President Donald J. Trump

[Dr. MD MD]

CIVIL WAR!

Let's get it on, Dems! We know you wanna.

Come on, just try something. I dare ya! 

[WOTR]

Loosen your underwear! I wasn't arguing from a rights position. In fact, I wasn't arguing at all. It was just an idea. Fags and rednecks may never love each other but I think it would be a good idea if they could at least learn to be civil to each other. Anyway, in these crazy times I think some business could really cash in on that slogan.

Fair enough.  If I owned a nightclub I might try that... But I get the feeling I wouldn't get the rednecks... Just the Leather men and those who are into "assless chaps." 

[Dr. MD MD]

Fair enough.  If I owned a nightclub I might try that... But I get the feeling I wouldn't get the rednecks... Just the Leather men and those who are into "assless chaps." 

I wasn't thinking nightclub. Yeah, that probably wouldn't work. I was thinking more restaurant or something.

[albrecht]

I'm going to go one better.  A cake is not a necessity for the right to marry.  I believe that you should be guaranteed that you can get married.  This means that there has to be at least one justice of the peace in your county who will perform a ceremony and sign your certificate.

Having a wedding in a church is not a human right.  Having a cake baked by the local baker is not a right.  Having the person / minister of your choice perform the ceremony is not a right (if that minister happens to disagree with your choice.) Having a wedding planner is not a right, having a photgrapher is not a right.  These are all people who should be free to say "no."

Having a marriage licence could be a right.  Having the ability to split income on your taxes and leave your property to the person you love is.  If gay marriage is legal in the state, then the only thing the government should ensure that you have access to is the legal papers and ability to get married, and share the same legal protections / benefits as any other married couple... Not the ability to choose your service providers.

I rarely hear this argument... Usually it centers on if a baker should be able to say no and how that impacts somebody else's "right" to a wedding cake rather than asking if a cake is actually a right.

***For the record, I have attended a gay wedding, and have no issues with it.  I often say that straights have pretty much destroyed anything that was sacred about marriage already.  There is nothing that a gay couple could do to it that divorce and infidelity have not already done...

Maybe get rid of it. Let people who wish sign contracts or do whatever but "marriage" is done in churches but no legal meaning without papers of incorporation, form a partnership, S-Corp, or whatever and let them get the tax benefits those entities get in the mean time! Passing-through tax-free money, limited liabilities, amortization schedules and write-offs, certain bankruptcy privileges, etc!

This should satisfy the lawyers (more work,) satisfy the bureaucrats (more paperwork,) satisfy normal people and the religious ("marriage" is still "marriage" between one man and one woman,") and satisfy the Muslims, homosexuals, BLTQUIS, etc because civil contracts could be made between a myriad of combinations and groups.

[GravitySucks]

Fair enough.  If I owned a nightclub I might try that... But I get the feeling I wouldn't get the rednecks... Just the Leather men and those who are into "assless chaps." 

Or chapped asses

[Dr. MD MD]

[albrecht]

Fair enough.  If I owned a nightclub I might try that... But I get the feeling I wouldn't get the rednecks... Just the Leather men and those who are into "assless chaps." 

But there might be some cross-over business and business between lumberjacks, mechanics, etc and the bull dykes, and even the junkie grunge scene if you go with flannel jacket stuff.

[Gd5150]

If I owned a nightclub I might try that... But I get the feeling I wouldn't get the rednecks... Just the Leather men and those who are into "assless chaps." 

You had me at assless chaps. We must protects everyone’s freedom of cheeks.

[Kidnostad3]

How Comey intervened to kill WikiLeaks' immunity deal

”He told me he had just talked with Comey and that, while the government was appreciative of my efforts, my instructions were to stand down, to end the discussions with Assange Waldman told me. Waldman offered contemporaneous documents to show he memorialized Warner’s exact words.”

More evidence that everything Comey did was part of a desperate scramble after Trump was elected to cover his ass.  If Assange were to reveal that the source of Hilliary’s emails was not the Russians but came from someone inside her campaign as many suspect, it would cut him and fellow conspirators off at the knees.  It also implicates Sen Mark Warner, Hilliary’s longtime political ally and bagman.  This could be the single most devastating revelation to date and the straw that breaks the back of the ongoing conspiracy against Trump. 


http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-intervened-to-kill-Wikileaks-immunity-deal

[starrmtn001]

You had me at assless chaps. We must protect everyone’s freedom of cheeks.

Seems to me that there are a couple of assless chaps that post a lot of anti-Trump blather in this thread. :

[Dr. MD MD]

Seems to me that there are a couple of assless chaps that post a lot of anti-Trump blather in this thread. :

[starrmtn001]

https://youtu.be/_KUqjtMH-9s

[starrmtn001]

Heh, heh, thanks, Doc.

[21st Century Man]

I'm going to go one better.  A cake is not a necessity for the right to marry.  I believe that you should be guaranteed that you can get married.  This means that there has to be at least one justice of the peace in your county who will perform a ceremony and sign your certificate.

Having a wedding in a church is not a human right.  Having a cake baked by the local baker is not a right.  Having the person / minister of your choice perform the ceremony is not a right (if that minister happens to disagree with your choice.) Having a wedding planner is not a right, having a photgrapher is not a right.  These are all people who should be free to say "no."

Having a marriage licence could be a right.  Having the ability to split income on your taxes and leave your property to the person you love is.  If gay marriage is legal in the state, then the only thing the government should ensure that you have access to is the legal papers and ability to get married, and share the same legal protections / benefits as any other married couple... Not the ability to choose your service providers.

