- 19,587
- Alabamamania
Conservatism
- Thread starter HenrySwanson
- 1,569 comments
- 91,343 views
- 29,451
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Ah.
www.cbsnews.com
They also cry about Target carrying products that Christians find offensive...of course offense is innate to Christianity; they're offended by a lot, but "weirdly" (it's really not weird at all) they're seemingly not offended by threats of violence directed at Target employees over products carried.
If you say and do things that they don't like, conservatives will hurt you and they will absolutely utilize force of the state to do so.
And how long ago was it that the Supreme Court affirmed expressive and associative rights in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis?
Modern American conservatism is mental illness.
I distinctly recall a bitchfit from that one in which one, blaming "MSM" (a perennial connie bitchfit), cried about people supposedly not helping enough following a hurricane by which one was personally affected.
At the very same time that they will hurt you for saying and doing things that they don't like, conservatives expect you to do for them. It's a staggeringly self-centered ideology.
Edit: Also, nowhere in the Constitution is the "right" of parents to be informed by their child's school of the child's sexuality and gender identity and expression contrary to their child's will enshrined, and such a legal right is a violation of individual rights. It's actually a good policy to consult with the child before informing their parents of such identity and/or expression because there absolutely are conservatives out there who will beat a child (not necessarily even their own, either biological or by circumstance) if said identity and/or expression is disfavored.
Republican attorneys general issue warning letter to Target about Pride merchandise
The letter did not include any specific demands nor did it outline how the attorneys general believe the campaign could violate child protection laws.
www.cbsnews.com
I particularly like the parts of the bitchfit wherein these connie rats criticize Target's alignment with GLSEN's mission to end discrimination, harassment, and bullying based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, because it means that Target opposes these connie rats' discrimination, harassment, and bullying based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.
They also cry about Target carrying products that Christians find offensive...of course offense is innate to Christianity; they're offended by a lot, but "weirdly" (it's really not weird at all) they're seemingly not offended by threats of violence directed at Target employees over products carried.
If you say and do things that they don't like, conservatives will hurt you and they will absolutely utilize force of the state to do so.
And how long ago was it that the Supreme Court affirmed expressive and associative rights in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis?
Modern American conservatism is mental illness.
lol
I distinctly recall a bitchfit from that one in which one, blaming "MSM" (a perennial connie bitchfit), cried about people supposedly not helping enough following a hurricane by which one was personally affected.
At the very same time that they will hurt you for saying and doing things that they don't like, conservatives expect you to do for them. It's a staggeringly self-centered ideology.
Edit: Also, nowhere in the Constitution is the "right" of parents to be informed by their child's school of the child's sexuality and gender identity and expression contrary to their child's will enshrined, and such a legal right is a violation of individual rights. It's actually a good policy to consult with the child before informing their parents of such identity and/or expression because there absolutely are conservatives out there who will beat a child (not necessarily even their own, either biological or by circumstance) if said identity and/or expression is disfavored.
Last edited:
- 29,451
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
As Farmers Insurance pulls out, Florida CFO slams company as ‘woke,’ Dems unload on GOP
The fallout continues after another major insurance company chose to pull out of Florida’s ailing property insurance market.
- 19,587
- Alabamamania
[/b][/color]As Farmers Insurance pulls out, Florida CFO slams company as ‘woke,’ Dems unload on GOP
The fallout continues after another major insurance company chose to pull out of Florida’s ailing property insurance market.www.local10.com
What a stupid blame game.
Florida literally can't keep insurance companies in the state and back up windstorm claims. So many have came and left. Then the state / feds have to bail out the homeowners out and Florida finds a new company because it's a requirement if you have a mortgage.
A pretty big reason why we left Florida...Home Insurance is insane. Could you really blame insurance companies for not wanting to take a $10 billion hit every 2-3 years? This has happened for the last 30 years; insurer after insurer comes in and then leaves a few years later, refusing to write new policies on homes and businesses in Florida.
But by all means, press the dumb button instead of realizing it's getting to be overcrowded, weather unsafe, and you can't legislate away anymore of Mother Nature's rights.
