Will Queers still be allowed to 'Marry' ?

[StoneByStone]

A bunch of millennials sitting around in a drum circle smoking pot and beating each other off is not a valid debunking.

The fact remains there is not a functioning, viable socialist state in existence. If there is, please post it.

It's not Sweden or Canada.

Yes, because no country today has collective ownership. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, East Germany, and so on didn't have collective ownership either.

 

[StoneByStone]

Sure. Everything is fine. Just stay calm. Trump is in charge. What could go wrong?

"What the hell do you have to lose?"

*three years later*

Ohhh....

 

[Jack]

"What the hell do you have to lose?"

*three years later*

Ohhh....

Yeah. No shit!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

"Dred Scott was a mistake "
How could it be a 'mistake'? If the Supreme Court makes a decision, it must be in accordance with the Constitution.
Are you now claiming 'Roe/Wade' was a 'mistake'?

https://www.britannica.com/event/Dred-Scott-decision
Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, because no country today has collective ownership. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, East Germany, and so on didn't have collective ownership either.

Sooooooo Socialism works, but it's never really been tried? Got it. More Pie in the Sky from the far Left.

 

[Jack]

https://www.britannica.com/event/Dred-Scott-decision
Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

So ... the Supreme Court CAN fuck up. (I was afraid of that)

 

[CharacterAssassin]

If that really is the case, the 'Left' is just overreacting to the nomination of this Christian Conservative Woman.
I'm guessing when you see a sign that says "Work will make you Free', ... you really believe it.

LOL! Enjoy getting legally fucked up the ass by your husband, old queen!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So ... the Supreme Court CAN fuck up. (I was afraid of that)

Yes, but two factors should be considered:

Anything Human can be fucked up, so it's a given that even SCOTUS can fuck up.

The Dred Scott decision was rendered by six Justices in 1857, only 68 years after it, and the entire US Government, was first formed. 68 years is the same time between today and the Korean War in 1952. Dred Scott was 163 years ago. Now there's nine Justices and our government has learned a few things along the way. Some good, some bad, but mostly good.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-first-supreme-court
The Judiciary Act of 1789 is passed by Congress and signed by President George Washington, establishing the Supreme Court of the United States as a tribunal made up of six justices who were to serve on the court until death or retirement. That day, President Washington nominated John Jay to preside as chief justice, and John Rutledge, William Cushing, John Blair, Robert Harrison and James Wilson to be associate justices. On September 26, all six appointments were confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

 

[Jack]

Yes, but two factors should be considered:

Anything Human can be fucked up, so it's a given that even SCOTUS can fuck up.

The Dred Scott decision was rendered by six Justices in 1857, only 68 years after it, and the entire US Government, was first formed. 68 years is the same time between today and the Korean War in 1952. Dred Scott was 163 years ago. Now there's nine Justices and our government has learned a few things along the way. Some good, some bad, but mostly good.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-first-supreme-court
The Judiciary Act of 1789 is passed by Congress and signed by President George Washington, establishing the Supreme Court of the United States as a tribunal made up of six justices who were to serve on the court until death or retirement. That day, President Washington nominated John Jay to preside as chief justice, and John Rutledge, William Cushing, John Blair, Robert Harrison and James Wilson to be associate justices. On September 26, all six appointments were confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Mmmmm ... call me 'Overly Fearful'. I get a little nervous when the Jesus Freaks get near any 'Knobs, wheels, buttons, or levers of Power'.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Mmmmm ... call me 'Overly Fearful'. I get a little nervous when the Jesus Freaks get near any 'Knobs, wheels, buttons, or levers of Power'.

I get a little nervous when any group, regardless of politics and/or religion, start fucking with our Constitution.

 

[Jarod]

They do? Name them.

Anglican
Episcopal
Alliance of Baptists
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Unitarian Universalist Association
Unity Church

 

[StoneByStone]

Sooooooo Socialism works, but it's never really been tried? Got it. More Pie in the Sky from the far Left.

#strawmanning

I never said Socialism works.
And Venezuela failed because of American sanctions.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

#strawmanning

I never said Socialism works.
And Venezuela failed because of American sanctions.

Thank you for admitting you don't believe Socialism works. It's a start.

 

[StoneByStone]

Thank you for admitting you don't believe Socialism works. It's a start.

I've said that before. My only argument here is that, while Socialists are wrong, they're not immoral people like Fascists. The "both sides" argument is being used to legitimize Fascism.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I've said that before. My only argument here is that, while Socialists are wrong, they're not immoral people like Fascists. The "both sides" argument is being used to legitimize Fascism.

The "both sides" argument is used to legitimize Socialism as you just did because, son, Socialists are both wrong and immoral...if you believe mass murder is immoral, that is.

How many human beings were killed under the USSR and PRC? The DPRK? The Khmer Rouge?

 

[StoneByStone]

The "both sides" argument is used to legitimize Socialism as you just did because, son, Socialists are both wrong and immoral...if you believe mass murder is immoral, that is.

How many human beings were killed under the USSR and PRC? The DPRK? The Khmer Rouge?

Nope, remember? We already debunked this.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Nope, remember? We already debunked this.

Nope, you never did. You just keep posting "we debunked this" with no links, no references, no facts, no proof and certainly no list of who "we" are.

 

[StoneByStone]

Nope, you never did. You just keep posting "we debunked this" with no links, no references, no facts, no proof and certainly no list of who "we" are.

Socialism involves collective ownership. None of the countries that called themselves "socialist" actually had collective ownership, so they were not Socialists. But because you're a Centrist, you have to commit the "both sides" fallacy.

 

[Legion]

Nope, remember? We already debunked this.

When was that, supposedly?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Socialism involves collective ownership. None of the countries that called themselves "socialist" actually had collective ownership, so they were not Socialists. But because you're a Centrist, you have to commit the "both sides" fallacy.

ROFLMAO. Kid, when you grow up maybe you'll learn that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's why socialism or "collective ownership" doesn't work above the village/tribal level.