990's. The proper way would have been to petition state legislatures to change the laws, while going to court to force full faith and credit on any issued marriage license from another State.

And who determined that criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong...the courts did. And who determined that gay adoption was ok...the courts did. Just like the courts determined that gay marriage was also ok.

The only difference is your opinion on the decisions.

No shit, really? I never would have figured it out, just like it is only your opinion that the court was right in all of these cases as opposed to 2 out of 3.

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

 

[martybegan]

Because criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong, and legalizing doesn't impact others in any meaningful way. Because when it comes to adoption, I say the more the merrier.

However gay marriage was changing an existing contract that never even considered the concept prior to the 1990's. The proper way would have been to petition state legislatures to change the laws, while going to court to force full faith and credit on any issued marriage license from another State.

And who determined that criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong...the courts did. And who determined that gay adoption was ok...the courts did. Just like the courts determined that gay marriage was also ok.

The only difference is your opinion on the decisions.

No shit, really? I never would have figured it out, just like it is only your opinion that the court was right in all of these cases as opposed to 2 out of 3.

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

 

[bodecea]

And who determined that criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong...the courts did. And who determined that gay adoption was ok...the courts did. Just like the courts determined that gay marriage was also ok.

The only difference is your opinion on the decisions.

No shit, really? I never would have figured it out, just like it is only your opinion that the court was right in all of these cases as opposed to 2 out of 3.

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

Have you ever read a Supreme Court decision? It's a bit more than "neener neener"....they are always based on Constitutional law, Amendment law, precedent and STATES AS SUCH. But...let's see your Constitutional basis for your opinion on the issue of gay marriage.

 

[elektra]

All except for the last one you did the right way. And I don't recall gay marriage being an issue until the 90's.

Odd...we did all the same way, thru the courts....why would 2 successes thru the court be "the right way" and one success thru the courts NOT "be the right way?....and gay marriage wasn't an issue until the 90s because we were smart enough and persistent enough to go one small step at a time.

Because criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong, and legalizing doesn't impact others in any meaningful way. Because when it comes to adoption, I say the more the merrier.

However gay marriage was changing an existing contract that never even considered the concept prior to the 1990's. The proper way would have been to petition state legislatures to change the laws, while going to court to force full faith and credit on any issued marriage license from another State.

And who determined that criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong...the courts did. And who determined that gay adoption was ok...the courts did. Just like the courts determined that gay marriage was also ok.

The only difference is your opinion on the decisions.

And who made blacks sit in the back of the bus, the courts did. They can be wrong, and were, and are, the only difference is, wait there is no difference demicrats are in charge again

Not true at all...the Legislature did, with their Jim Crow laws. It was the courts and direct action by such groups as the NAACP that made the Legislatures back down with such laws.

You have some serious gaps in your history knowledge.

I dont know history? Who was that in the picture I posted? Not FDR as you thought

 

[bodecea]

Odd...we did all the same way, thru the courts....why would 2 successes thru the court be "the right way" and one success thru the courts NOT "be the right way?....and gay marriage wasn't an issue until the 90s because we were smart enough and persistent enough to go one small step at a time.

Because criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong, and legalizing doesn't impact others in any meaningful way. Because when it comes to adoption, I say the more the merrier.

However gay marriage was changing an existing contract that never even considered the concept prior to the 1990's. The proper way would have been to petition state legislatures to change the laws, while going to court to force full faith and credit on any issued marriage license from another State.

And who determined that criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong...the courts did. And who determined that gay adoption was ok...the courts did. Just like the courts determined that gay marriage was also ok.

The only difference is your opinion on the decisions.

And who made blacks sit in the back of the bus, the courts did. They can be wrong, and were, and are, the only difference is, wait there is no difference demicrats are in charge again

Not true at all...the Legislature did, with their Jim Crow laws. It was the courts and direct action by such groups as the NAACP that made the Legislatures back down with such laws.

You have some serious gaps in your history knowledge.

I dont know history? Who was that in the picture I posted? Not FDR as you thought

I never said that was FDR...it isn't even an American...It's Neville Chamberlain. So...if you want to talk about the history of the GOP supporting Hitler....why would you go to a pic of Chamberlain and Hitler. Very odd......and not very thought out on your part.

 

[Syriusly]

And Communist China calls themselves the People's Republic of China.....I guess you believe they are a Republic, eh?

Actually, we call it that, the Chinese call it Zhongguo, like middle country, as in the middle of the world.

And you think the NAZI's identified themselves in English?

Zhonggquo is the short name

The Chinese call their country

中华人民共和国
Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo

Which translates to
People's Republic of China (the)

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/...P54_UNGEGN WG Country Names Document 2011.pdf

Apparently China is a Republic- by and for its people- because if the country calls itself something, it must be that......LOL....

Oh and Cuba is the Republic of Cuba.....just like the Republic of Italy....

But according to countries names there are only 2 socialist countries in the world- and no communist countries.....lol

 

[Seawytch]

They really do. They think that they're going to start killing cops and soliders in the name of the revolution......and their neighbors watching them ambush and murder law enforcement officers are going to run into their homes, grab their guns, and join them.

