Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Sore Winners

gpeterson Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 9:51 PM
There is no Constitutional requirement for a candidate to produce a birth certificate. You have to be a natural born citizen, whatever the Congress and the Supreme Court says that is (before the 14th Amendment, you had to be white to be a citizen, though Congress could just proclaim that you were white, as it was known to have done). There is no constitutionally set legal requirements on proving that you are. You should be at least 35 years old. The constitution demands that you have lived in the country for at least 14 years (not necessarily in one chunk of time). Lastly, you much take the oath of office (which. by the way, doesn't mention God.)
In response to:

Sore Winners

gpeterson Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 9:37 PM
A sore winner who's mad because her party didn't win the White House...so she proposes a non-violent coup fantasy. http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/11/27/2360565/lawmaker-shares-last-chance-idea.html
In response to:

Sore Winners

gpeterson Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 9:30 PM
Since Mexico named a state, Guerrero, after their first Black President, we should do the same. I propose changing "Texas" to "Obama."
In response to:

Sore Winners

gpeterson Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 9:18 PM
Right....you found one known liberal pundit who said two sentences about secession eight years ago, so that excuses hundreds of thousands of alleged conservatives who actually signed secession petitions after the reelection of a Black man as President. By the way, most of the signers of the petition for my "blue" state...don't live in the state...perhaps because non-Hispanic "whites" are not a majority here. By the way, the first time Texas seceded, it was because of a Black/bi-racial President, Vicente Ramon Guerrero, had issued his 1829 Guerrero proclamation which freed most of the slaves in Mexico. President Guerrero was overthrown in a coup, but even the oligarchs didn't dare rescind the proclamation. So...Texas revolted.
In response to:

Same-Sex Marriage: Still a Tough Sell

gpeterson Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 1:05 AM
If there is one thing that antebellum enslaved people taught us, it's that you don't need legal recognition of marriage to create a marriage, be married, to have a marriage that is recognized by friends, family and one's community. There marriages had little legal legitimacy and protections. What legal recognition of marriage is about is just that, and economic justice. Gay people, of course, are hardly slaves. But, as with enslaved people, their marriages, recognized by friends, family and their communities, are much too often not legally recognized. Gay married couples, their children, sometimes even their parents, are being disadvantaged by legal economic and other discriminations. Why are you against the Golden Rule?
In response to:

Chris Rock's Tweet Beyond the Pale

gpeterson Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 7:51 PM
So...you're saying that Black Americans should have no right to complain about anything because the area where their ancestors came from is less wealthy than here? Since the country my ancestors came from is wealthier... give me money, then, to make up the difference.
In response to:

Chris Rock's Tweet Beyond the Pale

gpeterson Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 7:48 PM
The second they stepped off the boat, they, as with my immigrant European great grandparents, benefited by white privilege and the enslavement of Black people in America. Do you think that my grandfather, though born to poor, barely literate in Norwegian cotters, could have had the education and success that he had if he had been born Black...back when slavery was still legal?
In response to:

Chris Rock's Tweet Beyond the Pale

gpeterson Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 7:44 PM
Socialist countries like my ancestor's Norway? In any case, America is Mr. Rock's country, and mine, and one that, when I was a child, had legal race segregation...which wasn't overturned by the efforts of religious conservatives... white and Black.
In response to:

Chris Rock's Tweet Beyond the Pale

gpeterson Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 7:39 PM
"...that they WEREN"T moral enough..." Being a slave was generally thought to be proof of inferior moral character, you see (though it was the white conservative proslavery Evangelicals of the day that were obviously deficient in moral character. See (Cotton is King" and the Rev. Thornton Stringfellow's best selling proslavery arguments as illustrative of that.
In response to:

Chris Rock's Tweet Beyond the Pale

gpeterson Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 7:35 PM
Actually, Evangelical proslavery arguments towards the end of the 1850s were trending towards the idea that Black people had an implied contract to be enslaved...and that, by not buying their freedom (except for a few exceptional people), that was proof that they wanted to be enslaved...and that they moral enough, or had enough character to become free by their own free will... See John Patrick Daley's "When Slavery Was Called Freedom," for starters.
In response to:

Chris Rock's Tweet Beyond the Pale

gpeterson Wrote: Jul 06, 2012 7:29 PM
Which no doubt explains why the most disgustingly racist, states' rights preaching, die hard segregationist Dixiecrats became Republican, states' rights preaching, elder statesmen.
Previous 11 - 20 Next