RC
RC's JournalFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.[3] The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process.
More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means has been the subject of much debate, and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
The way I read this, Arizona is in violation of the US Constitution (again), not that they care.
Actually, he is not a liar.
To lie, one has to know the truth. Too many Conservatives cannot tell reality from what they wish it to be. Reality for them can be anything that gets them what they want.
They actually do have mental impairment. This is not in anyway hallucination. This is simply the way they perceive the world around themselves.
Because the more Conservative one is, the more likely one is to have religion.
And the more likely to have strong beliefs in total non-sense, like for instance, Creationism. And the more likely to want to foist their religion on others through law.
The very reason for the Separation of Church and State in the Constitution and the reason people started coming over here form Europe in the first place.
My question however is, If religion is so true, If there is only one God and we are supposed to live out lives the way He wants us to, then why are their so many flavors of religion? Why are there so many different flavors of each denomination of each religion. Christianity even? There are far fewer political beliefs, over all, than religious beliefs.
Surely, if religion were true, there would be far less differences among all the religions. A look in any local phone book should convince most people that there is something wrong here. They all can't be correct. No way. They run the from straight laced conservative to quite Liberal churches like Unitarian Universalist. And almost every singly one of them thinks they are the only way to correctly believe. The more conservative, the more rigid.
[/center]
This is a political web site. Or at least it still pretends to be.
And we are chastened by some to not denigrate anyone, anywhere, their actions or their sensitivities, because some words might invoke negative feelings in another DU'er? Even though some of these objectionable words were/are use against a Republican for something dangerous or stupid that the Republicans want or did?
Do the women need to be protected from some words and the men need to be protected from others? Are we so vulnerable to mere words, are we are so defenseless, so delicate, that we have to add evil words to an ever growing list, to remind ourselves not to use them? so as to keep ourselves from curling up into a ball?
Not calling out any one DU're, group or running them down, as per the rules should suffice. It worked with DU2 But this list goes way beyond the rules.
This is not the fight we are here for. This is not the reason DU was started in 2000. That reason is still alive and well.
Maybe we should concentrate on stopping the Republicans/Conservatives, who are doing far worse than using objectionable words against us. Could we handle it, if they did start using those bad words against us? I should hope so.
Keep it up and DU will be fit for Sesame Street. Many main stream news stories will eventual be deemed to rough to post here. We are losing sight of our goal with this cleansing of DU. I can see that happening with DU3. How did DU2 survive for so long?
We are not each others enemy. Why do we allow a few to distract us so? And it is just a few. Why do the rest of us we allow this infighting?
Making a big deal of some words sensitizes us to them. Suddenly, that is what is important. We see the word everywhere and we get focused on it. We forget what we are reading, what is being discussed. What is really important. The message itself is lost. The discussion get derailed. The thread or post gets alerted on and another trifling, shiny object gets polished to be bragged about in Meta. For what? So we can say we are better than someone else, 'cause we don't use that kinda language ourselves?
I don't normally use those "objectionable" words. I am objecting because the words on that list are in reality nothing more than a shiny object for DU to focus on while the real enemy keeps working toward its goal of total control, while we are distracted from it, with our infighting.
Leave it alone and it will go away on its own. Oh yes, it will. This constant harping among ourselves is shifting the focus of DU from the dangerous powers that be in the real world, to the mirrored chamber that DU is becoming.
Democratic Underground is not grammar school. Stop trying to make it safe for the children like it is one.
And so while some here think their biggest problem is not being free from being personally offended-
Are they really offensive or just personally irritating because of something in your life?
If you actually are offended, respond and move on - Or at least move on.
If DU totally loses it and cleans up all offensive language, "Hello" could very well be on the list of banned words and phrases. Why? Because it has "hell" embedded in it and some simpleton will decide "Hello" will mean "Welcome to Hell" That is where all this choosing to be offended is going. No matter how "Cleaned up" DU becomes, there will always be someone offended at something.
Well, I have some news for the myopic here who keep trying to distract the rest of the members here with their own personal version of shiny objects.
There is a whole political party trying to do much more than offending us with shiny objects. Their goal is to, among other things, take the hard earned Rights from from every man, woman and child in this country. Birth control, health care, Civil Rights, real slave wages(is that racists?), voting rights, And this is just for starts. Start by being offended by that, not other du'ers choice of words, usually not even directed at you in the first place.
Why are you helping those that would reduce us all to mid evil serfs by distracting us from what is really important in the real world with your personal shiny objects? Get out of your echo chamber. Expand your horizons and look outside at the very real and dangerous enemy. The Republican Party, the Conservatives, large corporations, the 1%, powerful sociopaths, our news media, our own government.
Stop picking fights with those that can help you. Look for commonality with others here.
Are these to be banned from DU also?
10+ phrases that can be irritating or offensive
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10things/10-phrases-that-can-be-irritating-or-offensive/581
Where is it going to stop? I see most of this being offended shit on DU as bullying and offensive in itself.
How do you cope in the real world, with real life people you cannot intimidate? How do you watch prime time TV without being personally offended?