Last edited:
- 23,813
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
- 29,451
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Texas judge who doesn’t want to perform gay marriage ceremonies hopes web designer’s Supreme Court case helps her fight
McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley filed a lawsuit after a state agency warned her about refusing to marry gay couples. She hopes a recent U.S. Supreme Court case about religious freedom helps her cause.
www.texastribune.org
- 20,584
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
Is she a private judge or does she work for the government? If it's the latter (and it probably is), it will be hard to state that she can make it illegal to marry a same-sex couple. This brings to mind that clerk woman from Kentucky, who wasn't forced to marry same-sex couples but also could not deny them the ability to get married as another clerk would then have to process the proceedings.Yes, the Supreme Court case this rat hopes helps its "fight" is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the decision of which held that fundamentally expressive acts cannot be compelled even on the basis that the subject of said expression is part of a protected class.Texas judge who doesn’t want to perform gay marriage ceremonies hopes web designer’s Supreme Court case helps her fight
McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley filed a lawsuit after a state agency warned her about refusing to marry gay couples. She hopes a recent U.S. Supreme Court case about religious freedom helps her cause.
However, the person funding this is the same person who funded the bounty hunter abortion ruling in Texas, so it has better than 0% chance.
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,474
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Read the story. I didn't even know private judges were a thing outside of family law.
Sounds like this could be a performative lawsuit to send a message to the faithful (sorry for pun) and preach to the converted (oops did it again), as surely this judge and her lawyer know that as a government employee her bigotry isn't protected against the law?
If it's a "second-class right" as she calls it compared to actual rights defined in your Constitution, perhaps that's because it'd be a "right" to deny others rights. But her Texan fans will just hear "same-sex" and hope the Supreme Court will be on their side.
It's interesting but salient to me that although she refers same-sex couples who want to marry towards other parties who are willing to perform the ceremony, this wasn't sufficient to convince the state judicial conduct commission guys since she no longer appeared to be an impartial judge.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,608
- Mile High City
Yes, the Supreme Court case this rat hopes helps its "fight" is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the decision of which held that fundamentally expressive acts cannot be compelled even on the basis that the subject of said expression is part of a protected class.Texas judge who doesn’t want to perform gay marriage ceremonies hopes web designer’s Supreme Court case helps her fight
McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley filed a lawsuit after a state agency warned her about refusing to marry gay couples. She hopes a recent U.S. Supreme Court case about religious freedom helps her cause.
Yea it's for sure a fundamental misunderstanding of the 303 ruling as this is not an "expressive act" like the case in the ruling. There is nothing of a judge's speech in rendering a legally supported judgment. The judge's job is to interpret the law. If the supreme court somehow helped in this case, it would not stem from that case.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,608
- Mile High City
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,474
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Danoff
Premium
- 33,608
- Mile High City
In reviewing this case, it looks like it started in 2019. The judge recuse herself and was sanctioned by the Texas government. She sued and lost several times, and the case has gone to the Texas supreme court. This judge is hoping that the 303 ruling somehow helps her case. It's a bad reading of 303 to think it will help.
Last edited:
- 1,778
- Space City, USA
- GTP_MPower
- JetsE36
- 1,778
- Space City, USA
- GTP_MPower
- JetsE36
The article referenced that law, but after reading it, it doesn't seem to pertain to her case at all. It reads more like a reaction to the closing of places of worship during Covid. The 303 case may help her own case (I haven't read either one through), seeing as she was acting in a private capacity (according to the article), but we will find out I'm sure.
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,474
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
- 20,584
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
Danoff
Premium
- 33,608
- Mile High City
From @UKMikey's article, here is her argument:
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/12/texas-judge-gay-weddings-supreme-court/
This mischaracterizes the 303 ruling. The 303 ruling did not say web designers cannot be forced by the state to compromise their beliefs and serve same-sex couples. It rather said the opposite - that it was crucial that the web designer was open and willing to serve gay couples. The question at hand was whether the web designer could be forced to create a website (an expressive work) supporting gay marriage, a view that ran counter to her religious beliefs. Being a wedding officiant is its own line of work. It is not analogous to a website designer designing a flavor of website that is for a wedding. Nor is it analogous to a cake maker making a cake that is a wedding cake. Wedding officiant is its own thing. A judge can act as a wedding officiant, but they are not the only people that can do so. Under the 303 ruling, a wedding officiant would appear to need to have doors open to all types of couples. The same would be true of many types of vendors for weddings. If you sell wedding catering services, for example, you would appear to need to have your doors open to gay couples.
