The One Question Liberals REFUSE to answer

[JimBowie1958]

Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?

You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.

Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Like that white guy who killed 4 people while drunk driving and wasn't made to serve even a single day in prison?

 

[Moonglow]

Money has more influence in court than color....

 

[emilynghiem]

Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?

You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.

Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?

I will answer that as a liberal/progressive prochoice Democrat and Constitutionalist.

You and everyone has equality based on being equal citizens and human beings.
This is not based on race.

So if you are arguing you are discriminated against by X policy that is unconstitutional,
it is not because you are white you have this right, it is because that X policy is unconstitutional
so it is violating your rights to equal protection from discrimination.

This argument cannot be based on YOUR race, or it is discriminatory.
It is based on the discrimination in the POLICY that is biased by race.

You can be black, brown or purple and even if the policy does not affect you, and you SHOULD have standing to change the law (I prefer by petitioning not by suing which limits to legal
process that does not allow free speech, petition and redress of grievances) because
that law is wrongful and unconstitutional. Does this make sense?

Now in courts, there is a legal process that I find biased and unfair.
it requires the person suing to have standing in ways that justify bringing suit
by proving that person is affected.

I understand you don't want just anyone suing for no reason, just to argue.

But the proper way to hold such people accountable is to make them pay for the costs
if it turns out the law IS constitutional and is not causing harm to anyone, not just having
to prove it caused harm to them.

I believe any citizen should be able to petition that a law or policy is unconstitutional,
offer to correct the flaw where whoever has the beliefs in conflict agree to pay for their own
without imposing on others, and any cost incurred to the public by either the proceedings
or the consequences of that policy or its reformed version is also paid for by the people who agree to it,
so it doesn't impose on those who disagree and prefer to pay for another version or way.

I believe any citizen who is making a Constitutional argument to police govt
has standing as a taxpayer. The issue is whether the person takes responsibility
for that interpretation or is dumping the cost on others.

It is not based on race, but standing is based if you believe enough in
the views you are defending to accept responsibility for the costs of reform and consequences.

Jim, if you want a list of questions that liberal Democrats refuse to answer,
I can post some more on a separate reply. Thanks for asking, we need to push these questions in public!!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. some questions that Democrats/Liberals refuse to answer
A. how is the ACA system "prochoice" and keeping govt out of personal health care decisions if it imposes FEDERAL mandates UNLESS someone buys insurance as the "ONLY CHOICE" to pay for health care to avoid tax penalties

B. why is it okay to ban the CHOICE of reparative therapy as damaging or harmful but not okay to ban the CHOICE of abortion? Why makes reparative therapy so dangerous that it has to be banned and policed, but abortion is not?
If you only believe in banning it for teens, are you applying the same logic to both abortion and this contested therapy?

If the problem is you have no knowledge of other forms of therapy that are NOT abusive but HAVE helped people change their unwelcome sexual attractions, isn't that a similar argument that some forms of abortion are safe and not dangerous and shouldn't be banned because of the practices that are dangerous and abusive?

Why oppose bans/policing of the choice or practice of abortion, but push to regulate or eliminate the choice of or practice of reparative therapy?

C. if you don't trust corporations to act in the best interest of the people,
why do you trust party leaders and govt to use those resources and power?

If the same problem, with massive resources in the hands of a few who are hard to reach and check
directly to hold accountable to the people, clearly occurs in corporations as "large collective entities
with more resources and influence than a single individual"
Why can't this be understood to be the problem with govt?

If you trust govt is made of people and answers to the people,
why can't corporations be made of people who answer to the people?

If you forgive Democrat and liberal party leaders for problems with waste or abuse,
why not forgive corporations? if you hold corporations accountable for paying back
taxpayers for govt funds abused, why not hold Democrat party leaders and liberal politicians accountable?

D. If you believe in abolishing the death penalty, war, etc. because the billions wasted on that should be better invested in health care and education, and social programs to address solutions to crime, disease poverty etc. then why wasn't that pursued as the source of funding health care reforms?

Why wasn't there a push to hold the criminal justice system accountable for wasting
taxpayers money so this could fund health care facilities research and development?