The reality would be more like this: the very cops that our would be revolutionaries were trying to kill at sunrise would be the very people that the same wannabes would be begging for protection by sunset. Protection from who? Why protection from the rest of us. The very well armed and organized majority that wouldn't put up with the cop and soldier killing ways of the wanna-bes. And would be making culling them for most of the day and into the night.

Thankfully the militia masterbators are protected by one overriding fact: they aren't wiling to bleed. And in a war you've got to do exactly that. When pressed its always an excuse why its someone else's responsibility to actual fight and die for their revolution. They cosplay, they crack one off the the latest issue of Gunz n' Ammo, they make vague threats anonymously and online.

But when their own 'militia' puts out the 'call' to start the revolution? No one shows up.

So what you are saying is there is never ever a reason to actively resist government, ever.

So you plan on being a good little lemming if, god forbid a tyrannical US government takes hold?

You got that out of his post? Where? Where in his post did he say that there is never any reason to resist government ever? Point out exactly which line in the post you responded to gave you that idea.

All the talk about the futility of it leads me to thing that Skylar would go marching into the camps with a smile on her face.

So there was nothing. You made it up out of whole cloth. Already knew that, thanks.

I'm deducing it from what was written, not making it up. Way to avoid the actual question though.

And yet nobody but you got that out of what Syrius said.

Of course there is always a possibility for a reason to resist government...there just isn't one now.

 

[koshergrl]

You're an idiot. Unanimous support from law enforcement and the military for a rightwing extremist insurrection?

You're dumber than I thought you were, and I didn't think that was possible.

Why would they need unanimous support? Even if 1/4 of them sided with the "rebels" in this hypothetical scenario, then the government would have a hell of a time re-establishing control.

Only three percent of the population was needed to kick of the Revolutionary War.

To kick it off, yes, but at that point everyone else had to start making choices, and patriot support increased rapidly.

Total fucking bullshit. You really think that the sane citizens of this nation are going to follow a bunch of fruitloops like you? We had a good example of your kind of thinking just this year here in Oregon. And you fellows insanity was completely rejected.

Oregon wasn't the coming of the revolution, it was a local dispute blown up into a national story due to the federal nature of the place taken over, and the guys relation to a previous incident of armed confrontation.

If the number of people with grievances increases, and these people feel that normal channels will not work to resolve said grievances, what do you think will happen?

No, this isn't true at all. This isn't a local dispute, it's a national dispute and it's been going on for a hundred years. Normal channels do NOT work, because the parties involved are a minority, and located far away from where the majority lives.

California, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon...they have all been fighting this nonsense, and losing. Because the system is corrupt, because our legislators and our law enforcement do NOT uphold the constitution, and because people stupidly believe that the government in all it's forms..the EPA, the BLM, the USFS, has good intentions.

There are no good intentions here. The government is by its nature tyrannical. Our constitution is supposed to control it in this country, but since NOBODY is adhering to the constitution and in fact our citizenry is no longer even properly educated in their role in a CONSTITUTIONAL republic (because the feds educate them) and people are sick of it. Harney county went from being one of the most prosperous and wealthy counties in the STATE to being I think the second from the bottom just in the last 50 years..and because of NOTHING except governmental manipulation.

 

[Syriusly]

And who determined that criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong...the courts did. And who determined that gay adoption was ok...the courts did. Just like the courts determined that gay marriage was also ok.

The only difference is your opinion on the decisions.

No shit, really? I never would have figured it out, just like it is only your opinion that the court was right in all of these cases as opposed to 2 out of 3.

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

 

[bodecea]

And Communist China calls themselves the People's Republic of China.....I guess you believe they are a Republic, eh?

Actually, we call it that, the Chinese call it Zhongguo, like middle country, as in the middle of the world.

And you think the NAZI's identified themselves in English?

Zhonggquo is the short name

The Chinese call their country

中华人民共和国
Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo

Which translates to
People's Republic of China (the)

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEGN WG Country Names Document 2011.pdf

Apparently China is a Republic- by and for its people- because if the country calls itself something, it must be that......LOL....

Oh and Cuba is the Republic of Cuba.....just like the Republic of Italy....

But according to countries names there are only 2 socialist countries in the world- and no communist countries.....lol

I wonder how many factually wrong historical posts Elektra can make in a row.

 

[bodecea]

No shit, really? I never would have figured it out, just like it is only your opinion that the court was right in all of these cases as opposed to 2 out of 3.

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

And the 16th Amendment.....and even change an Amendment by repealing it like they did the 18th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

Why would they need unanimous support? Even if 1/4 of them sided with the "rebels" in this hypothetical scenario, then the government would have a hell of a time re-establishing control.

Only three percent of the population was needed to kick of the Revolutionary War.

To kick it off, yes, but at that point everyone else had to start making choices, and patriot support increased rapidly.

Total fucking bullshit. You really think that the sane citizens of this nation are going to follow a bunch of fruitloops like you? We had a good example of your kind of thinking just this year here in Oregon. And you fellows insanity was completely rejected.

