Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 19, 2016 14:08:29 GMT -5
And I think liberals are intolerant of my rights. Two people marrying had nothing to do with me so I don't care. But liberals can't stop at that. Nope,now I'm supposed to accept men in my locker rooms and bathrooms. Where are my rights and the rights of people who don't want the opposite see in the locker rooms? Where are my rights in regards to national security? I don't want illegals in my country, I don't want lax border security and I don't want to take in refugees from countries where the citizens wants to kill us. Do liberals care? Nope You don't have a right to get what you want. But the men who want to go in the women's rocker room have a right to get what they want?
|
|
toshmanta
Familiar Member
An evil man threw tobacco in the macaque-rhesus eyes.
Joined: Oct 29, 2016 15:29:57 GMT -5
Posts: 726
|
Post by toshmanta on Nov 19, 2016 14:15:11 GMT -5
You don't have a right to get what you want. But the men who want to go in the women's rocker room have a right to get what they want? As a full blooded homophobe i now insist on sharing a locker with a woman...sorry but i feel safer with you.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,228
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 19, 2016 14:24:20 GMT -5
You don't have a right to get what you want. But the men who want to go in the women's rocker room have a right to get what they want? No, they have no such right. Society has a right to decide to allow them access.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 20, 2016 19:22:42 GMT -5
Not that I care about this particular argument, but how is that a civil liberty question?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,228
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 20, 2016 19:34:32 GMT -5
No, they have no such right. Society has a right to decide to allow them access. So society has the right to infringe upon the minorities civil liberties if the majority is in favor of it? What civil liberty is being infringed upon?
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Nov 20, 2016 19:50:56 GMT -5
And I think liberals are intolerant of my rights. Two people marrying had nothing to do with me so I don't care. But liberals can't stop at that. Nope,now I'm supposed to accept men in my locker rooms and bathrooms. Where are my rights and the rights of people who don't want the opposite see in the locker rooms? Where are my rights in regards to national security? I don't want illegals in my country, I don't want lax border security and I don't want to take in refugees from countries where the citizens wants to kill us. Do liberals care? Nope There is nothing wrong with sharing a locker room or bathroom with Donald Trump, is there ? ASk the Miss Teen Universe contestants.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,492
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 20, 2016 21:23:38 GMT -5
No, they have no such right. Society has a right to decide to allow them access. So society has the right to infringe upon the minorities civil liberties if the majority is in favor of it? they do if that "liberty" infringes on the rights of non-consenting others. otherwise, no.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 14:33:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 11:38:39 GMT -5
So Christians shouldn't be allowed to take part in the legal democratic process that constitutes this country. Now that is an idea that scares me. Where is your stance discrimination. ? They shouldn't be allowed to make laws based on their individual religious beliefs. No where did she say they shouldn't take part in the legal democratic process. This may sound kind of strange to some, but in order to make a law, you have to follow the legal democratic process that constitutes this country. This includes all citizens regardless of their faith. You might want to pass this on to the likes on your post. Next, you might want to explain who is going to decide who is not allowed to make laws by the normal democratic process that constitutes this country. I see a civics class in some near futures.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Nov 21, 2016 12:04:24 GMT -5
They shouldn't be allowed to make laws based on their individual religious beliefs. No where did she say they shouldn't take part in the legal democratic process. This may sound kind of strange to some, but in order to make a law, you have to follow the legal democratic process that constitutes this country. This includes all citizens regardless of their faith. You might want to pass this on to the likes on your post. Next, you might want to explain who is going to decide who is not allowed to make laws by the normal democratic process that constitutes this country. I see a civics class in some near futures. Well a number of laws have been passed that were subsequently declared unconstitutional by the courts. Your civics class apparently omitted the role of the court system..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 14:33:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 12:12:17 GMT -5
This may sound kind of strange to some, but in order to make a law, you have to follow the legal democratic process that constitutes this country. This includes all citizens regardless of their faith. You might want to pass this on to the likes on your post. Next, you might want to explain who is going to decide who is not allowed to make laws by the normal democratic process that constitutes this country. I see a civics class in some near futures. Well a number of laws have been passed that were subsequently declared unconstitutional by the courts. Your civics class apparently omitted the role of the court system.. But not basic comprehension, where the poster stated only about the making of the laws. If she redo's eighth grade, she would eventually get to the court interpretation part.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,288
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Nov 21, 2016 12:14:29 GMT -5
This may sound kind of strange to some, but in order to make a law, you have to follow the legal democratic process that constitutes this country. This includes all citizens regardless of their faith. You might want to pass this on to the likes on your post. Next, you might want to explain who is going to decide who is not allowed to make laws by the normal democratic process that constitutes this country. I see a civics class in some near futures. Well a number of laws have been passed that were subsequently declared unconstitutional by the courts. Your civics class apparently omitted the role of the court system.. but even the courts can get it wrong. www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Nov 21, 2016 12:15:58 GMT -5