Why this push to hold LAW abiding taxpayers to pay more, while losing freedom how to pay for health care,
and NOT holding criminals responsible who ARE the cause of racking up costs imposed on the public?

E. If you believe that health care is a right, if you believe in gay marriage, if you believe in
"going through govt" for these solutions as the ONLY way or the BEST way, even if others disagree and "believe in other ways or solutions that work for them."

Why is this treated any differently than a religious belief where people believe
going through Jesus is the ONLY way or the BEST way, while you believe there are "other ways" that are equal choices to be respected? And people should be TRUSTED with their choice to be under a religious affiliation or NOT!

Why "separate church and state" only when YOUR beliefs about others choices are infringed upon. Why isn't this recognized when OTHER people believe in "other ways" besides going through govt?

Why can't they separate church and state on that issue, and recognize it is
a BELIEF whether health care can be decided "freely by an individual without going through govt," the same way in religion people can do the right thing by "individual free choice without
depending on faith in God, Jesus, Christianity or the Bible to live their life responsibly."

Why this distrust that individuals "must be required by govt" to do the RIGHT THING with health care for ALL PEOPLE. When this is opposed if people push Jesus, God or the Bible as the ONLY WAY or the BEST/RIGHT way for ALL PEOPLE.

Isn't this equally a matter of faith? Why isn't that respected?

And if you argue that people are using govt anyway, "might as well" make it uniform official policy,Christians can argue everyone is connected through Jesus and God, so "might as well" recognize that as the one law for everyone since it already applies to us all anyway.

Why is one situation horrifying, but the other is considered naturally the right way anyway.
isn't that the same as when Christians see belief in Jesus and God as natural and not a religion but already the law for all people?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Like that white guy who killed 4 people while drunk driving and wasn't made to serve even a single day in prison?

How does that have a thing to do with the specific laws I referred to?

lol, thank God you libtards are so freaking stupid.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Money has more influence in court than color....

True, but that does not change the fact that white people do not have equal standing in our courts of law.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Money has more influence in court than color....

Absolutely right.

 

[Moonglow]

Money has more influence in court than color....

True, but that does not change the fact that white people do not have equal standing in our courts of law.

I seem to get treated the same as those without connections or influence...

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Money has more influence in court than color....

True, but that does not change the fact that white people do not have equal standing in our courts of law.

That's the stupidest thing I think I've read on here in the two years I've been posting. Absolutely the stupidest. Take your fear and loathing and bigotry to your KKK buddies, I'm sure they'll listen.

 

[shart_attack]

Who stained your shorts?

For some reason, they don't like to answer when I ask them that question, either.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do white people have a Constitutional right to equal standing in a court of law?

You may think we do, but the FACT is that we DO NOT have equal standing in a court of law.

Affirmative Action laws, racial set aside laws, college and university quota systems they now call goals, the presumption of innocence like when Zimmerman got charged for a crime after due process left him uncharged until racist provocateurs got involved, and now we have the GOVENOR of the STATE OF MISSOURI calling for the indictment of a white police officer for shooting a black criminal in self defense and the whole controversy initiated by racist provocateurs. The legal system now takes race into account AGAINST whites and we no longer have equal standing in our own courts, and it has been getting worse over the last four decades.

Why aren't whites given equal standing in our courts of law? Don't we have the Constitutional right to equal standing?

I will answer that as a liberal/progressive prochoice Democrat and Constitutionalist.

You and everyone has equality based on being equal citizens and human beings.
This is not based on race.

Agreed, but I don't think I am arguing that. I am saying that our standing before the law should be race neutral and no laws or policies in our courts should take race into effect unless the crime considered is specific to race.

If student A has higher grades than 50 other students and they all got jobs and she did not despite being more qualified, having more experience and having better grades, does it really matter if she is black or white? Our laws say if the is a minority she has standing but not if she is white, due in part to the 'reasonable minority' rule, which gives minorities trump over lawsuits in court..

So if you are arguing you are discriminated against by X policy that is unconstitutional,
it is not because you are white you have this right, it is because that X policy is unconstitutional
so it is violating your rights to equal protection from discrimination.