There are people here who go out of their way to be offended.
Well, I'm fighting back.
An uptight person, usually but not always female, usually but not always of conservative mores, who reacts with shock, feigned or otherwise, at other people's violations of decorum, propriety, morality, and so forth.
Someone got up at the PTA meeting and suggested the school hand out condoms to teenagers. The pearl clutchers in the audience nearly went into cardiac arrest.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pearl%20clutcher
The phrase 'Pearl Clutching' is another case in point.
This has nothing to do with a persons sexual preferences. It is not an affront to ALL woman or even most women. Just those that chose it to be. If you are a strong woman, normal woman, average woman, this term won't apply.
Pearl Clutching is a good, descriptive term that some of the self-appointed PC crowd here has decided resembles them a bit too much and they wish not to be reminded of it.
Why should DU be reduced to the lowest common denominator with a list of common words, phrases and sayings being banned because some overly sensitive people take offense at whatever? If they can be used on prime time TV, there should be no reason they cannot be used here. Democrat Underground is supposedly an adult political site. So why are some trying to clean it up to be a PG13 or even a G?
To the best of my knowledge, the phase 'Pearl Clutching' was never a problem in DU2. Why now?
Pearl Clutching has nothing to do with racism, bigotry, sexual preference. but refers to a hyper type A personality type.
I have grey hair and retired on full Social Security. Maybe I should get all hyper and offended at references that are less than glowing admiration for Senior Citizens, Geezer Hood, Old Age and/or Death. It is basically the same damn thing!
'Fuck it' can be used, but not 'Pearl Clutcher'? Come on now, get real.
Response from Roy Blunt (R)idicules
My message to Roy Blunt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=12801
You proposed that? Give the man 3 stars! You are an angel!
What more could you do to help Obama remain in the White House?
We don't need to worry though, your amendment will never pass the Senate. It will just further ingrain the idea Rethugs are against women and Obama is for women and the economy.
You must be getting to retire, correct? No way will this help you get reelected.
You didn't have a Topic of 'Stupidity', so I picked another topic that fits: 'Civil Rights'
His response:
Thank you for contacting me about the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) mandate and the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011. I personally introduced this bill in the Senate on August 2, 2011 because I believe that the United States government must respect the religious and moral values of all participants in our nation's health care system.1
In August 2011, the Administration announced its decision to mandate that all insurance companies and employers cover contraception and sterilizations with no copay. This unprecedented decision is an affront to the deeply held convictions of millions of Americans, which is why I introduced legislation to repeal the mandate.
On February 9, 2012, I offered my bill, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, as an amendment to the Surface Transportation bill. My bill protects health care providers and insurers from being forced to violate their principles to provide products and services under ObamaCare, and reaffirms all Americans' protections against discrimination, penalty, or exclusion from the health care market for exercising their rights of conscience.2 Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Reid blocked consideration of the bill, saying my discussion of this pressing issue was "shameless" and that those concerned about religious liberties should "calm down."
The government should not force doctors to perform procedures or employers to provide coverage for services they view as immoral any more than the government should force treatments on Americans. The federal government has no business in a doctor's examining room3 and the Administration's actions have put our nation's deep commitment to religious freedom in jeopardy.
While we may disagree, I always appreciate hearing from you. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.
Sincere regards,
Roy Blunt
United States Senator
1Oh, really? What of those not of that faith, or any faith for that matter.
2And what of those being discriminated against because they cannot get the mandated health care the doctors ordered?
3"The federal government has no business in a doctor's examining room..." I quite agree. So where does Roy Blunt stand on vaginal ultrasounds, or even forced ultrasounds, as if we don't already know.
Because the DLC has turned the Democratic party into Republican Lite?
Because Obama has continued so many of bu$h's policies?
Keep bringing up bu$h and you run the risk of too many people noticing the similarities between then and now.
The Democratic Party is full of DINO's, with more than a few being ex-republicans.
No matter who gets elected, the Right still wins. That is how they can get away their Clown Car Show of Crazies. It makes the Democratic Party look good in comparison. If we had a real Center/Left of Center Democratic Party, the Right would then lose all around. And we would get "We the people..." back in the Constitution and corporations as persons a footnote at the bottom of the page, instead of as the case is now, the buying and running of our government.
Maybe the problem isn't so much with being ageist, or seeing so-called bigoted posts that
weren't that were alerted on and hidden anyway, but people looking for things to be thin skinned about.
BTY, I am 67½. Far enough along into geezer-hood to know when to be insulted. The post in question didn't fit that category.
DU is suffering form too many people being too up tight about too many things that really do not matter. We need to Chill on this.
We have a common enemy out there in the real world. But too many or us here are treating other DU'ers as the common enemy. That needs to stop. Turn your attention to our government and their increasingly tight grip on what we can and cannot do. That was what DU was founded for. Not in-fighting or setting up your own fiefdoms with your own set of rules counter to the TOS. Or finding things other DU'ers post to rail against. We are not each others enemies.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: North Dakota
Home country: US of A
Current location: Kansas City MO
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 25,592
