Originally posted by Surtur
See the problem is Joe Biden used the same term back in May and nobody gave a shit.See this is the whole "consistency" thing. Which you nutjobs can never be.
Biden endorsed same-sex marriage before Obama. We know his track record on LGBTQ equality. So his use of preference is problematic, because it is not the preferred language, but it is not evidence of anti-LGBTQ animus.
The same cannot be said of Amy Coney Barrett, who is a member of a far-right religious cult that seeks to abolish advances in LGBTQ equality. It is almost as if context matters. You tried.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Biden endorsed same-sex marriage before Obama. We know his track record on LGBTQ equality. So his use of preference is problematic, because it is not the preferred language, but it is not evidence of anti-LGBTQ animus.The same cannot be said of Amy Coney Barrett, who is a member of a far-right religious cult that seeks to abolish advances in LGBTQ equality. It is almost as if context matters. You tried.
Lol so it's more acceptable for some to use the term than others?
I'm shocked. Nice spin kid.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Biden endorsed same-sex marriage before Obama. We know his track record on LGBTQ equality. So his use of preference is problematic, because it is not the preferred language, but it is not evidence of anti-LGBTQ animus.The same cannot be said of Amy Coney Barrett, who is a member of a far-right religious cult that seeks to abolish advances in LGBTQ equality. It is almost as if context matters. You tried.
Is there more then her ties to go on?
Lets not forget Obama had ties to quite the radical firebrand in Jeremiah Wright, and Obama was no radical.
Originally posted by Robtard
It's almost like you're choosing to not understand what it means to become a SCOTUS justice. A) They decide laws for all of us B) It's a lifelong appointment
Lol kiddo nope. You will not say it's okay for someone running for president to say it but not for someone who wants to be on the supreme court.
It does not work that way. It never will.
Originally posted by Surtur
Yet a bisexual person still will prefer one over the other.
Some bisexual people may be more oriented toward one sex or another, but that does not denote a preference. A bisexual person might say, "I am more romantically attracted to women," or "I am more sexually attracted to men," but they would not say, "I prefer men over women."
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol kiddo nope. You will not say it's okay for someone running for president to say it but not for someone who wants to be on the supreme court.It does not work that way. It never will.
If you want to ignore the context Adam listed about Biden's history and what I noted concerning what a SCJ does/is, sure, but here in reality context matters. It always will matter regardless of your feelings.
Originally posted by Robtard
If you want to ignore the context Adam listed about Biden's history and what I noted concerning what a SCJ does/is, sure, but here in reality context matters. It always will matter regardless of your feelings.
Lol these are two very powerful positions.
You can whine about both or neither. Choose. I will choose for you if your next response doesn't contain a choice, btw.
Originally posted by cdtm
Is there more then her ties to go on?Lets not forget Obama had ties to quite the radical firebrand in Jeremiah Wright, and Obama was no radical.
You will also note that his association with Jeremiah Wright was controversial with the LGBTQ community. So much so, Obama disinvited him from his inauguration, because of anti-LGBTQ statements he made in the past.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You will also note that his association with Jeremiah Wright was controversial with the LGBTQ community. So much so, Obama disinvited him from his inauguration, because of anti-LGBTQ statements he made in the past.
I did not know that.
But I never thought he was radical at all, personally. Probably because I know the disconnect between what happens in a church and what happens outside of it.
That's why I asked if there is more to the story. Any evidence of activism, for example.
If its all about where she attends services, lets be honest.. That would disqualify most of us in the US. 🙂
Originally posted by Surtur
So you have nothing. Noted.I won't hold it against you that you can't defend this hypocrisy.
You must have missed this:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Biden endorsed same-sex marriage before Obama. We know his track record on LGBTQ equality. So his use of preference is problematic, because it is not the preferred language, but it is not evidence of anti-LGBTQ animus.The same cannot be said of Amy Coney Barrett, who is a member of a far-right religious cult that seeks to abolish advances in LGBTQ equality. It is almost as if context matters. You tried.
Originally posted by cdtm
I did not know that.But I never thought he was radical at all, personally. Probably because I know the disconnect between what happens in a church and what happens outside of it.
That's why I asked if there is more to the story. Any evidence of activism, for example.
If its all about where she attends services, lets be honest.. That would disqualify most of us in the US. 🙂
She is literally a member of the cult The Handmaid's Tale is based on.