Loading
Recently Submitted News
Killa from Wasilla ROCKS on Dennis Miller
Reaganite - Great interview of the Arctic Fox on the Dennis Miller Show today- all conservatives really need to...
4 commentsSpecial counsel to investigate ACORN
Breitbart's BigGovernment - It will be smashed like the Black Panthers voter case "The NEW America
Obama to the Troops:You guys make a pretty good photo opt'.
Washington Post - It's all about the show.
SEIU leader who threatened Boy Scout quits
Michelle Malkin - SEIU SUCKS
Obama accused of doing favors for ally
The Hill - He's from Chicago and a Community organizer. Any questions?
How ACORN Profits from New York’s Eminent Domain Abuse
Breitbart's BigGovernment - Last month, New York’s highest court heard oral arguments in the case of Goldstein v.
- 29 Comments
- Add a comment
Show Newest to Oldest
Show Oldest to Newest
scot 1 year ago
Reply to bco2rgr
Well then they need to get rid of every affirmative action program, every housing program and any ot … Show full comment
Well then they need to get rid of every affirmative action program, every housing program and any ot … Show full comment
Basically, my argument is for legal equality, period. No special treatment, but such a task will not happen over night and small battles have to be won, one at a time. It is best to lessen the inequality rather than to add to it though.
I believe the US is at a stage where it can governmentally respect equality, in various fashions whether they be race, creed, sexual orientation, or otherwise. But it will take time to move piece by piece.
scot 1 year ago
Reply to bco2rgr
Well then they need to get rid of every affirmative action program, every housing program and any ot … Show full comment
Well then they need to get rid of every affirmative action program, every housing program and any ot … Show full comment
There is no 'best to come up with'. It is simple when you read the law, equality is to be guaranteed.
I agree.. programs based on race, creed and so forth should not be administered on those merits, not be the government. The government should not pick and choose. It should treat people as equals, period.
The private and non-profit sectors can specify and tailor, and they do, and they have far higher success rates at that.
bco2rgr (Republican) - 1 year ago
Reply to scot
Yes... prop 8 says man and woman = marriage and that is discriminatory, it removes equality. It d … Show full comment
Yes... prop 8 says man and woman = marriage and that is discriminatory, it removes equality. It d … Show full comment
Well then they need to get rid of every affirmative action program, every housing program and any other program that bases it decisions on race, creed or financial status then. Come on really is that the best you can come up with?
scot 1 year ago
Reply to bco2rgr
OK Scott I guess I need to break this down because people obviously don't understand what Prop 8 is. … Show full comment
OK Scott I guess I need to break this down because people obviously don't understand what Prop 8 is. … Show full comment
Yes... prop 8 says man and woman = marriage and that is discriminatory, it removes equality.
It does not equate to equality, equality would be marriage for all or civil unions for all... separate but equal is never equal.
The 14th amendment states that all must be equal. Simple.
bco2rgr (Republican) - 1 year ago
Reply to scot
Governments have specific responsibilities, one is to protect the equal rights of the people. They s … Show full comment
Governments have specific responsibilities, one is to protect the equal rights of the people. They s … Show full comment
OK Scott I guess I need to break this down because people obviously don't understand what Prop 8 is. All Prop 8 says is that the word "Marriage" will refer to a man and a woman.
In CA gay couples can still have a civil union and obtain all the benefits a married couple have.
If you disagree please state specifically in the prop that violates the 14th amendment.
scot 1 year ago
Reply to TheLiberturdian
The problem with this assertion is that protection of rights and equality are suspended by any of a … Show full comment
The problem with this assertion is that protection of rights and equality are suspended by any of a … Show full comment
This is true, and I believe they should be challenged, and that the system and process in place should be made to handle such challenges, and reviews prior to the laws becoming laws should be given more attention as well.
scot 1 year ago
Reply to TheLiberturdian
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to make an equality judgment on this - it's just an extreme to make a poi … Show full comment
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to make an equality judgment on this - it's just an extreme to make a poi … Show full comment
There is a big difference in saying no one can be a prostitute or take part in palimony and saying some can marry and others cannot. Restricting society as a whole is another issue entirely and will be a case by case element.
