Gun ownership poll

[Deertick]

Vax "mandates" were not forcing someone to do something against their will. It was the definition of "choice". Get a vaccine to protect society at large, or find another job, just not on the government teat.

[G1911]

I also am very happy the Supreme Court consists of people from multiple races and both genders. Clarence Thomas' take down of Dred Scott in this decision and his declaration that rights apply to all Americans is particularly resonant.

Or is this not the diversity we like, because he has the wrong opinion?

Of course, when valid arguments can no longer be found, it is the response to try and make it about race and gender, even though it was authored by an African-American male and a woman's addition to the Court is what made it a clear majority (many of us are surprised that Roberts signed on with this).

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

I also am very happy the Supreme Court consists of people from multiple races and both genders. Clarence Thomas' take down of Dred Scott in this decision and his declaration that rights apply to all Americans is particularly resonant.

Or is this not the diversity we like, because he has the wrong opinion?

Of course, when valid arguments can no longer be found, it is the response to try and make it about race and gender, even though it was authored by an African-American male and a woman's addition to the Court is what made it a clear majority (many of us are surprised that Roberts signed on with this).

No one said the Supreme Court isn’t currently diverse, and it takes half a brain to argue it is, although it is politically motivated and that has almost always been the case. It’s the state legislatures in states that will now be deciding what women/women of color can and cannot do with their bodies that are historically underrepresented.

Side note: accused sexual abusers as the paragon of conservative virtue is fairly ironic.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

No one said the Supreme Court isn’t currently diverse, and it takes half a brain to argue it is, although it is politically motivated and that has almost always been the case. It’s the state legislatures in states that will now be deciding what women/women of color can and cannot do with their bodies that are historically underrepresented.

Side note: accused sexual abusers as the paragon of conservative virtue is fairly ironic.

Oh, it again has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and we are not to assign the claims made about the groups and people involved in the 2A issue to be about anything to do with the topic, and restricted to the off-topic topic only. Go make an Abortion thread. It sincerely would be very interesting and we probably agree more there. This thread is not about abortion, racial politics, and gender debate.

Women/women of color is a funny way of saying "women".

Accused = guilty. That sounds right.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Oh, it again has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and we are not to assign the claims made about the groups and people involved in the 2A issue to be about anything to do with the topic, and restricted to the off-topic topic only. Go make an Abortion thread. It sincerely would be very interesting and we probably agree more there. This thread is not about abortion, racial politics, and gender debate.

Women/women of color is a funny way of saying "women".

Accused = guilty. That sounds right.

That was written purposefully. They deserve special recognition because they have too often been forgotten. Figured I’d see if you took issue with it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

That was written purposefully. They deserve special recognition because they have too often been forgotten. Figured I’d see if you took issue with it.

Of course I do. It's absurd. "Women" is not a racial term, it includes women of all races. Can we address the actual topic instead of your gender agenda?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Side note: accused sexual abusers as the paragon of conservative virtue is fairly ironic.

Accused of something for the first time, that supposedly happened 35 years prior. The accusers OWN WITNESSES said it wasn't Kavanaugh. But never mind, insinuate he was guilty. The same thing was done to Clarence Thomas.
That's how some people work.

Meanwhile, the law of the land (for those of us who care) says a person is innocent until proven guilty. I guess that's just another law, like the 2nd Amendment, that we can ignore when convenient.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Accused of something for the first time, that supposedly happened 35 years prior. The accusers OWN WITNESSES said it wasn't Kavanaugh. But never mind, insinuate he was guilty. The same thing was done to Clarence Thomas.
That's how some people work.

Meanwhile, the law of the land (for those of us who care) says a person is innocent until proven guilty. I guess that's just another law, like the 2nd Amendment, that we can ignore when convenient.

I bet you think Deshaun Watson did it though.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I bet you think Deshaun Watson did it though.

Why? Be clear with your insinuation.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Why? Be clear with your insinuation.

Lots of evidence against him. Innocent until proven guilty tends to be selectively used to defend people who you like or with whom you side. Carrying it as a mantra to replace your own reasonable thoughts about whether a person did something or not is pretty silly. The law has technicalities - facts do not.