Supreme Court decides 6-3 ACA subsidies are legal

[Danzig]

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57647

here's this, regarding cruz


and something else he said:

"The court's views are radically out of step with public opinion," said Cruz. "The Supreme Court follows the opinions of Manhattan and Washington D.C., but it doesn't follow the opinions of America."

ted, same sex marriage was already legal in 37 states in this country. the majority of americans and the majority of states agree there should be same sex marriage. unlike you, ted, they understand what 'equal' means.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-...and-lesbians-0

what these folks need to understand is their religious right isn't a greater right than another persons right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz told the newspaper, “and you look at the foundation of this country — it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

so, gay people wanting to be married are to be made to deal with religious oppression?! amazing thought process, ted.

[OldDog]

The topic I referenced was when supposedly Republicans "tried to make this (the South Carolina shooting) about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims."

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, i'm talking about the politicians who tried to make this about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims.
[/url]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7616378.html

please consider the amount of stupid in the comments above when you enter the voting booth.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

The topic I referenced was when supposedly Republicans "tried to make this (the South Carolina shooting) about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims."

well, they did.
pols, pundits, using that attack at the church as a symbol of some crusade against religion, instead of the race of the victims. one even said something about not rushing into judgement til we got all the facts, when they already knew what the shooter had said.

it's my opinion they said stupid things. that might not be your opinion. no big deal

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, they did.
pols, pundits, using that attack at the church as a symbol of some crusade against religion, instead of the race of the victims. one even said something about not rushing into judgement til we got all the facts, when they already knew what the shooter had said.

it's my opinion they said stupid things. that might not be your opinion. no big deal

Where?

You're entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. You referenced a link. Nowhere did they say that it had nothing due to race. Wishing it to be so, that you might make political hay of it, does not make it so.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Where?

You're entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. You referenced a link. Nowhere did they say that it had nothing due to race. Wishing it to be so, that you might make political hay of it, does not make it so.

oh, i'm soooo sorry that i encapsulated my anger at some peoples comments in the bottom of a post about that article with the stupid comments. next time i'll post a half dozen links to articles that i've read covering the subject.





hows this:

Fox & Friends guest Reverend E. W. Jackson, a failed former candidate for Virginia Lt. Governor and an African-American defender of segregation, was quick to dismiss the significance of race. Instead, he blamed the shooting on a war against Christianity. Jackson stated:


There does seem to be a rising hostility against Christians in this country because of our biblical views…Most people jump to conclusions about race. I long for the day when we stop doing that in our country. But we don’t know why he went into a church, but he didn’t choose a bar, he didn’t choose a basketball court, he chose a church, and we need to be looking at that very closely.


Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum also labeled the shooting as an assault on religious liberty, not a racially-motivated assault on people of color. Santorum stated:


This is one of those situations where you just have to take a step back and say we — you know, you talk about the importance of prayer in this time and we’re now seeing assaults on our religious liberty we’ve never seen before.

“We have no idea what’s in his mind. Maybe he hates Christian churches,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in reference to the white shooter.

South Carolina Senator and presidential candidate Lindsey Graham pointed out that it’s Christians who are the serial killer flavor of the month

while anchor Steve Doocy wondered aloud how people could “unbelievably” “call it a hate crime.”

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said on Friday that "I don't know what was on the mind or the heart of the man who committed these atrocious crimes."

I just asked Jeb if the shooting was racially motivated. He said "I don't know"

"There are real people who are organized out there to kill people in religion and based on race, this guy's just whacked out," he said. "But it's 2015. There are people out there looking for Christians to kill them."


i will try to do better in future of limiting my comments only to linked articles in a particular post...i'll keep in mind that having a broader conversation is too difficult without posting links to support every sentence i write.
.
if you ever actually want to discuss the actual topic, old dog, you just let me know.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7616378.html

please consider the amount of stupid in the comments above when you enter the voting booth.

I went back and looked ,and this was my post about that article. I said there was an amount of stupid in that article....nothing in what I said there about religion.
You, old dog, mentioned the headline. I didn't write that, take it up with Huffington. Christ.

[Danzig]

As for the aca and the court:


"T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[17]"

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I went back and looked ,and this was my post about that article. I said there was an amount of stupid in that article....nothing in what I said there about religion.
You, old dog, mentioned the headline. I didn't write that, take it up with Huffington. Christ.

Ha ha ha, oh, please stop!

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7616378.html

please consider the amount of stupid in the comments above when you enter the voting booth.

Originally Posted by OldDog

You mean the comments posted by the readers at the bottom, right? Because the comments of "These Republicans" nowhere deny racism's role as the headline implies. They do express a desire for the process to work and call roof evil, twisted and depraved.

As opposed to the President's rush to judgement with regard to gun laws.

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, i'm talking about the politicians who tried to make this about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims.

Originally Posted by OldDog

Interesting. And the one who said that it had nothing to do with race was...?

Originally Posted by Danzig

And then you changed the subject.
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57039
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Danzig

i will try to do better in future of limiting my comments only to linked articles in a particular post...i'll keep in mind that having a broader conversation is too difficult without posting links to support every sentence i write.

So, a lot of people, asked in the dawn of the immediate aftermath of a horrific event, of which they did not know all the facts, speculated that a shooting at a church might have something to do with religion. Later, when it was reported with reliable sources that the shooter's motivation was to shoot blacks, everyone knew what sort of evil had reared its head. But of course you would have immediately known because of your sage, prescient nature, and of course with a lot of help from the media who never hesitate to jump to conclusions, which this time happened to be correct.

I'm not here to dissect your every phrase, but when you say something and then deny having said it, do you really think no one will notice? It's not like you're the President.

Originally Posted by Danzig

if you ever actually want to discuss the actual topic, old dog, you just let me know.

This is rich.