Now, the supreme court could expand on 303 in the future and say that a flower arrangement is an expressive act, or serving chicken is an expressive act, or playing music that was not written for the gay wedding but that is played at a gay wedding is its own expressive act in support of the wedding itself rather than the reproduction of the music. If any of those things were done by the supreme court, it could support the argument here that wedding vendors cannot be forced to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies because they offer wedding ceremony services. That could happen, but 303 did not create that precedent. It would be a new and separate ruling - though if it happened, the court would no doubt pretend that it wasn't new.
Hensley has a second problem though. In addition to the fact that the 303 ruling actually seems to argue AGAINST her case, her position as a judge requires that she maintain a level of impartiality in her extrajudicial activities. There are many such rules for government officials when engaging in business within or outside of their official capacity. It's especially true where an outside of work position might have business before the office of the same person in their official capacity - creating at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Companies and government both have these sorts of requirements - that your business endeavors outside of official job not create conflicts of interest or otherwise appear to compromise your role. More public jobs (such as CEO) may find these kinds of conflicts in more places. In short, having to recuse yourself from every case involving a gay person is too much of a burden on your official work.
For what it's worth, there is a hypocritical angle here where being a an officiant is an expressive flavor of being a judge but simultaneously not part of being a judge. Just figured I should point out that line of reasoning falls on its face.
TL;DR
As I said earlier, it's a bad reading of 303 to suggest that it changes anything about her case. A website designer has no impartiality requirement for extra-business activities, and also is required as discussed in that ruling to have their business's doors open to gay people.
Last edited:
- 29,451
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Ah.
Republican attorneys general issue warning letter to Target about Pride merchandise
The letter did not include any specific demands nor did it outline how the attorneys general believe the campaign could violate child protection laws.
Republican AGs Decide That Coercive Jawboning Is Good, Actually (When They Do It)
It will surprise nobody to learn that when politicians trumpet the First Amendment, they are generally referring only to expression that they agree with. But occasionally, they demonstrate their hy…
www.techdirt.com
But these AGs are not principled, honest, ethical, or competent attorneys (I’d wager that they aren’t those things as people either), and they deserve neither respect nor the offices they hold despite their manifest unfitness.
They are con-artists engaging in the familiar ploy of using the First Amendment as a partisan cudgel to claim expression they like is being censored, while actively working to censor speech they disagree with. Their view of the First Amendment is clear and pernicious: you can say whatever they think you should be allowed to say.
It’s nothing new, of course. But it’s always worthy of scorn and condemnation. And maybe a lawsuit or two."
GOD DAMN, Ari is good. So good that the Cato Institute's WalterIt will surprise nobody to learn that when politicians trumpet the First Amendment, they are generally referring only to expression that they agree with. But occasionally, they demonstrate their hypocrisy in a fashion so outrageously transparent that it shocks even the most cynical and jaded First Amendment practitioners. Last week, we were treated to just such an instance, courtesy of seven Republican Attorneys General. They deserve to be named, ignominiously: Todd Rokita (IN), Andrew Bailey (MO), Tim Griffin (AR), Daniel Cameron (KY), Raul Labrador (ID), Lynn Fitch (MS), and Alan Wilson (SC).
One of those names might stick out: Missouri AG Andrew Bailey. Last week, Bailey took a victory lap in Missouri’s lawsuit against the Biden administration: U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty engaged in some judicial theatrics, releasing a 155-page ruling on July 4 finding that an assortment of government actors likely violated the First Amendment by discussing content moderation with social media platforms.
That ruling was a very mixed bag, and is outside the scope of this article. The important thing to remember is that Missouri sued government officials, asserting that their pressure on social media platforms over content was unconstitutional—and a judge agreed.
The very next day, Bailey turned around and joined these other AGs in a ham-fisted, legally and factually inaccurate letter threatening Target over the sale of Pride Month merchandise and its support of an LGBT organization—all of which happens to be, you guessed it, protected expression. Let’s dig in.
