I'm Confused

[Versatile_Hunter]

2 hours ago, Northcountryman said:

The link you sent is from 11 years ago and doesn’t appear to be working . I would like to see it , though . 

I said it was dated but broken I did not. I’ll get to the bottom of this!

[Northcountryman]

52 minutes ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

I said it was dated but broken I did not. I’ll get to the bottom of this!

Ok, i watched it- definitely funny, but its  too outdated!! I thought you were going to give me something within past few days that directly pertains  to this whole Supreme Court nomination of a black woman thing. Having said that, I think its fair to say that BOTH sides play the victim card from time to time, but who lpalys it more often -and more adroitly- than the left?

 

[Salmon_Run]

Response to a legitimate discussion:  

A veiled attempted to indicate that the statement was somehow racist:  "This may be disturbing to some, but there is such a thing as a qualified black woman."

State justifications that the conduct is acceptable because the other guy did it first: "How is this any different than Trump promising to appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v Wade?"

Then engage in childish name call and attempt to belittle others: "Nothing outrageous or inappropriate. Bunch of dainty snowflakes."

Then play the game that other guys must be acting like a victim to feel morally and intellectually superior: "It’s amusing to see it used against crying libs when conservatives are constantly crying about some (usually fictitious) sense of victimization."

No post stated anyone felt victimized or attacked:  "As a white dude, I don’t feel victimized or attacked by it in any way."

Still didn't answer my simple yes or no question and then make the statement that blacks were wronged before so reverse discrimination is acceptable today:  "I’d encourage you to consider the historical context that adds asymmetries to the counter example you propose. For far too long, black folks where legally not allowed to participate. Though those laws have been overturned, in far too many instances they remain in place de facto. His proclamation brings attention to this gap and I feel that it’s a positive step in the right direction."

I guess by that reasoning it's accepted for a person in authority to make the statement they are providing a benefit to another based upon color and gender; but only if some other guy did it first, the person complaining is a whiney victim, and must have felt under attack, or justified to make up for prior egregious atrocities.   

I would like to hope we, as citizens, hold our elected officials to the highest moral, ethical and social standards; but I guess some don't feel that way and hypocritical actions are excused or explained away...

Thank you all who responded maturely for a spirited debate on this thread. 

[Versatile_Hunter]

36 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

Ok, i watched it- definitely funny, but its  too outdated!! I thought you were going to give me something within past few days that directly pertains  to this whole Supreme Court nomination of a black woman thing. Having said that, I think its fair to say that BOTH sides play the victim card from time to time, but who lpalys it more often -and more adroitly- than the left?

 

You though that I was? Presumptuous, huh.
Here, I would point you towards Ted Cruz but I imagine that even you consider him too much of a clown to be taken seriously...

[Jeremy K]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CZdEt0gNCIP/?utm_medium=copy_link

[Grouse]

Just to correct a myth leftists are pushing at this time, Conservatives are not saying the don't want a black woman on the Supreme Court.  They would be perfectly happy to see Condoleeza Rice, Winsome Sears, Alveda King or any other black woman who reveres the Rule of Law and is a Constitutional literalist.

It's not about sex or race.  It's about not putting a political activist in a position to make law, rather then rule on a law's Constitutionality.

[ApexerER]

47 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Just to correct a myth leftists are pushing at this time, Conservatives are not saying the don't want a black woman on the Supreme Court.  They would be perfectly happy to see Condoleeza Rice, Winsome Sears, Alveda King or any other black woman who reveres the Rule of Law and is a Constitutional literalist.

It's not about sex or race.  It's about not putting a political activist in a position to make law, rather then rule on a law's Constitutionality.

Yup and according to Biden yesterday, The constitution is always changing? Really, when was the last change too the constitution? 1992 the states finally ratified the 27th amendment after 202 years so not a new change.  The only thing that changes is the more the leftist ignore it.

[Northcountryman]

20 hours ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

You mean a bunch of white guys acting butt hurt because it was announced that a black woman will be nominated (with a surprising amount of bipartisan support) doesn’t paint a picture of aggrieved conservatives? Well then, here’s a dated yet hilarious take on the matter:

https://www.cc.com/video/cctlv8/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-gop-special-victims-unit 

Presumptuous? Maybe, but I figured cuz you said this that it was directly related to it. but it wasn't. 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Northcountryman

[Northcountryman]

4 hours ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

Here, I would point you towards Ted Cruz but I imagine that even you consider him too much of a clown to be taken seriously...

