Cut out “Crazytroll” and replace “probably” with “possibly” and you’d be batting 1,000 there, eschereal. I’m impressed.
You have five neurons, you are not that hard to figure out.
Her aims were malignant; of course it’s justifiable to condemn her for that.
You just gotta watch this. Too funny.
“Everyone has problems. Some people are even born female.” (paraphrasing slightly)
Everybody has family, pretty much, he does too, I suppose…
“Hi, Mom! What’s up?”
“Just calling to remind you about Thanksgiving, dear.”
“Aw, gee, Mom, is Uncle Starkers going to be there? I get really tired of listening to him brag about how he sure showed those liberals a thing or two…”
“Well, they must not be very smart, dear, they call themselves Dopes…”
“I checked it out, Mom, its “Straight Dope”, like the truth? Kinda cool, really, bunch of facts and stuff. Like, do you know how many calories there are in semen?”
“Well, I suppose there are just as many calories in sailors as in anyone else, dear. Is this a pro-cannibal thing?”
“Never mind, Mom. See ya there”
“Well, be nice.”
But that doesn’t make her a bad person. :rolleyes:
This is the trouble with you guys: nothing you don’t like is ever attributable simply to a differing viewpoint or opinion or to prevailing societal belief, it’s always done out of malice. And coincidentally that self-perceived malevolence always seems to provide those on the left with grounds for hateful condemnation.
Most of the people in the country at that time agreed with Schlafly about homosexuality, disdain for the idea of unisex bathrooms and so forth, and many adult women of the era were unhappy about the effects of women’s liberation and didn’t support it. Schlafly was no different, and when people strongly favor something they have a tendency to defend or promote it vigorously, thus her activism in opposition to the ERA. All this stuff about how evil and deliberately cruel she supposedly was is ridiculous. But typical.
Yes, they did. Now, they don’t. Groovy.
Let’s be real here. You haven’t the slightest idea bout history, you ignorant twat. You’re just blankly repeating shit you hear on the teevee.
Essentially, though I doubt I would have bothered with an exclamation point on such a banal and easy prediction.
I offered a somewhat detailed counter to this argument earlier in the thread, pointing out that our current restroom trend with respect to transgender people is relevant. Would you care to address that?
I think it was mentioned earlier that Schlafly was a Trump supporter. I didn’t see the other side of that mentioned, so here goes …
CNN: Updated 6:53 PM ET, Sat September 10, 2016
Donald Trump eulogized conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly Saturday, praising her as an underdog and linking the anti-feminist movement she led to his anti-establishment campaign.
“She loved her country, she loved her family and she loved her god,” Trump said … Trump praised Schlafly for being “America First” …
… In her latest book – “The Conservative Case for Trump” – released Tuesday, Schlafly argued that conservative Christians should follow high-profile evangelical leaders such as Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins in supporting Trump’s candidacy.
Quite the group. Any further comment would be redundant.
Okay, here’s some reality for you. I don’t watch right-wing tv or listen to right-wing radio, and I was reaching majority just as most of this crap got started. Further, I’ve been cognizant of and disgusted by both left-wing media bias and liberal judicial activism since at least the late 60s/early 70s. One hardly needs right-wing tv or radio to observe these practices, they’re perfectly obvious to anyone who hasn’t drunk the leftie Kool-Aid. To those who have, liberal bias seems non-existent because such biases appear to them to be logical and reasonable. To those who haven’t, these biases are as obvious as the nose on your face.
And as you are undoubtedly aware, one of the overarching aspects of the upcoming presidential election is who’s going to set the direction of the Supreme Court for the next few decades. Will it be a court that applies the Constitution as written or will it be a court that simply claims that Constitution says whatever it wants the Constitution to say based on liberal ideology?
Most of the really significant changes the last fifty years or so have come about through judicial fiat. Time and again lefties have turned to the courts to achieve things they could never get past the voters or accomplish through Congress. And while I’ve said I’m not going to vote for Trump, and I intend to keep that promise, the temptation is certainly there if for no other reason than to hope he’ll stay true to (recent) form and nominate conservative or at least textualist judges who will apply the nation’s supreme law as intended rather than distort it into something it never was in order to accommodate prevailing leftist ideology.
A liberal supreme court could have ended slavery, or at least severely curtailed it. It could have ended segregation much, much sooner. That they didn’t is a shame and has lead to almost unimaginable suffering.
I don’t agree.
More specifically, I agree that it’s possible a liberal Supreme Court could have acted as you imagine.
And I agree that much suffering resulted from the lack.
Where I disagree is the implication that it’s an unmitigated shame.
It’s a shame, but that shame is a requisite cost of having a nation governed by representative democracy instead of by wise philosopher kings. A government that is ruled by good and wise overlords will probably produce outcomes like ending slavery much quicker than a government that derives its leaders from the popular vote.
Nonetheless, there are excellent reasons to steer away from a government system by wise philosopher kings.
Oh, look! It’s time for Starving Artist’s weekly “Waaaaah! HIPPIES!” diatribe…
I can’t tell if this took a lot of straw or just a lot of contorting. Either way, you’ve once again argued persuasively against nothing anyone was advocating. Good job, Bricker!
I think the supreme court could have ruled the other way on Plessy v Ferguson without causing significant damage to the republic. It could have ruled that various Jim crow laws violated the Constitution (with good justification, IMO) without doing more damage than allowing them did. It even could have ruled the other way on Dred Scott. None such rulings would have damaged our republic more than the real history did, IMO.
No, I don’t agree.
The Constitution itself implicitly permitted slavery prior to the 13th Amendment. Any court ruling that slavery was somehow burdened by the Constitutionwould be elevating its desired social outcome over the document text they were supposedly interpreting.