I rarely hear this argument... Usually it centers on if a baker should be able to say no and how that impacts somebody else's "right" to a wedding cake rather than asking if a cake is actually a right.

***For the record, I have attended a gay wedding, and have no issues with it.  I often say that straights have pretty much destroyed anything that was sacred about marriage already.  There is nothing that a gay couple could do to it that divorce and infidelity have not already done...

Well-said.  That is the perspective that I share for the most part.

[PaulAtreides]

No, Donny John, you trigger crackers.

[Jojo]

Well-said.  That is the perspective that I share for the most part.

Good morning.  That's a perspective I hadn't heard before.

Well, the principles have merit for cake makers whose religion prohibits homosexuality.  But, there are business owners whose religion dictates what women cannot wear.  Imagine a boutique owner who wouldn't let women try on pants!  Hello, Sharia law.

Or a judge who always assigns custody to the man (Sharia) due to his religious beliefs.  Beliefs which also include granting men easy divorces, but requiring women to justify the need for divorce.  Imagine a Muslim who owns a Department of Motor Vehicles Licensing branch - sorry, no females!

Fourteen

[Dr. MD MD]

No, Donny John, you trigger crackers.

I don't think you understand what triggered means. I really don't.

[Kidnostad3]

I don't think you understand what triggered means. I really don't.

That's because he has the IQ of a veal cutlet. 

[Dr. MD MD]

Damn! I can't find a meme of Maxine Waters in a gunsight. Oh well, this will do:

[Dr. MD MD]

[PaulAtreides]

I don't think you understand what triggered means. I really don't.

An emotional/psychological reaction often associated with mental disorders. The reaction need not be negative.  Just stupid.

[Juan]

The Supreme Court just upheld Trump's authority to control who travels to this country. In doing so, the court also specifically overruled the Japanese internment case and called FDR (Democratic Party God) a racist.

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26â€"28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other Presidentâ€"the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, andâ€"to be clearâ€"“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

[Gd5150]

SUPREME COURT BACKS TRUMP AGAIN

Shocker. Trump wins again. The no ideas no solutions hate filled demokkkrat party destroyed for the zillionth time as they put three hundred million people at risk in favor of leveling empty accusations of racism at Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/26/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban-on-some-muslim-majority-nations.html

[albrecht]

"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts wrote. "The text says nothing about religion."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html




https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

[PaulAtreides]

Trump vs. Harley-Davidson.  Bwahahahah.  I guess Donny wants all eight Trumpers who can actually afford a new Harley to boycott the firm.  What a dolt.  Totally ignorant of economic theory and history. 

[ItsOver]

SUPREME COURT BACKS TRUMP AGAIN

Shocker. Trump wins again. The no ideas no solutions hate filled demokkkrat party destroyed for the zillionth time as they put three hundred million people at risk in favor of leveling empty accusations of racism at Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/26/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban-on-some-muslim-majority-nations.html

Of course, this won't prevent the scheming bastards from further shameless end-arounds and slinging mud.  Right, Chucky?

[Kidnostad3]

SUPREME COURT BACKS TRUMP AGAIN

Shocker. Trump wins again. The no ideas no solutions hate filled demokkkrat party destroyed for the zillionth time as they put three hundred million people at risk in favor of leveling empty accusations of racism at Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/26/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban-on-some-muslim-majority-nations.html

The b Sodamyer


“This repackaging does little to cleanse [the policy] of the appearance of discrimination that the president’s words have created,” she said. “Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.””

[albrecht]

I heard a remarkable segment on NPR this morning in which the "reporter" kept trying to dismiss MS-13 as adolescent high-jinx and not a real threat or even global gang.  Went so far as to get "expert reporter" to say that international cartels don't like them, but in a bit of a backfire, because the Pro-Publica reporter said they are too violent and "violent for violence sake*."  The "expert" did have to admit they are violent and a problem, especially in Long Island and DC Metro area but still cautioned that they are children and the picture used showing tattooed men are "from the 90's" and now the gang is "teenagers hanging out in the woods drinking juice."

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/623451416/propublica-reporter-delves-into-covering-ms-13-street-gang

* it was also odd because they both seemed to accept that cartels aren't violent? But then had a quick segment about all the politicians and reporters being murdered during this Mexican election cycle.

[ItsOver]

I heard a remarkable segment on NPR this morning in which the "reporter" kept trying to dismiss MS-13 as adolescent high-jinx and not a real threat or even global gang.  Went so far as to get "expert reporter" to say that international cartels don't like them, but in a bit of a backfire, because the Pro-Publica reporter said they are too violent and "violent for violence sake*."  The "expert" did have to admit they are violent and a problem, especially in Long Island and DC Metro area but still cautioned that they are children and the picture used showing tattooed men are "from the 90's" and now the gang is "teenagers hanging out in the woods drinking juice."

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/623451416/propublica-reporter-delves-into-covering-ms-13-street-gang

* it was also odd because they both seemed to accept that cartels aren't violent? But then had a quick segment about all the politicians and reporters being murdered during this Mexican election cycle.

NPR is nothing but another shameless propaganda mill for the commies.  They'll warp just about anything, in pursuit of their corrupt agena, with the ends justifying the means in their warped minds.  I'm sure Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are big fans.

[Metron2267]

Well, maybe not if our police were at the border like the ones pictured?
Fourteen

Huh?

The border is crawling with Border Patrol and National Guard in support.

What do you think you are saying here?