Slashdot

al-AP and the MSM are as dangerous as the terrorists. The only reason people still don't see through the Democrat Party is because the media is their right arm. Why else would libs hate talk radio, blogs and Fox News so much. Without the media--PBS, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, all big city papers--the Democrat Party would be dead. After all, how else can you survive slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, KKK and horrible president after horrible president (and now Obama!) and still come out looking decent? Lies. Think about how the Dems somehow have most Americans believing "the parties switched in the 60s" and suddenly they cared about black people?

Do they really think Democrats, who grew up hating blacks their entire lives, would suddenly embrace them in 1964... and that Republicans who supported civil rights since 1854 and grew up opposing Jim Crow, the KKK, and segregation would suddenly hate blacks? To rational people, that makes no sense.

School administrators who hated blacks before Brown vs. Board of Education (like those in Los Angeles) still hated them after being forced to accept de-segregation. The present state of Democrat-controlled public education systems proves how well the so-called shift worked. George Wallace would be very proud of the way Democrats continue their proud tradition of destroying young black minds today.

Further proof of black cynicism and contempt is manifested by the way they support Uncle Toms like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, who herd their incompetent black flock to the Democrat fold, while deriding genuine intellectuals like Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell. It has been this way since Arthur Mitchell (the Democrat's first congressional candidate) was elected in 1936. Democrats loved him because he was willing to marginalize the NAACP. Democrats have since populated it with their own obedient racial hucksters.

Take equality for gays: the constitution clearly bars discrimination, yet there is one group not allowed to enter into the same legal contracts as the rest of us. One day, a case will be brought to the SC for equality, and it will win. And just like other equality cases, it will have come decades too late. The Constitution always guaranteed that right; but the courts have yet to allow that right to be exercised.

No it didn't and doesn't guarantee that right.
This is a case that as a Constitutional student pisses me off. Not because I disagree with you morally, but I strongly disagree you procedurally. And as a lawyer procedure matters.
So, to make clear, we have left the substantive (ends, "should this be the right result?") argument and entered the procedural (means, "is this the right way to do this?") argument.

We tried to get equal rights for gays into the Constitution with the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) and the inclusion of equal rights for gays was one of the main reasons the ERA got voted down.
The idea was that discrimination based on sexuality was also discrimination based on sex. As Constitutional law scholar Eugene Volokh said:

Many supporters of same-sex marriage, including those who challenge the opposite-sex-only rule as unconstitutional, argue that the opposite-sex-only rule discriminates based on sex. Some (though not most) state judges that have considered the question have indeed concluded that state constitutional ERA provisions mandate sex-blind marriage laws. It seems quite plausible (though not certain) that enactment of the ERA would increase the likelihood that courts would indeed mandate recognition of same-sex marriages. The arguments that the ERA would lead to such a result can no longer be dismissed, as it once was, as a "hysterical" "emotional scare tactic" "canards."

If (and I agree it is highly likely that they will) the SC rules that gays have equal rights, the SC will be adding rights into the Constitution that were never there AND they will be overruling the EXPRESS vote of the American people.

The Constitution is a contract, a social contract, and should be interpreted as any contract would be. You look at the intent of the people signing the contract when the contract was signed (or in this case ratified). Any additional evidence is non-admissible parole evidence.
Equal rights for gays was never in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers would not have put it in or contemplated it in 1787, nor would have Alaskan voters when they updated and entered into the Constitution circa 1948. So, you lose on intent given either the original intent of the original signers or a more forgiving "recent intent" standard for the most recent signers of the contract.

Also, we have an admission by those proposing the ERA that equal rights for gays was never in the Constitution. While Amendments aren't rare they are a non-trivial undertaking. You don't undertake that much work for something you already have. It is ludicrous to assume that they would put the ERA up for a vote (especially with the political liability that gay rights were to the ERA) if the Constitution already include equal rights for gays.

The only way you can rule that homosexuals are covered by the Equal Protection clause (or an equivalent) is to be intellectually dishonest. You have to your desire for the substantive outcome (gay rights) outweigh doing things the right way (passing a new version of the ERA, or more easily passing state/Fed laws).
You have to be willing to take the EXPLICIT will of the people and say "Fuck you, because I wear a black robe I can shit on democracy. While you little people cling to God and guns, I can deny your right to vote."
And you can say "well it happened in 2000". So, your counter-argument is that 2 wrongs make a right?