Picking and choosing who has the rights for a specific task is the issue. This is where the question of equality comes in. The people cannot vote to remove equality, granting privileges and rights to some and not others.
The majority cannot say this group can have this, and that one cannot. That is not freedom. It is not liberty, it is not choice. It is dictatorship, even if by a tyrannical majority.
Also, I never argued that the GOP was entirely to blame... the debate started when an individual argued that the GOP never restricted liberties and went from there evolving into how the GOP has restricted liberties and helped in doing so in other ways.
TheLiberturdian (Libertarian) - 1 year ago
Reply to scot
Governments have specific responsibilities, one is to protect the equal rights of the people. They s … Show full comment
Governments have specific responsibilities, one is to protect the equal rights of the people. They s … Show full comment
The problem with this assertion is that protection of rights and equality are suspended by any of a number of laws that are on the books in every state (and federally) - it's just a matter of which ones drum up enough dissent to be challenged.
TheLiberturdian (Libertarian) - 1 year ago
Reply to scot
The people have no right to vote by majority to discriminate. The government has a definite responsi … Show full comment
The people have no right to vote by majority to discriminate. The government has a definite responsi … Show full comment
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to make an equality judgment on this - it's just an extreme to make a point:
The bedrock of a civilized society's judicial system depends on a set of agreed-upon norms. Prostitution, polygamy, etc are illegal (almost everywhere, at least). Is it then "discrimination" to prohibit those who wish to engage in those behaviors from doing so? Perhaps, but society-at-large has agreed that those behaviors are not acceptable and has enacted legislation prohibiting it.
This issue is far too complex to boil down to blaming the GOP. Let's blame the people who actually cast the ballots and a culture that has largely come to accept sound bites from ANY source as reputable.
The people absolutely do have the right to vote by majority to discriminate, as repugnant as it might seem. Whether that vote then holds up to laws already on the books or review in the future is what's still in question.
scot 1 year ago
Reply to bco2rgr
You can't have it both ways man. Either Govt. gets involved or they don't. People have the right t … Show full comment
You can't have it both ways man. Either Govt. gets involved or they don't. People have the right t … Show full comment
Governments have specific responsibilities, one is to protect the equal rights of the people. They should get involved when ensuring rights and equality is at hand.
Example - California's Prop 8
The people never have the right decide via a vote of the majority who is deserving of and has rights and equality when and where. This is not something up for discussion. Rights and equality are simple, they are not given by the people on a whim of opinion.
The 14th amendment of the United States Constitution requires states to provide and guarantee equal protection under the law to ALL persons within their jurisdiction. Basically, this means that no state laws or constitutions can discriminate. Equality must be fully guaranteed - period.
When the people voted on Proposition 8 they were voting on creating an illegal law. When it entered the books in California it became an illegal law, as it violated the 14th amendment rights of an entire group of people.
This is simply unacceptable.
One of the primary, and most important responsibilities of the Government is the protection of its people, including their rights and liberties.
It has nothing to do with judges or judge's opinions. It has nothing to do with laws based on any morals or values except the protection of rights and equality.
Plain and simple.
bco2rgr (Republican) - 1 year ago
Reply to bco2rgr
I completely agree that government shouldn't get involved. So when the people as a majority say the … Show full comment
I completely agree that government shouldn't get involved. So when the people as a majority say the … Show full comment
You can't have it both ways man. Either Govt. gets involved or they don't. People have the right to vote how they see fit. If the people of the state don't like it they can move or they can refer to the court to see if it's constitutional or not.