Agree.

This argument cannot be based on YOUR race, or it is discriminatory.
It is based on the discrimination in the POLICY that is biased by race.

You can be black, brown or purple and even if the policy does not affect you, and you SHOULD have standing to change the law (I prefer by petitioning not by suing which limits to legal
process that does not allow free speech, petition and redress of grievances) because
that law is wrongful and unconstitutional. Does this make sense?

So far, but I could be completely miscomprehending you here and thinking I do. We are crossing legal jargon lines.

Now in courts, there is a legal process that I find biased and unfair.
it requires the person suing to have standing in ways that justify bringing suit
by proving that person is affected.

I understand you don't want just anyone suing for no reason, just to argue.

But the proper way to hold such people accountable is to make them pay for the costs
if it turns out the law IS constitutional and is not causing harm to anyone, not just having
to prove it caused harm to them.

I believe any citizen should be able to petition that a law or policy is unconstitutional,
offer to correct the flaw where whoever has the beliefs in conflict agree to pay for their own
without imposing on others, and any cost incurred to the public by either the proceedings
or the consequences of that policy or its reformed version is also paid for by the people who agree to it,
so it doesn't impose on those who disagree and prefer to pay for another version or way.

I believe any citizen who is making a Constitutional argument to police govt
has standing as a taxpayer. The issue is whether the person takes responsibility
for that interpretation or is dumping the cost on others.

It is not based on race, but standing is based if you believe enough in
the views you are defending to accept responsibility for the costs of reform and consequences.

I totally agree, and thank you for answering my question.

No, do you believe the AA policies, and racial set aside laws, etc are then constitutional if they do not give whites equal standing?

Jim, if you want a list of questions that liberal Democrats refuse to answer,
I can post some more on a separate reply. Thanks for asking, we need to push these questions in public!!!!

That would be interesting, please do.

 

[rdean]

Money has more influence in court than color....

Absolutely, look at OJ.

Families of victims killed by drunk teen upset he got probation - Dallas News myFOXdfw.com

 

[JimBowie1958]

Money has more influence in court than color....

True, but that does not change the fact that white people do not have equal standing in our courts of law.

That's the stupidest thing I think I've read on here in the two years I've been posting. Absolutely the stupidest. Take your fear and loathing and bigotry to your KKK buddies, I'm sure they'll listen.

Lol, would it shock you to learn that most white people are not wealthy?

Therefore to say the courts have more sensitivity to wealth does not equate to 'they therefore have more sensitivity to white people.'

BTW, I think it is plain who the idiot is here, and whats more, I don't care what you try to think beyond mocking your stupid responses.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Who stained your shorts?

For some reason, they don't like to answer when I ask them that question, either.

Other than Emily no liberals and very few conservatives ever answer that question.

Wonder why?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Money has more influence in court than color....

True, but that does not change the fact that white people do not have equal standing in our courts of law.

I seem to get treated the same as those without connections or influence...

Maybe that is because you are a NOBODY...as I am as well.

 

[JimBowie1958]

P.S. some questions that Democrats/Liberals refuse to answer
A. how is the ACA system "prochoice" and keeping govt out of personal health care decisions if it imposes FEDERAL mandates UNLESS someone buys insurance as the "ONLY CHOICE" to pay for health care to avoid tax penalties

B. why is it okay to ban the CHOICE of reparative therapy as damaging or harmful but not okay to ban the CHOICE of abortion? Why makes reparative therapy so dangerous that it has to be banned and policed, but abortion is not?
If you only believe in banning it for teens, are you applying the same logic to both abortion and this contested therapy?

If the problem is you have no knowledge of other forms of therapy that are NOT abusive but HAVE helped people change their unwelcome sexual attractions, isn't that a similar argument that some forms of abortion are safe and not dangerous and shouldn't be banned because of the practices that are dangerous and abusive?

Why oppose bans/policing of the choice or practice of abortion, but push to regulate or eliminate the choice of or practice of reparative therapy?

C. if you don't trust corporations to act in the best interest of the people,
why do you trust party leaders and govt to use those resources and power?

