Kim Davis is free to believe whatever she wants to believe. If she doesn't want to get gay married, she doesn't have to. If she's a public servant who doesn't want to do her job and uphold the law because her religious convictions won't allow it, she needs to get another job or face the consequences.
But she stays an American either way. Now where is the cognitive dissonance?
Maybe the pigs wouldn't be getting the diseases in the first place if they weren't kept cheek-by-jowl in their own filth, in pens where they can't even turn around.
But have no fear, now that there are laws against taking pictures of factory pig farms and the horrific conditions the animals are kept in even from public property, we're all going to be more safe because of genetic engineering.
Try their facebook page, then their homepage, and I don't care which sect of them you try, you will find it in all of them. If you don't immediately see a large portion of direct hatred for men then you are incapable of recognizing real hate.
So, you're saying that you don't have a single example of feminists saying that men are inherently evil?
You could also say that the right to religious freedom is really the right to free thought, which for most people precedes free speech. Except apparently for Donald Trump, for whom thought rarely precedes speech.
If you read the NRO article carefully you'll see Geraghty is basing his opinion not on the constitution, but what he thinks the founding fathers would have thought of the plan. You'd be laughed out of law school for making an argument that weak.
In fact, law schools have a word to describe such an argument. It's called "originalist", and it very much involves what "the founding fathers would have thought of the plan".
Now, you want to address the arguments in the second link, where actual top constitutional and legal scholars debate the constitutionality of Trump's plan?
I think it's pretty clear that there is a sexual component to the worship of guns. And I say this as someone who has owned (and shot) guns for more than 40 years. And I've qualified at various times as a marksman and a sharpshooter.
Except on immigration, abortion, Planned Parenthood, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syrian refugees, gun control, taxing the wealthy, Social Security, Hillary Clinton, and even his party affiliation.
Oddly enough, it appears that he said the exact opposite of that.
Would it really surprise you if Donald Trump said two opposite things?
1. Afghanistan At first he said: Entering Afghanistan was "a terrible mistake"
"We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place," he told CNN's "New Day" on Oct. 6. He added: "At some point, are they going to be there for the next 200 years? At some point what's going on? It's going to be a long time."
180: I've never said it was a mistake
"Iraq was a disaster," he told CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday. "Not Afghanistan, because that's probably where we should have gone in the first place."
When pressed by CNN's Alisyn Camerota on his change of position, he said: "We made a mistake going into Iraq. I've never said we made a mistake going into Afghanistan."
2. Syrian refugees At first, he said: "You have to" accept them
"I hate the concept of it,"Trump told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly on Sept. 9. but on a humanitarian basis, with what's happening, you have to" accept the refugees. "They're living in hell."
90 degrees: Focus more on our own problems
A day later, Trump told CNN after a rally on Capitol Hill against President Obama's Iran nuclear deal that the United States should probably focus on its own problems here at home rather than accept so many refugees.
"I think we should help, but I think we should be very careful because frankly, we have very big problems," he said. "We're not gonna have a country if we don't start getting smart."
180: I will send them back
Less than a month later, Trump told supporters at a campaign rally and said on Fox News that accepting the estimated 10,000 refugees President Obama has agreed to take could result in "one of the greatest military coups of all times." He suggested that the refugees would be terrorists who could strike the homeland from within and that he would send the refugees back if he became president.
He was asked whether he would stop Muslim citizens from returning to the USA and his answer was no.
Can you point to a citation for that? His campaign put out a statement saying that yes, it would include US citizens who were Muslim.
Remember, the religious freedom clause is the very first one mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It was the reason European pilgrims came to the US in the first place (and why they were called "pilgrims"), so they were very very careful about spelling out that government religious tests were not acceptable.
The fact is, that you can't really claim your religious freedom is being infringed when you haven't even entered the country
Donald Trump was asked for clarification on an important point: He says US citizens who are Muslims and traveling abroad should also be barred from entering the country.
Let's go over that tricky First Amendment one more time for good measure:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, do you really believe it would be constitutional or right in any shape or form to prohibit US citizens from re-entering the country based only on their religion? If you're unsure, read the text of the 1st Am again.
You are splitting some mighty fine hair to claim that immigration is the same thing as free speech.
You really don't know what's in the First Amendment, do you? Here, let me give you the entire text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
See that? The entire 1stAm. Free speech isn't even the first thing mentioned. A lot of people conveniently forget the actual text of the Amendment and just use "free speech" as shorthand for the whole thing, the same way they conveniently forget the full text of the 2ndAm. Now, do you understand how not allowing US citizens who are Muslims from returning to the country from abroad, or having a religious test in order to forbid one religion from entering the country is a violation of the First Amendment?
Let me know if you're still having trouble. I really want you to understand this.
I'm not talking about Donald Trump. I'm talking about the significant cohort of white Americans who believe in an absolute right to bear arms and also believe that we should not allow any Muslims into the country.
I saw one poll today that showed Donald Trump's proposal of a religious test for immigrants and re-entry of US citizens into the US made them more likely to support him, and the number was over 40%. Those are the "Pro 1st Amendment/Pro 2nd Amendment" people I'm talking about, and there are a lot of them.