Not all all, i like Ted Cruz, although I will admit that he can be a bit too conservative for me at times. 

[BowmanMike]

The constitution is really not that great of a document when you consider black people have only been able to vote a couple hundred years after it was penned and woman were only a little bit earlier than that. 

Times have changed a bit in 200+ years.

[Jeremy K]

4 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

The constitution is really not that great of a document when you consider black people have only been able to vote a couple hundred years after it was penned and woman were only a little bit earlier than that. 

Times have changed a bit in 200+ years.

Is there specifics in the constitution that limit what minorities can achieve in this country? 

[Versatile_Hunter]

3 hours ago, Northcountryman said:

Not all all, i like Ted Cruz, although I will admit that he can be a bit too conservative for me at times. 

Did you miss his spineless apology tour on Fox? 

[Northcountryman]

27 minutes ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

Did you miss his spineless apology tour on Fox? 

I must have; can you enlighten me?

[BowmanMike]

3 hours ago, Jeremy K said:

Is there specifics in the constitution that limit what minorities can achieve in this country? 

Not that I know of,but how come minorities didn't get to vote until over a century after its conception?

[Jeremy K]

8 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

Not that I know of,but how come minorities didn't get to vote until over a century after its conception?

I dont know the constitution well enough to know where they actually got the voting laws from . 

[Shoots100]

16 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

Not that I know of,but how come minorities didn't get to vote until over a century after its conception?

Because Democrats didn't want them to vote.

Who are the real racists ?

Edited February 3, 2022 by Shoots100

[Northcountryman]

41 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

Not that I know of,but how come minorities didn't get to vote until over a century after its conception?

I think it was actually less than a century and because early on , the constitution granted voting rights only to white dudes !! 

[Northcountryman]

28 minutes ago, Shoots100 said:

Because Democrats didn't want them to vote.

Who are the real racists ?

Correct 

[Lucky118]

Just pandering  to his base. Ship's  going down fast just trying to plug some holes. Sad thing is there are plenty of dummys around that will stand there with their finger in the hole as the water gets to their neck lol.

[Grouse]

11 hours ago, BowmanMike said:

Not that I know of,but how come minorities didn't get to vote until over a century after its conception?

For your information, it was the US Constitution that was used to give them the right to vote.  Their rights were being violated by Democrats until it was challenged in the Supreme Court.

The US Constitution is the greatest legal government document in the history of the world.  It's the politicians that are voted into office that are the problem.

[9jNYstarkOH]

12 hours ago, Northcountryman said:

I think it was actually less than a century and because early on , the constitution granted voting rights only to white dudes !! 

I believe it was just land owning white males, than all white males. Than it was only woman that where land owners or married to land owns than all woman.

Edited February 3, 2022 by 9jNYstarkOH

[Grouse]

Who should vote? How should they vote? The founders wrestled with these questions. They wondered about the rights of minorities. In their day, that meant worrying if the rights of property owners would be overrun by the votes of those who did not own land. James Madison described the problem this way:

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property....

Eventually, the framers of the Constitution left details of voting to the states. In Article I Section 4, the Constitution says:

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.

Unfortunately, leaving election control to individual states led to unfair voting practices in the U.S. At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote. President Andrew Jackson, champion of frontiersmen, helped advance the political rights of those who did not own property. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers, and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country.

The US Constitution did NOT address the right to vote until the 15th Amendment was debated and ratified.

It was the US Constitution itself that provided the evidence that supported the right to vote for all citizens of the US.

In 1870 the 15th Amendment was ratified, which provided specifically that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

[GreeneHunter]

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

Who should vote?  .....color or previous condition of servitude.

Shortened it for ya !

[BowmanMike]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

For your information, it was the US Constitution that was used to give them the right to vote.  Their rights were being violated by Democrats until it was challenged in the Supreme Court.

The US Constitution is the greatest legal government document in the history of the world.  It's the politicians that are voted into office that are the problem.

Communism sounds pretty good in theory too,but it is always the greed of people that screws up well intended ideas.

[Grouse]

The US Constitution has worked very well in practice for hundreds of years.  Greed of people will screw up good things.  That's why leftists and Democrats claim it needs to be abolished.