The Merchandise
It’s worth reviewing exactly what products the AGs complained about:
It would be difficult to come up with a clearer example of government targeting expression on the basis of viewpoint—the most fundamental First Amendment violation possible. You don’t see them going after “daddy’s little girl” shirts or “Jesus Calling” books, and I’d bet my life that they wouldn’t pursue the seller of a shirt that says “there are only two genders.” The AGs’ complaint is, by its own admission, directed at the messages contained within certain products.
You may not need reminding, but apparently these inept AGs do: the First Amendment’s protection is quite broad.
It envelops expression conveyed via clothing (or other products) the same as it protects the words written in a book: the government cannot ban “Satanist” shirts any more than it could ban the sale of bibles.
And it protects the sale, distribution, and reception of expression no less than the right to create the expression: the government cannot punish the seller of a book any more than it could prohibit writing it in the first place.
So What’s These AGs’ Problem, Exactly?
As a general matter, that’s a question better directed to their therapists—there’s probably a lot going on there.
But specific to these products, our merry band of hapless censors really had to heave a (entirely unconvincing) Hail Mary to try getting around the First Amendment:
Obscenity and "Harmful to Minors"
[Threshold note: Obscenity doctrine is a complete mess, and for various reasons obscenity prosecutions are extremely difficult in this day and age. But historically, obscenity law has been a favorite tool of government actors seeking to suppress LGBT speech. These AGs are following in that ignoble, censorious, and bigoted tradition.]
Let’s start with the definition of obscenity that Indiana AG Todd Rokita (who authored the letter) provides:
First, Rokita actually gets his own state’s law wrong. Obscenity does not include “material harmful to minors” under Indiana law. The latter is its own separate category. Perhaps that’s a minor quibble, but if you’re going to issue bumptious threats under the color of law, you should at least describe the law correctly.
Second, Rokita conveniently leaves out the three other requirements for matter to be “harmful to minors”:
He leaves them out, of course, because it’s obvious that none of the products discussed describe or represent “nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse” and the inquiry properly ends at Step One.
But even under his truncated definition, you would have to be incompetent to stand trial—let alone practice law—to conclude that any merchandise the letter complains of, “considered as a whole . . . appeals to the prurient interest in sex of minors.” The Supreme Court defined “prurient interest” as “a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.” As with all Supreme Court attempts to define sex-related things, this definition is somewhat clunky and unsatisfying; yet it still demonstrates how asinine these sorry excuses for lawyers are.
Recall some of the products named in the letter:
LGBT-themed onesies, bibs, and overalls. The inclusion of “bibs” indicates to me that they’re referring to…clothes for infants? First of all, that very young child wearing their Pride bib over their Pride onesie while chucking Cheerios across the room from their highchair has no knowledge of “nudity, sex, or excretion,” let alone the capacity for a shameful interest in it. Second, if these AGs look at an infant wearing a Pride bib and their mind immediately goes to SEX, I would urge them to seek immediate mental health care and stay at least 1000 feet away from any child, ever.
I’m also curious how either of these insanely benign shirts (made for adults, by the way) could possibly appeal to the prurient interest of anyone:
Aha, they will say. What about the tuck-friendly swimwear? Set aside the fact that they were apparently only available in adult sizes. Do they appeal to a shameful interest in nudity? Considering that it’s clothing, quite the opposite. What about sex? No, not really: sex means sex acts or sexual behavior, not mere gender expression. If a statute defining “prurient interest” as “incit[ing] lasciviousness or lust” was held unconstitutionally overbroad, there is no question that defining gender expression as “a shameful interest in sex” is not going to work. Excretion? Well, unless you’re the type of person that pees in the pool and gets off on it (way to tell on yourselves), that’s not going to work either.
And obviously the “Satanist” and “anti-Christian” merchandise they complain about in such a delicate, snowflake-like fashion have absolutely nothing to do with sex.
The only possible way that the AGs could believe (other than by reason of sheer incompetence) that these products are legally “harmful to minors” is if they believe that anything LGBT-related is ipso facto sexual. That’s a belief that is both shockingly prejudiced, and so stupid that even the Fifth Circuit wouldn’t likely accept it. During oral arguments in the litigation over Texas’ content moderation law, Judge Andy Oldham found it “extraordinary” that social media platforms affirmed that under their view of the First Amendment, they could ban all pro-LGBT content if they so desired. If all such content is “harmful to minors,” I have a hard time believing he would have found the proposition so troubling.
