Ted Cruz is 'pandering to the worst kind of bigotry'

[1blackman1]

I don’t recall marriage being a States Rights issue when Loving was decided. Or when congress passed the “defense of marriage act” and any other number of pieces of legislation that tries to federalize marriage. But now republicans what it to be a states rights issue. Interesting.

[winn dixie]

ted cruz fags off privately in his closet.

[winn dixie]

Testing....

Is this thread corrupted?

Edit : Looks like it was stuck?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

ted cruz fags off privately in his closet.

I think he dumps at convenience stores whenever he’s in Austin.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

ted cruz fags off privately in his closet.

what? he smokes? I guess his closet is smelly and smokey.

[1blackman1]

And Cruz likes hookers. Even helps them
Get into congress.

[Jackie S]

Does he have a handle here on ECCIE.

[1blackman1]

I wouldn’t be shocked but we know he hung with at least one prostitute all out in the open.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

for the right wing religinuts just know you came from lots of inbreeding.

i did like your post

it showed at least some thought, and learning and exposure to an education

but wouldn't evolutionary forces require even more inbreeding than creation?

some first creature arises from the primordial soup

is it male or is it female?

can there possibly be a like creature of opposite gender at the exact same time and exact same place for breeding to occur? what are the odds of two compatible organisms coming from nothing at the exact same time and in close proximity?


perhaps the creature that arises presents both genders and breeds with itself

which is quite a bit more inbreeding than two separate people from creation who breed

and which, of course, is even more inbreeding than breeding with a sibling

or there is some sort of parthenogenesis perhaps, which again is heavy inbreeding

evolution, in opposition to creation, seemingly requires a more pronounced inbreeding than creation, or against even greater odds, at least as much, unless there were many reproductively compatible but distinctly individual organisms arising at once

and in biblical creation, the idea is, the creation was pronounced "good"

which indicates adam and eve were then much more healthy and dna pure creatures

which is shown by the long lives, even after sinning

so with the start being perfection, and with only after sinning, it took many centuries for the 2nd law of thermodynamics to work its erosions

and even in the days of noah, man was of sturdier stuff

[1blackman1]

I have no doubt we are all the product of incest and inbreeding. But it’s more likely many creatures came from the primordial soup than just 1 man and 1 woman. At them
You have more diversity and cross breeding than you’d have with a single specimen.

Though I have to give Noah big ups for still pumping it out at 600 years old. And his son was at least 100 and still making babies. Gotta give em high fives for that. Still someone had to sex up a daughter or niece or cousin or granddaughter. Maybe even a great grand or the line woulda stopped pretty quick.

I suppose it wasn’t until Leviticus and the great exodus from Egypt that incest was frowned upon.

[Yssup Rider]

LOL,

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I don’t recall marriage being a States Rights issue when Loving was decided. Or when congress passed the “defense of marriage act” and any other number of pieces of legislation that tries to federalize marriage. But now republicans what it to be a states rights issue. Interesting.

UH, real Republicans not Rino's haven't changed their minds one bit. Those Justices that didn't have a problem with Loving, were doing what Democrat leaning Justices and RINO's always do, they ignore the Constitution and they do what they "feel" is right and perhaps gauge what the country is ready for which is not the job, the obligation of a SC Justice.


This new batch of Conservative, textualists Justice's have returned to the Constitution that CLEARLY delineates those powers given to the Federal government and all others reserved for the States. This is not a new idea but it is an idea that has been ignored by previous Republicans and it would seem, all Democrat Justices and we know damn well, no matter how John Roberts wants to scold us, the Democrat and Republican Justices do exist. You can tell the Democrats by their lack of enthusiasm in adhering to the Constitution.


Damn, we now even have Law Professor's telling us that it is time to throw out that Old document, written by White Supremacist slave holders, ignoring that the Constitution has been amended 27 times to reflect the change that naturally happens.


I would really like to have a talk with that professor and ask her what happens if we abolish the Constitution as some Democrats are calling for.



Want to offer an opinion on that counselor?

[1blackman1]

I’m fine with the constitution. But we all know the amendment process isn’t going to happen in the current 2 Americas.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

UH, real Republicans not Rino's haven't changed their minds one bit. Those Justices that didn't have a problem with Loving, were doing what Democrat leaning Justices and RINO's always do, they ignore the Constitution and they do what they "feel" is right and perhaps gauge what the country is ready for which is not the job, the obligation of a SC Justice.


This new batch of Conservative, textualists Justice's have returned to the Constitution that CLEARLY delineates those powers given to the Federal government and all others reserved for the States. This is not a new idea but it is an idea that has been ignored by previous Republicans and it would seem, all Democrat Justices and we know damn well, no matter how John Roberts wants to scold us, the Democrat and Republican Justices do exist. You can tell the Democrats by their lack of enthusiasm in adhering to the Constitution.


Damn, we now even have Law Professor's telling us that it is time to throw out that Old document, written by White Supremacist slave holders, ignoring that the Constitution has been amended 27 times to reflect the change that naturally happens.


I would really like to have a talk with that professor and ask her what happens if we abolish the Constitution as some Democrats are calling for.



Want to offer an opinion on that counselor?

I'd like to see which Democrats are calling for the abolition of the Constitution.

No opinions, but straight up references, please.

Thank you sir.