"Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."Originally Posted by sonatine
-- Hillary Clinton, 2000
Weird how zero people cared in 2016 about HRC's previous position. Could it have been b/c she represented the corporate DNC establishment and didn't threaten their monetary interests?
and yet you have nothing to say in defense of your skin and hair.
curious.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
You're being really racist right now.
If you are disparaging the Regular Show we are going to have a problem there pal
true story i'm pro homosexual extremism.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
Debate is starting. Tulsi need not apply
Tulsi has come very far from being raised in a beach-cult w/ a super-conservative father. Given her growth and action on behalf of LGBT rights, I don't see what more you could want from her.
That, and you completely ignore the comparison to HRC and Obama.
The truth is not on your side. All you can do is deal in innuendos to distract from the real message Tulsi is pushing.
Key Points
-Tulsi recently released a video affirming her deep commitment to fighting for equality and protecting for our LGBTQ community
-Tulsi is a vocal advocate of equality for our LGBTQ+ community
-She is a member of the LGBT Equality Caucus in the House
-Tulsi has been given a 100% for her voting record and endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT lobby organization in the country
-"With the many challenges facing the LGBT community, we're honored to count Tulsi as an ally in standing up for issues of fairness. From her cosponsorship of the Equality Act to supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples and fighting for persons with HIV/AIDS, we applaud Tulsi's commitment to fundamental equal rights for all." - Mike Mings, Director Human Rights Campaign PAC
-The Human Rights Campaign represents a force of more than 1.5 million members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer civil rights organization, HRC envisions a world where LGBTQ people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
-Tulsi believes that “equal treatment and opportunity are fundamental rights for all Americans. Discrimination on the basis of national origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, gender, or race undermines core American principles of respect and individual freedom.”
-Tulsi is committed to fight to ensure all individuals are treated equally under the law regardless of race, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
-Tulsi has received a 100% rating for her voting record in favor of LGBT legislation.
Legislation
-H.R.5 Equality Act of 2019 To prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes
-H.R.1244 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that all provisions shall apply to legally married same-sex couples in the same manner as other married couples, and for other purposes.
-H.R 2532 Respect for Marriage Act
-H.R.2119 Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, To prohibit, as an unfair or deceptive act or practice, commercial sexual orientation conversion therapy
-H.Res.124 — Expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals.
-H.R. 1755 Employment Non-Discrimination Act
-H.R. 2839 Restore Honor to Service Members Act
-H.R. 197 Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
-H.R. 683 Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act
-H.R. 1199 Safe Schools Improvement Act
-H.R. 932 Healthy Families Act
-H. Res. 549 Designating June 26th as LGBT Equality Day
-H. Res. 208 Equality for All Resolution, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in areas that include credit, employment, education, federally funded programs, housing, jury service, and public -accommodations
H.R. 3273 LGBT Data Inclusion Act
Signed the Marriage Equality Amicus Briefs
Advocated for LGBT Housing / Privacy Rights
Advocated to End Bullying and Harassment in Schools
Tulsi signs letter urging President Trump to reverse transgender military ban https://votesmart.org/public-stateme...n#.XBfzFBNKikZ
H.R. 2282 Equality Act of 2017 which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
you completely dodged everything i said.The Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. Both corrupt, corporatist parties. They couldn't keep the impeachment inquiry narrow, and instead expanded it to an overall indictment of everything Trump, basically admitting that it was to overturn the 2016 election result.
can you also please tell me wtf "They couldn't keep the impeachment inquiry narrow," means?
umm... yes, they did. it was focused solely on trump's attempted extortion of the ukraine. that's it. why do you keep saying otherwise? is your goal to try to convince people that don't follow the news? yeah, i'm probably the wrong audience for you.
"the dems expanded it to an overall indictment of everything Trump, basically admitting that it was to overturn the 2016 election result."
i swear to god i try to keep things civil and then i read shit like this and it makes it difficult.
clearly your sentence is not true.
there are two articles of impeachment. the first is for attempting to extort the ukraine for his political gain. the second is for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas relating to the extortion plot (obstruction).
if you really didn't know that these are the only two articles of impeachment, you shouldn't be offering an opinion because it's so poorly informed. if you did know better, you're deliberately lying.