None of these products are even close calls. They are emphatically, and unquestionably protected by the First Amendment.
Parental Rights
The AGs cite as another concern “potential interference with parental authority in matters of sex and gender identity.” Footnote 3 provides citations to a bevy of state laws about school libraries and gender-affirming care (several of which have been enjoined). Which, of course, have nothing to do with anything, as the footnote even acknowledges: “all of these laws may not be implicated by Target’s recent campaign.”
But even after acknowledging that these laws are irrelevant, the letter continues to say “they nevertheless demonstrate that our States have a strong interest in protecting children and the interests of parental rights.”
That’s great, I’m happy for them, but also…no. What they demonstrate is that your state legislatures passed some bills. What they don’t demonstrate is that you have the constitutionally valid interest you think you do. The merchandise is clearly protected by the First Amendment for both adults and minors. And “speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.”
California, too, tried the “parental rights” argument when it banned the sale of violent video games to minors. The Supreme Court was not impressed:
The law is clear: government may not place limits on (or punish) the distribution of constitutionally protected materials to minors by shouting “parental rights.” Parents are free to parent, but the government is not free to enforce its version of “good parenting” (guffaw) on everyone by law.
Target's Donations to GLSEN
If you thought that was the end of the stupidity, buckle up. The AGs also complain about Target’s donations to GLSEN, an LGBT education advocacy group which the letter, for no apparent reason, instructs readers on how to pronounce (“glisten,” if you’re curious). Because GLSEN advocates that educators should not reveal students’ gender identity to their parents without consent, the AGs claim that the donations “raise concerns” under “child-protection and parental-rights laws.”
Nonsense.
First things first: GLSEN has a First Amendment right to advocate for what it believes school policies should be, no matter what a state’s law says. The AGs’ insinuation that advocacy against their states’ laws is somehow unlawful is startling and dangerous.
Second, Target has a First Amendment right to support GLSEN through its partnership. This thinly-veiled threat that Target could face prosecution if it doesn’t stop donating to advocacy that government officials don’t like is wholly beneath contempt, and should be repulsive to every American. I’m not sure how much there is to say about this; it’s a dark sign that the attorneys general of seven states would so readily declare their opposition to fundamental liberties.
"But this speech we don't like"
You could be forgiven for thinking that this came from a draft complaint or motion for a preliminary injunction aimed at the attorneys general who signed this letter.
But in fact, it is from Missouri’s own motion for a preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden, arguing that the federal government coerced social media platforms into censoring users.
What was the “threat of criminal prosecution” so explicit and coercive, in Missouri’s view, to render the government responsible for platforms’ content moderation decisions? Then-candidate Biden...
So, according to Missouri, the blustering of a candidate who, if elected, would not himself even have the power to actually prosecute is sufficiently explicit and coercive. And that’s in a case about whether the government can be held responsible for private action against third-party speech.
This argument leaves precisely no room for the notion that a letter from states’ top prosecutors, citing various criminal statutes, to the speaker of the targeted, protected speech itself, is anything but an even more obvious First Amendment violation. It would be so even had Missouri not made this argument. But the rank hypocrisy here is so brazen that it cannot escape notice.
Spaghetti at the Wall
In the second half of the letter, the AGs shift gears to say they are also writing as the representatives of their states in their capacity as shareholders of Target. They allege that Target’s management “may have acted negligently” in its Pride campaign, due to the backlash and falling stock price. They write:
They aren’t even trying to hide their perverse inversion of the First Amendment, turning the company’s right to decide what expressive products to sell into a threat of liability for deciding to sell the expressive products they disfavor.
Perhaps the AGs think that framing it as a “shareholder” concern makes the First Amendment magically go away. They are wrong.
Regardless of how they try to obfuscate it, the AGs are using the coercive authority of the state to silence views they disagree with. Whether the states are shareholders is irrelevant, and I suspect Missouri would have said as much had the federal government defendants in Missouri v. Biden been daft enough to attempt this argument.
Dig into the investments of FERS, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, etc., and I’ll bet good money that you’ll find investments in companies that own social media platforms. If the federal government communicated concerns as a “shareholder” of those companies, threatening that they may be breaching their fiduciary duty/duty of care by not removing noxious content, what do you suppose the reaction from the Right would be? You know exactly what it would be.