However changing the law or ruling something unconstitutional is a tricky thing most things that are ruled on are done by judges who are either pandering to a specific group or changing the law based on their ideals and values.
scot 1 year ago
Reply to bco2rgr
I completely agree that government shouldn't get involved. So when the people as a majority say the … Show full comment
I completely agree that government shouldn't get involved. So when the people as a majority say the … Show full comment
The people have no right to vote by majority to discriminate. The government has a definite responsibility to protect the equal rights of ALL people... even the minority, and those the majority may not like or agree with.
bco2rgr (Republican) - 1 year ago
Reply to scot
The GOP is certainly more to blame. It is social conservative Republican base groups that draft up t … Show full comment
The GOP is certainly more to blame. It is social conservative Republican base groups that draft up t … Show full comment
I completely agree that government shouldn't get involved. So when the people as a majority say they don't want it then the government should keep their noses, especially their judicial noses out of it.
scot 1 year ago
Reply to bco2rgr
You can't blame Republicans for the non marriage laws solely. Most Democrats won't sign off on it e … Show full comment
You can't blame Republicans for the non marriage laws solely. Most Democrats won't sign off on it e … Show full comment
The GOP is certainly more to blame. It is social conservative Republican base groups that draft up the anti-gay marriage initiatives and laws.
Same land of the free where equality is valued eh?
Obama has stated opposition to gay marriage morally, but says the government has no right to restrict it.
scot 1 year ago
Reply to bco2rgr
The combined world intelligence community has been listening on your phone calls for at least a deca … Show full comment
The combined world intelligence community has been listening on your phone calls for at least a deca … Show full comment
Just because it has been done over time does not make it right.
The Patriot Act is wrong, it may have been intended for Terrorists, yet it has been used beyond that framework and is to this day. Republicans rejected amendments to safeguard average Americans and pushed to make it permanent in congress.
Both parties need 'fixing', and one party controlling one element and another controlling the other is nice... But Bush's 2nd term under that system and Clinton's time in offer were far from perfect. I'd prefer we migrate away from one or two party rule all together into multiple parties.
bco2rgr (Republican) - 1 year ago
Reply to scot
It was not always illegal for gays to marry. States had to create those laws recently. Making someth … Show full comment
It was not always illegal for gays to marry. States had to create those laws recently. Making someth … Show full comment
You can't blame Republicans for the non marriage laws solely. Most Democrats won't sign off on it either. Even the messiah (Obama) won't sign off on it. Civil Unions are as far as most are willing to go.
bco2rgr (Republican) - 1 year ago
Reply to scot
The problem with real ID is that it is not a trade off as it is currently written. As a nation we ar … Show full comment
The problem with real ID is that it is not a trade off as it is currently written. As a nation we ar … Show full comment
The combined world intelligence community has been listening on your phone calls for at least a decade or more. The program was called Echelon. For years it was claimed to be a conspiracy theory.
I understand where you are coming from Scott, however the patriot act has not taken rights away from you or me unless of course you are into terrorist activities. The Patriot Act is to terrorism what RICO is to organized crime. Jose Padilla was convicted as a terrorist under this.
Both parties I agree have gone haywire with agenda's and I agree that the Republican Party has severely lost its way but so has the Democrats. The best we can hope for until someone comes and reigns the parties in is to have one in charge of congress and the other in the white house. It is the only way we will keep everything on a somewhat checked and balanced platform.
scot 1 year ago
Reply to Herodotus Red
Accused 'dirty bomber" Jose Padilla is Exhibit A against the Patriot Act. He has a funny name b … Show full comment
Accused 'dirty bomber" Jose Padilla is Exhibit A against the Patriot Act. He has a funny name b … Show full comment
The problem with real ID is that it is not a trade off as it is currently written. As a nation we are not ready for the version of the read ID act as it stands.... that and no states can afford it either!
scot 1 year ago
Reply to bco2rgr
never has it been legal to be gay and married to a gay partner so that argument is null and void. Ju … Show full comment
never has it been legal to be gay and married to a gay partner so that argument is null and void. Ju … Show full comment
It was not always illegal for gays to marry. States had to create those laws recently. Making something illegal takes away rights and equality. The GOP is responsible for that primarily.