Are you really not following the part where any such order involves the delay, travel, paperwork, fees, background check and multiple visits to a licensed FFL in order to consummate the purchase?
If you're shopping on TV, you're probably not thinking all those things through. All you see is, "5 EZ payments of $69.95 for this beautiful Chinese handgun, with the engraved faces of Jesus and Ronald Reagan on the grip. And if you act now, we'll send you this high quality paper target in the silhouette of Barack Obama."
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't you be? And let's be honest, when it comes to cruel, mean and violent, pigs can't hold a candle to humans.
Kim Davis is free to believe whatever she wants to believe. If she doesn't want to get gay married, she doesn't have to. If she's a public servant who doesn't want to do her job and uphold the law because her religious convictions won't allow it, she needs to get another job or face the consequences.
But she stays an American either way. Now where is the cognitive dissonance?
Maybe the pigs wouldn't be getting the diseases in the first place if they weren't kept cheek-by-jowl in their own filth, in pens where they can't even turn around.
But have no fear, now that there are laws against taking pictures of factory pig farms and the horrific conditions the animals are kept in even from public property, we're all going to be more safe because of genetic engineering.
http://www.greenisthenewred.co...
https://www.aspca.org/animal-c...
Mirelurks and bloatflies are just around the corner.
I'm pretty sure you're joking, but you never can tell these days.
So, you're saying that you don't have a single example of feminists saying that men are inherently evil?
I didn't think so.
Spin off this.
Give us an example or STFU.
You could also say that the right to religious freedom is really the right to free thought, which for most people precedes free speech. Except apparently for Donald Trump, for whom thought rarely precedes speech.
In fact, law schools have a word to describe such an argument. It's called "originalist", and it very much involves what "the founding fathers would have thought of the plan".
Now, you want to address the arguments in the second link, where actual top constitutional and legal scholars debate the constitutionality of Trump's plan?
I actually believe it and I also find it a convenient insult.
Here is a tumblr of GOP candidates with dildos photoshopped in place of the guns they're holding:
http://gopdildo.tumblr.com/
I think it's pretty clear that there is a sexual component to the worship of guns. And I say this as someone who has owned (and shot) guns for more than 40 years. And I've qualified at various times as a marksman and a sharpshooter.
That's really debatable. Here's a right-wing conservative telling you why (and I can't believe I'm actually linking to National Review):
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
And here are a bunch of top legal and constitutional scholars arguing both ways:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/...
So it's not nearly as cut and dried as you would think.
Except on immigration, abortion, Planned Parenthood, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syrian refugees, gun control, taxing the wealthy, Social Security, Hillary Clinton, and even his party affiliation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I'd say that Donald Trump changes his mind fairly often, if you take him by his words.
The salient question is, if you watched GunTV, would you do so with your pants on?
Would it really surprise you if Donald Trump said two opposite things?
Do you realize that there are things in the First Amendment besides "free speech"?
Can you point to a citation for that? His campaign put out a statement saying that yes, it would include US citizens who were Muslim.
Remember, the religious freedom clause is the very first one mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It was the reason European pilgrims came to the US in the first place (and why they were called "pilgrims"), so they were very very careful about spelling out that government religious tests were not acceptable.
Donald Trump was asked for clarification on an important point: He says US citizens who are Muslims and traveling abroad should also be barred from entering the country.
Let's go over that tricky First Amendment one more time for good measure:
Now, do you really believe it would be constitutional or right in any shape or form to prohibit US citizens from re-entering the country based only on their religion? If you're unsure, read the text of the 1st Am again.
You really don't know what's in the First Amendment, do you? Here, let me give you the entire text:
See that? The entire 1stAm. Free speech isn't even the first thing mentioned. A lot of people conveniently forget the actual text of the Amendment and just use "free speech" as shorthand for the whole thing, the same way they conveniently forget the full text of the 2ndAm. Now, do you understand how not allowing US citizens who are Muslims from returning to the country from abroad, or having a religious test in order to forbid one religion from entering the country is a violation of the First Amendment?
Let me know if you're still having trouble. I really want you to understand this.
I'm not talking about Donald Trump. I'm talking about the significant cohort of white Americans who believe in an absolute right to bear arms and also believe that we should not allow any Muslims into the country.
I saw one poll today that showed Donald Trump's proposal of a religious test for immigrants and re-entry of US citizens into the US made them more likely to support him, and the number was over 40%. Those are the "Pro 1st Amendment/Pro 2nd Amendment" people I'm talking about, and there are a lot of them.
Right here:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/...
Sadly, no:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
Strange how so many fans of the First Amendment forget that there's more to it than freeze peach.
If you're shopping on TV, you're probably not thinking all those things through. All you see is, "5 EZ payments of $69.95 for this beautiful Chinese handgun, with the engraved faces of Jesus and Ronald Reagan on the grip. And if you act now, we'll send you this high quality paper target in the silhouette of Barack Obama."
I would phrase the question, "What decent, law-abiding citizen is watching GunTV?"
Here's a guy that "gets" GunTV:
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/i...