To paraphrase the Supreme Court, very recently, “When a state [business regulation] and the Constitution collide, there can be no question which must prevail. U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2.” Purporting to write as government “shareholders” is not an invisibility cloak against the First Amendment: state governments cannot simply purchase stock in a company and declare that they now have the right to threaten the company over their protected expression.
Implicitly Condoning Violence Against Speech (Provided it’s Against the People We Don’t Like)
To round off its unrelenting hypocrisy, the letter concludes by warning Target to “not yield” to “threats of violence.” But only some threats, apparently:
“You hear that, Target? You better not use anything as an excuse to say things we don’t like!”
Conspicuously absent is any note of the fact that it was threats of violence against Target employees that caused the merchandise to be removed or relocated in the first place. That, perhaps unsurprisingly, doesn’t seem to bother them so much—the violent threats, and Target caving to them, is just fine if these AGs agree with the perpetrators of the violence. Because for them, the First Amendment is about their own power, and nothing else.
Whatever one thinks of Target’s decisions, having even the slightest shred of honesty and principle when it comes to the First Amendment should leave you thoroughly disgusted by this letter.
But these AGs are not principled, honest, ethical, or competent attorneys (I’d wager that they aren’t those things as people either), and they deserve neither respect nor the offices they hold despite their manifest unfitness.
They are con-artists engaging in the familiar ploy of using the First Amendment as a partisan cudgel to claim expression they like is being censored, while actively working to censor speech they disagree with. Their view of the First Amendment is clear and pernicious: you can say whatever they think you should be allowed to say.
It’s nothing new, of course. But it’s always worthy of scorn and condemnation. And maybe a lawsuit or two.
The Same First Amendment That Protects Lorie Smith Protects Target
Last edited:
- 866
- United States
Just skimming the post, absolutely no one has the right in the USA to tell Target they can't sell LGBTQ merchandise. I've stated my thoughts on LGBTQ but will still shop there and stand firm for their right to free speech. Heck I've been to gay clubs because they had a video game I liked it decent pool tables. I'm straight as the Kimmel and the people in there always respected that. There are signs up asking for respect of their lifestyle, so no, I'm not going to go in there and be disrespectful. I'm going to treat them like people.
Guns are the same way. Conservatives here want to keep that right for people they approve of. No...that right is absolute in this country. I read up on the Dunblane and Port Arthur massacres (I think the peeps need hooked up to a Tesla battery pack and gassed with Raptor exhaust but that's just IMO). If I go to those countries, I follow their laws. Here, if you're not a citizen but you're physically present, you have quite a few inalienable rights, bearing arms is one of them.
Maybe one day I'll visit Hobart again. I always tell people I've "been to Hobart" and they're like, "cool, it's in southwest Oklahoma just over in yonder." No, I've never been to that Hobart. I've been to the big city in Tasmania, halfway around the world.
I digress. I probably said it but I don't belong to any political party.
See ya'll tomorrow hopefully in Race C in the ridiculously colored 787b with Kermit and Miss Piggy on it.
Guns are the same way. Conservatives here want to keep that right for people they approve of. No...that right is absolute in this country. I read up on the Dunblane and Port Arthur massacres (I think the peeps need hooked up to a Tesla battery pack and gassed with Raptor exhaust but that's just IMO). If I go to those countries, I follow their laws. Here, if you're not a citizen but you're physically present, you have quite a few inalienable rights, bearing arms is one of them.
Maybe one day I'll visit Hobart again. I always tell people I've "been to Hobart" and they're like, "cool, it's in southwest Oklahoma just over in yonder." No, I've never been to that Hobart. I've been to the big city in Tasmania, halfway around the world.
I digress. I probably said it but I don't belong to any political party.
See ya'll tomorrow hopefully in Race C in the ridiculously colored 787b with Kermit and Miss Piggy on it.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,608
- Mile High City
Well... no right is absolute in this country. Kids don't have a right to bear arms, for example. Nor convicted felons or mentally unstable/insane. And I know you personally understand that this right does not include the right to bear arms on any and every property that exists, but it's worth pointing that out too for the people who have a tendency to forget this.
Latest Posts
-
-
The GT7 Livery Editor Competition #43 (Super Taikyu)- Latest: Slender_Man
-
-
-