Diggy, I’ve been sympathetic to your spirited defense of Tulsi Gabbard for a number of pages, but what she did with her “Present” votes on impeachment was totally inconsistent with her own professed belief about the facts of Trump’s guilt. I’ll let YouTuber David Doel, host of The Rational National YouTube show, explain."Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."
-- Hillary Clinton, 2000
Weird how zero people cared in 2016 about HRC's previous position. Could it have been b/c she represented the corporate DNC establishment and didn't threaten their monetary interests?
_____________________________________________
Why would I deliberately lie? That would run counter to everything I've said in this thread from the beginning.you completely dodged everything i said. can you also please tell me wtf "They couldn't keep the impeachment inquiry narrow," means?
umm yes, they did. it was focused solely on trump's attempted extortion of the ukraine. that's it. why do you keep saying otherwise? is your goal to try to convince people that don't follow the news? yeah, i'm probably the wrong audience for you.
"the dems expanded it to an overall indictment of everything Trump, basically admitting that it was to overturn the 2016 election result."
i swear to god i try to keep things civil and then i read shit like this and it makes it difficult. clearly that sentence is not true.
there are two articles of impeachment. the first is for attempting to extort the ukraine for his political gain. the second is for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas relating to the extortion plot (obstruction).
if you really didn't know that these are the only two articles of impeachment, you shouldn't be offering an opinion because it's so poorly informed. if you did know better, you're deliberately lying.
The truth is that I haven't given a fuck about this impeachment the entire time. I've only seen highlights from it w/ absurdities, which made the whole thing seem like a charade, since they were already planning on impeaching Trump before they found out about this Ukraine thing.
My impression was that the investigation was not narrow because they also spoke about Trump saying, "Russia, if you're listening“ - that joke, and completely unrelated bullshit like that, which proved that it was purely partisan and the Ukraine thing is just a pretext for doing what they had been planning on doing all along.
They should have impeached Trump on what Tulsi introduced the censure for:
ok but if you freely admit you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't be offering an opinion.
it's ok to change your opinion of tulsi when you get new facts.
Diggy, is Tulsi as beautiful in person as on tv? Serious question, asking or a friend.
Blake surely you will agree the second article is bullshit. Every president and has ignored congressional subpoenas. Every president. Hell obama and holder did it regularly. It undermines whatever legitimacy one wants to attribute to the first one. There are three co-equal branches of government.you completely dodged everything i said.
can you also please tell me wtf "They couldn't keep the impeachment inquiry narrow," means?
umm... yes, they did. it was focused solely on trump's attempted extortion of the ukraine. that's it. why do you keep saying otherwise? is your goal to try to convince people that don't follow the news? yeah, i'm probably the wrong audience for you.
"the dems expanded it to an overall indictment of everything Trump, basically admitting that it was to overturn the 2016 election result."
i swear to god i try to keep things civil and then i read shit like this and it makes it difficult.
clearly your sentence is not true.
there are two articles of impeachment. the first is for attempting to extort the ukraine for his political gain. the second is for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas relating to the extortion plot (obstruction).
if you really didn't know that these are the only two articles of impeachment, you shouldn't be offering an opinion because it's so poorly informed. if you did know better, you're deliberately lying.
That's true. Have you been following the impeachment proceedings closely? If so, have you found that they were narrowly focused?
Is the little China’min still in it?
Yes. The big 4, plus Klobuchar, Steyer and Yang. China still in, but the Russian got voted off.
completely agree with you as to the 2nd, which is why i was focusing on the first. although i disagree that the dumb 2nd article invalidates the first one. they must have poll tested the word "obstruction" and went with it. they shouldn't have, but oh well.Blake surely you will agree the second article is bullshit. Every president and has ignored congressional subpoenas. Every president. Hell obama and holder did it regularly. It undermines whatever legitimacy one wants to attribute to the first one. There are three co-equal branches of government.
re the obstruction charge, i don't even understand the concept of it. every target of a subpoena gets to make objections. that's what courts are for. if the house got a court order that trump refused, they may have something. as it stands, it's an idiotic charge.
jesus was a black man from mars.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
And gay according to a new series I'm watching
Oof, tough moment for Sanders there.
"Why do you think there's not more diversity on the debate stage?"
Sanders: "I'm going to ignore that question and talk about climate change"
Moderator: "Can you please answer the question that was asked"
*big applause from audience*
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Reply With Quote