If the same problem, with massive resources in the hands of a few who are hard to reach and check
directly to hold accountable to the people, clearly occurs in corporations as "large collective entities
with more resources and influence than a single individual"
Why can't this be understood to be the problem with govt?

If you trust govt is made of people and answers to the people,
why can't corporations be made of people who answer to the people?

If you forgive Democrat and liberal party leaders for problems with waste or abuse,
why not forgive corporations? if you hold corporations accountable for paying back
taxpayers for govt funds abused, why not hold Democrat party leaders and liberal politicians accountable?

D. If you believe in abolishing the death penalty, war, etc. because the billions wasted on that should be better invested in health care and education, and social programs to address solutions to crime, disease poverty etc. then why wasn't that pursued as the source of funding health care reforms?

Why wasn't there a push to hold the criminal justice system accountable for wasting
taxpayers money so this could fund health care facilities research and development?

Why this push to hold LAW abiding taxpayers to pay more, while losing freedom how to pay for health care,
and NOT holding criminals responsible who ARE the cause of racking up costs imposed on the public?

E. If you believe that health care is a right, if you believe in gay marriage, if you believe in
"going through govt" for these solutions as the ONLY way or the BEST way, even if others disagree and "believe in other ways or solutions that work for them."

Why is this treated any differently than a religious belief where people believe
going through Jesus is the ONLY way or the BEST way, while you believe there are "other ways" that are equal choices to be respected? And people should be TRUSTED with their choice to be under a religious affiliation or NOT!

Why "separate church and state" only when YOUR beliefs about others choices are infringed upon. Why isn't this recognized when OTHER people believe in "other ways" besides going through govt?

Why can't they separate church and state on that issue, and recognize it is
a BELIEF whether health care can be decided "freely by an individual without going through govt," the same way in religion people can do the right thing by "individual free choice without
depending on faith in God, Jesus, Christianity or the Bible to live their life responsibly."

Why this distrust that individuals "must be required by govt" to do the RIGHT THING with health care for ALL PEOPLE. When this is opposed if people push Jesus, God or the Bible as the ONLY WAY or the BEST/RIGHT way for ALL PEOPLE.

Isn't this equally a matter of faith? Why isn't that respected?

And if you argue that people are using govt anyway, "might as well" make it uniform official policy,Christians can argue everyone is connected through Jesus and God, so "might as well" recognize that as the one law for everyone since it already applies to us all anyway.

Why is one situation horrifying, but the other is considered naturally the right way anyway.
isn't that the same as when Christians see belief in Jesus and God as natural and not a religion but already the law for all people?

Good questions; do you mind if I repost them?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Money has more influence in court than color....

True, but that does not change the fact that white people do not have equal standing in our courts of law.

That's the stupidest thing I think I've read on here in the two years I've been posting. Absolutely the stupidest. Take your fear and loathing and bigotry to your KKK buddies, I'm sure they'll listen.

Lol, would it shock you to learn that most white people are not wealthy?

Therefore to say the courts have more sensitivity to wealth does not equate to 'they therefore have more sensitivity to white people.'

BTW, I think it is plain who the idiot is here, and whats more, I don't care what you try to think beyond mocking your stupid responses.

I suggest you test your theory and attend as many civil and criminal hearings and trials as possible and see who the attorneys are and who wins and who loses.

Do some research instead of yakking. Money talks while you squawk.

And this Emily person here needs a Xanax.

 

[JimBowie1958]

P.S. some questions that Democrats/Liberals refuse to answer
A. how is the ACA system "prochoice" and keeping govt out of personal health care decisions if it imposes FEDERAL mandates UNLESS someone buys insurance as the "ONLY CHOICE" to pay for health care to avoid tax penalties

B. why is it okay to ban the CHOICE of reparative therapy as damaging or harmful but not okay to ban the CHOICE of abortion? Why makes reparative therapy so dangerous that it has to be banned and policed, but abortion is not?
If you only believe in banning it for teens, are you applying the same logic to both abortion and this contested therapy?

If the problem is you have no knowledge of other forms of therapy that are NOT abusive but HAVE helped people change their unwelcome sexual attractions, isn't that a similar argument that some forms of abortion are safe and not dangerous and shouldn't be banned because of the practices that are dangerous and abusive?