Well a number of laws have been passed that were subsequently declared unconstitutional by the courts. Your civics class apparently omitted the role of the court system.. But not basic comprehension, where the poster stated only about the making of the laws. If she redo's eighth grade, she would eventually get to the court interpretation part. None of which has anything to do with your rewording my post - if you can't stay on the subject. I'm not going to waste my time any further. You have a good day.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 14:33:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 12:23:51 GMT -5
But not basic comprehension, where the poster stated only about the making of the laws. If she redo's eighth grade, she would eventually get to the court interpretation part. None of which has anything to do with your rewording my post - if you can't stay on the subject. I'm not going to waste my time any further. You have a good day. LOL, You bring up a subject about citizens making laws. I comment about legally making laws. You then bring up interpretation of laws after they're made. Then accuse me of changing the subject. What was that about wasting time ? I'm having a great day, thank you.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 21, 2016 21:03:28 GMT -5
Well a number of laws have been passed that were subsequently declared unconstitutional by the courts. Your civics class apparently omitted the role of the court system.. but even the courts can get it wrong. www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.htmlWhich is a wonderful example of why a conservative Court is so dangerous. Liberal justices (or judges in lower courts) do not generally take away rights. Conservative justices and judges do.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Nov 22, 2016 10:03:20 GMT -5
Which is a wonderful example of why a conservative Court is so dangerous. Liberal justices (or judges in lower courts) do not generally take away rights. Conservative justices and judges do. The real tragedy is that today we still have many folks here in the States who believe that decision was a correct decision, whether the extreme of it or a type of it and now we have a leader, POTUS elect, who has expressed his feelings of prejudice against different minorities and who also is appointing to high positions of power in the government those who also feel that minorities should be treated differently....and we are in the 21st century.... and as I see it, instead of trying to bring the country together..understand that there are so many really upset with the results of the election, beyond a normal "we lost" feeling ...he is going on a victory tour which will be attended by hugh crowds of supporters. However I was thinking now that he is the POTUS and unlike the crowds attending the rallys when he was campaigning and he was able to have protestors physically removed as he verbally taunted them as they were removed..I am wondering how it will be handled when he gets hugh #'s of protestors with signs..say.."He's not my President" and such.. Will they be not allowed to attend..will say National Guard be mobilized and signs removed..hecklers removed by SS or troops , will there be battles between supporters and demonstrators with the new President verbally abusing those being removed... I was thinking he is looking for confrontation and then have his party controlled Congress pass law that gives government power to legally suppress / detain such demonstrations..possible also worded so media too fall under these rules as possible instigators of these demonstrations..all with the reason of protecting our leaders... Don't think such things could happen here? LOL..oh yeah it could and something similer may happen, and I am sure that some of the supporters of the Donald who post here and who have identified themselves as such if asked , would have no problem with such a scenario... just ask em.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Nov 22, 2016 13:42:44 GMT -5
Which is a wonderful example of why a conservative Court is so dangerous. Liberal justices (or judges in lower courts) do not generally take away rights. Conservative justices and judges do. The real tragedy is that today we still have many folks here in the States who believe that decision was a correct decision, whether the extreme of it or a type of it and now we have a leader, POTUS elect, who has expressed his feelings of prejudice against different minorities and who also is appointing to high positions of power in the government those who also feel that minorities should be treated differently....and we are in the 21st century.... and as I see it, instead of trying to bring the country together..understand that there are so many really upset with the results of the election, beyond a normal "we lost" feeling ...he is going on a victory tour which will be attended by hugh crowds of supporters. However I was thinking now that he is the POTUS and unlike the crowds attending the rallys when he was campaigning and he was able to have protestors physically removed as he verbally taunted them as they were removed..I am wondering how it will be handled when he gets hugh #'s of protestors with signs..say.."He's not my President" and such.. Will they be not allowed to attend..will say National Guard be mobilized and signs removed..hecklers removed by SS or troops , will there be battles between supporters and demonstrators with the new President verbally abusing those being removed... I was thinking he is looking for confrontation and then have his party controlled Congress pass law that gives government power to legally suppress / detain such demonstrations..possible also worded so media too fall under these rules as possible instigators of these demonstrations..all with the reason of protecting our leaders... Don't think such things could happen here? LOL..oh yeah it could and something similer may happen, and I am sure that some of the supporters of the Donald who post here and who have identified themselves as such if asked , would have no problem with such a scenario... just ask em. I expect he will do what Bush did. Designate "Free Speech" zones blocks from his "victory rallies" and use forrce to confine them there. Fascists hate freedom of expression. Which is why his recent meetings with the media are so interesting. Seems he chewed out one media executive for using an uflattering photo if him.....
|
|