Habeas Corpus, gone... rights to privacy, gone... right to live without invasive justice department officials listening to your phone calls, searching you and your property randomly. Liberties in the justice system are disappearing. If the government starts somewhere they will continue. It is historically the pattern.
Real id is more than standards, and the act does require you posses it and carry it. It requires you to possess it to travel between states on Airplanes or trains; it restricts the movement of US citizens between and across our own country. We have passports for international travel, this document is not for international travel. Suggestions to now include finger prints and retinal scans on the ID' have come up. It restricts states rights - we are a federal republic after all and it was instigated by the GOP.
Both parties are the same when it comes to corruption and the restriction of citizens. Face it, the GOP is not the party it once was, principle is rhetoric on the campaign trail that they have not followed for some time. The party of Lincoln and Eisenhower is simple a myth that passed long ago.
scot 1 year ago
Reply to bco2rgr
Get over the Patriot Act name one US citizen that it has actually affected.
Get over the Patriot Act name one US citizen that it has actually affected.
Are you blind??? The patriot act affect each and every citizen. Do you not know what is does and can do? If the government wanted to pull just about anything on you all they have to do is invoke the patriot act. Warantless wiretapping, unconditional search and seizure, confiscation of assets without proper cause... it is so broad it is being misused above and beyond terrorism. The entire act is used the subvert and eliminate liberties, that is exactly what it was designed to do, by Republicans. To argue otherwise is simply not to accepts the truth.
Both parties are guilty of growing government, subverting rights and liberties, and undermining the people. It is a simple fact of government over time. Government has no shrank and liberties are rarely restored, even the champion of Republicans himself, Ronald Reagan expanded the size and reach of government and increased spending.
Both parties are the same when it comes to corruption and the restriction of citizens.
Herodotus Red 1 year ago
Accused 'dirty bomber" Jose Padilla is Exhibit A against the Patriot Act. He has a funny name but as far as we can tell, the guy is an American citizen.
I do agree on a requirement for Real ID. Right now, we get asked for driver's license or SSN, good grief! I think the balancing act is between providing a uniform standard for identification without compromising totally our rights to privacy. There is a trade off here I think; the question is - are we ready for that trade off as a nation.
bco2rgr (Republican) - 1 year ago
Reply to scot
Take a look at the recent loss of liberties in the justice system, the patriot act, real ID act, res … Show full comment
Take a look at the recent loss of liberties in the justice system, the patriot act, real ID act, res … Show full comment
never has it been legal to be gay and married to a gay partner so that argument is null and void. Justice system???? really lets hear specifics. See below for patriot act and as far as the real ID act goes. What is so bad about requiring some sort of standards to issue an ID? Citizens of this country can obtain an ID easily and it does not restrict your liberties in this country. You can still move around without ID on your person. You may not be able to leave the country without it but I fail to see where your liberties as a US citizen have been infringed upon. Unless there is some part of the act I have not read.
bco2rgr (Republican) - 1 year ago
Reply to jdistefano
Habeas corpus for one. Ever read the "USA PATRIOT Act?" There are several thousand theft … Show full comment
Habeas corpus for one. Ever read the "USA PATRIOT Act?" There are several thousand theft … Show full comment
Get over the Patriot Act name one US citizen that it has actually affected.
scot 1 year ago
Reply to bco2rgr
What liberty has the Republican Party taken away?
What liberty has the Republican Party taken away?
Take a look at the recent loss of liberties in the justice system, the patriot act, real ID act, restrictions on gay marriage. Face it, under all administrations, Dem or GOP liberties have been lost or restricted in some way, few are ever restored.
SPREAD THE WORD