Why oppose bans/policing of the choice or practice of abortion, but push to regulate or eliminate the choice of or practice of reparative therapy?

C. if you don't trust corporations to act in the best interest of the people,
why do you trust party leaders and govt to use those resources and power?

If the same problem, with massive resources in the hands of a few who are hard to reach and check
directly to hold accountable to the people, clearly occurs in corporations as "large collective entities
with more resources and influence than a single individual"
Why can't this be understood to be the problem with govt?

If you trust govt is made of people and answers to the people,
why can't corporations be made of people who answer to the people?

If you forgive Democrat and liberal party leaders for problems with waste or abuse,
why not forgive corporations? if you hold corporations accountable for paying back
taxpayers for govt funds abused, why not hold Democrat party leaders and liberal politicians accountable?

D. If you believe in abolishing the death penalty, war, etc. because the billions wasted on that should be better invested in health care and education, and social programs to address solutions to crime, disease poverty etc. then why wasn't that pursued as the source of funding health care reforms?

Why wasn't there a push to hold the criminal justice system accountable for wasting
taxpayers money so this could fund health care facilities research and development?

Why this push to hold LAW abiding taxpayers to pay more, while losing freedom how to pay for health care,
and NOT holding criminals responsible who ARE the cause of racking up costs imposed on the public?

E. If you believe that health care is a right, if you believe in gay marriage, if you believe in
"going through govt" for these solutions as the ONLY way or the BEST way, even if others disagree and "believe in other ways or solutions that work for them."

Why is this treated any differently than a religious belief where people believe
going through Jesus is the ONLY way or the BEST way, while you believe there are "other ways" that are equal choices to be respected? And people should be TRUSTED with their choice to be under a religious affiliation or NOT!

Why "separate church and state" only when YOUR beliefs about others choices are infringed upon. Why isn't this recognized when OTHER people believe in "other ways" besides going through govt?

Why can't they separate church and state on that issue, and recognize it is
a BELIEF whether health care can be decided "freely by an individual without going through govt," the same way in religion people can do the right thing by "individual free choice without
depending on faith in God, Jesus, Christianity or the Bible to live their life responsibly."

Why this distrust that individuals "must be required by govt" to do the RIGHT THING with health care for ALL PEOPLE. When this is opposed if people push Jesus, God or the Bible as the ONLY WAY or the BEST/RIGHT way for ALL PEOPLE.

Isn't this equally a matter of faith? Why isn't that respected?

And if you argue that people are using govt anyway, "might as well" make it uniform official policy,Christians can argue everyone is connected through Jesus and God, so "might as well" recognize that as the one law for everyone since it already applies to us all anyway.

Why is one situation horrifying, but the other is considered naturally the right way anyway.
isn't that the same as when Christians see belief in Jesus and God as natural and not a religion but already the law for all people?

Money has more influence in court than color....

True, but that does not change the fact that white people do not have equal standing in our courts of law.

That's the stupidest thing I think I've read on here in the two years I've been posting. Absolutely the stupidest. Take your fear and loathing and bigotry to your KKK buddies, I'm sure they'll listen.

Lol, would it shock you to learn that most white people are not wealthy?

Therefore to say the courts have more sensitivity to wealth does not equate to 'they therefore have more sensitivity to white people.'

BTW, I think it is plain who the idiot is here, and whats more, I don't care what you try to think beyond mocking your stupid responses.

I suggest you test your theory and attend as many civil and criminal hearings and trials as possible and see who the attorneys are and who wins and who loses.

Do some research instead of yakking. Money talks while you squawk.

Actually, I just might do that. It will take years of research, and I will have to find some way of claiming standing, but I have plenty of time, and I learn fast.

 

[Moonglow]

Money has more influence in court than color....

True, but that does not change the fact that white people do not have equal standing in our courts of law.

I seem to get treated the same as those without connections or influence...

Maybe that is because you are a NOBODY...as I am as well.

Misery loves company...There is no sweeter sound than the crumbling of one's fellow man.