You want gay rights/marriage? Fine.
The correct way to do that is to pass state laws. Nothing in the Constitution says gays can't marry.
If you can't pass state laws then things aren't happening decades too late, they aren't happening because society doesn't agree with you. Instead, you know society doesn't agree with you and you want to cram your social views down their throats.
You can bitch about the religious right (a weak addled straw man since the late-80s), but they don't go to court to overturn democracy. They aren't going to court to force you to pray, or attend church on Sundays. They don't go to court saying "We know society doesn't agree with this. Fuck society. We are better than them. Help us enforce our will upon them."

The Republican's have more blacks in high offices of the WH administration than any other WH in history.
The only black SC justice is Republican.
Republicans have many strong black candidates at Congress-level (senate & house) over the last few election cycles

Of course, the problem is once blacks leave the Democrat party they cease to become black. And, the MSM refuses to report (positively) on them.
Look at Rice, as soon as she worked for a Rep admin it became acceptable to draw cartoons of her, in national newspapers, as a big lipped spear chucker (yes she had the spear in her hand).
And as for "here comes the raping black man" slander, the last time that was used was by the Dems against Thomas.

The facts are these:
Democrats were strongly against the Civil War.
Democrats were strongly against freeing the black slaves.
Republicans ended slavery in the US.
Republican congresses passed the 1950s/60s civil rights laws.
Affirmative Action (a.k.a. positive discrimination, the keystone of Democrat's social programs) has ruined any achievements made by individual blacks because you are never sure if someone rose to their position in the organization based on merit or preferences.
I have heard the word "nigger" far far more often uttered by Democrats than Republicans.

Under Democrat administrations national & locally, black drug use, jail time, and illegitimacy (all chronic poverty factors) have increased. The Democrats "Great Society" turned out to be a "Great (Racist) Society".

Democrats are vile bigoted people.
They see everything through the prism of race.

Democrats feel that they own black people and when a member of the black community up and leaves the Democrat's plantation, Democrats become threated and start referring to that person as a "house nigger". "Denunciation of black conservatives has become more shrill - and increasingly bitter - as their numbers have grown and they have acquired a voice."
Every time a black votes Democrat they are picking cotton for their masters.

Democrats glory in their soft racism and feel that they are better because of it.
The Democrats literally believe that it is their "white man's burden" to give and give to the poor "victim class".
They de-humanize and infantilize blacks by never allowing them to accomplish things for themselves.

And now for a preview of the Israeli/Palestinian negotiations ...

UN: To understand things, let us have both of you say what you want.

Israel: We want to live in peace. Watch our children grow up. Watch them enjoy their lives and be happy.

Palestinians: We want to kill all the Jews.

UN: Well, I think we can find a compromise. What if we just kill half the Jews?

Israel: What ?!? You can't be serious?

Palestinians: We want to kill the left half of every Jew!

UN: That seems reasonable.

Israel: Are you mad you can't kill 1/2 of a person? This is insane and totally unacceptable. We thought this would be an honest negotiation.

UN: Now we see what the real problem is. We see the unreasonableness of the Jews.

EU: Psst, Palestinians. If you kill off the Jews the Holocaust won't be our fault. If you can't live with them either it must be their fault.

UN: Look, you hook-noses, how you thwart every attempt at peace, and lie and complain about the Holocaust. And, I feel the Palestinians were honest in their desires. You seem not to have been honest in wanting a compromise.

And the EU, the Democrats and Academia nod their heads in agreement.

Little point looking into wave power, environmentalists will just shut it down.
They have shut down wind farms (Nantucket Sound ala Ted Kennedy, and Walter Cronkite)
They are trying to reverse hydro-power (dam removal in the northwest)
They have killed off nuclear (oh, just pick one)

At some point you just give up and keep buying oil.

Really I don't think the environmentalists (a) believe what they say, and (b) actually want to solve anything.
Most of their actions are either just about narcissism and having something to bitch about (usually yelling at society when they really want to yell at their Dad).

If I thought they actually cared and were working to get things done, I'd be more supportive, but close interaction which the people has turned me very very off to their message.