Oregon wasn't the coming of the revolution, it was a local dispute blown up into a national story due to the federal nature of the place taken over, and the guys relation to a previous incident of armed confrontation.

If the number of people with grievances increases, and these people feel that normal channels will not work to resolve said grievances, what do you think will happen?

No, this isn't true at all. This isn't a local dispute, it's a national dispute and it's been going on for a hundred years. Normal channels do NOT work, because the parties involved are a minority, and located far away from where the majority lives.

California, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon...they have all been fighting this nonsense, and losing. Because the system is corrupt, because our legislators and our law enforcement do NOT uphold the constitution, and because people stupidly believe that the government in all it's forms..the EPA, the BLM, the USFS, has good intentions.

There are no good intentions here. The government is by its nature tyrannical. Our constitution is supposed to control it in this country, but since NOBODY is adhering to the constitution and in fact our citizenry is no longer even properly educated in their role in a CONSTITUTIONAL republic (because the feds educate them) and people are sick of it. Harney county went from being one of the most prosperous and wealthy counties in the STATE to being I think the second from the bottom just in the last 50 years..and because of NOTHING except governmental manipulation.

Says you.

Citing you.

And you reflect the sentiments of a very, very small minority of malcontents.

Compared to the sentiments of farmers in the United States towards the government in the 1930's, your foot stamping is entirely insignificant.

 

[Syriusly]

And Communist China calls themselves the People's Republic of China.....I guess you believe they are a Republic, eh?

Actually, we call it that, the Chinese call it Zhongguo, like middle country, as in the middle of the world.

And you think the NAZI's identified themselves in English?

Zhonggquo is the short name

The Chinese call their country

中华人民共和国
Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo

Which translates to
People's Republic of China (the)

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEGN WG Country Names Document 2011.pdf

Apparently China is a Republic- by and for its people- because if the country calls itself something, it must be that......LOL....

Oh and Cuba is the Republic of Cuba.....just like the Republic of Italy....

But according to countries names there are only 2 socialist countries in the world- and no communist countries.....lol

I wonder how many factually wrong historical posts Elektra can make in a row.

From past experience that is limited only by her attention span.

 

[bodecea]

And Communist China calls themselves the People's Republic of China.....I guess you believe they are a Republic, eh?

Actually, we call it that, the Chinese call it Zhongguo, like middle country, as in the middle of the world.

And you think the NAZI's identified themselves in English?

Zhonggquo is the short name

The Chinese call their country

中华人民共和国
Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo

Which translates to
People's Republic of China (the)

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEGN WG Country Names Document 2011.pdf

Apparently China is a Republic- by and for its people- because if the country calls itself something, it must be that......LOL....

Oh and Cuba is the Republic of Cuba.....just like the Republic of Italy....

But according to countries names there are only 2 socialist countries in the world- and no communist countries.....lol

I wonder how many factually wrong historical posts Elektra can make in a row.

From past experience that is limited only by her attention span.

Or when she starts personal attacks of a TOS breaking nature.

 

[Syriusly]

"All the talk about the futility of it..." Aren't you the one who said it was futile to try to change the PA laws in your state?

I said it would be almost impossible in my State.

And in the 50s, it looked almost impossible to legalize homosexuality...but we did it....in the 60s it looked almost impossible to have legalized gay adoption...but we did it...in the 70s it looked almost impossible to have legalized gay marriage...but we did it.

It's called determination, presistence and effort over the long term.

All except for the last one you did the right way. And I don't recall gay marriage being an issue until the 90's.

Odd...we did all the same way, thru the courts....why would 2 successes thru the court be "the right way" and one success thru the courts NOT "be the right way?....and gay marriage wasn't an issue until the 90s because we were smart enough and persistent enough to go one small step at a time.

Because criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong, .

Yet- the GOP still supports criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults.

Only the courts have made it clear that consensual sexual content is not something that Conservatives can outlaw according to the Constitution.

Don't believe me?

Louisiana GOP defeated attempts to reverse its unconstitutional anti-sodomy laws- because of Christian Conservatives.

Louisiana House votes 27-67 to keep unconstitutional anti-sodomy law on the books

A House Committee passed the legislation onto the body's floor by a vote of 9-6 last week. But one of the state's most powerful lobbying groups, the conservative Christian Louisiana Family Forum, opposes striking the sodomy ban.
The group sent out a letter to every legislator urging them to vote against the proposal, claiming that teenagers would be less protected from sexual predators if they went through with the repeal. They also said the bill would put the public health at risk.
"Louisiana's anti-sodomy statute is consistent with the values of Louisiana residents who consider this behavior to be dangerous, unhealthy and immoral," stated the letter to lawmakers from the Louisiana Family Forum.
During a floor discussion of the bill, the legislation's sponsor, Rep. Patricia Haynes Smith, pushed back on the Family Forum's assertions. The bill only seeks to repeal a statute that is already unconstitutional, she said.
"I never thought it would pass, but I thought it would do better," said Smith. "Some of the folks who voted to get it out of committee voted against it on the floor."