Ellen Page : What a Loser

What a Loser

Trying to ambush Senator Cruz and fails MISERABLY - Why do sexual degenerates feel compelled to spew and spread their mental disorder upon others..!?

Transcript below (also, Page said she would NOT be using the footage for her Vice program.. hmmm, I wonder why..!?)

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/ellen-page-confronts-ted-cruz-iowa-state-fair-lgbt-issues-121615.html

Re: What a Loser

Agree. She's proud of her mental disorder. Good for her, it's a free country but I personally don't need to hear from her.

Re: What a Loser

So, I'm guessing you're also proud of your ignorance and lack of compassion, perspective and understanding?

Good for you.

Respect what you have 🌌

Re: What a Loser

I can't believe that someone who recites scripts for a living really thought that she was going to come out ahead in an off the cuff debate versus a man who was a debate champion in college.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: What a Loser

SHe will always be that actress who was Juno, because that was her most famous role.

Re: What a Loser

I think the bigger question is why Ted Cruz, and virtually every other conservative, hates America so very much?

When Cruz says that homosexuals shouldn't have to sell to people whose faith they don't like, he's being the essence of anti-American, endorsing, without any shame at all apparently, religious discrimination. For all the talk right-wingers do about the Constitution, they sure hold it in extreme contempt.

I suppose that if restaurants didn't want to serve a specific minority, that would be okay, too?

Just another example of right-wing hatred for America.

Re: What a Loser

Absolute nonsense. There isn't anything within the Constitution that prevents people from discriminating on the basis of religion. Absolutely nothing. And America's genesis as a sanctuary from religious discrimination was to escape the reins of a tyrannical government, not to escape the horror of a Catholic telling a Protestant that he doesn't want to sell him stuff.


I suppose that if restaurants didn't want to serve a specific minority, that would be okay, too?


Not just minorities, but anybody. Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Re: What a Loser

Actually, Title II of the Civil Rights Act specifically makes discrimination on the basis of race or religion illegal. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment, with its equal protection clause, prohibits the kind of discrimination you're sup 2000 porting here.

I'm guessing you're another anti-American right-winger?

Re: What a Loser

The Civil Rights Act is not in the Constitution, genius. And the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause has nothing to do with private individuals exercising their right to discriminate. If the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was really for the purpose that you seem to think it is, then private clubs would be considered unconstitutional. Since they aren't, and have in fact been upheld by the Supreme Court...well, I'll let you do the math.

Re: What a Loser

Huh, you said that businesses have the right to discriminate, I showed you that they don't, and then you said that's not in the Constitution. Okay, but you're still wrong. They don't have the "right" to discriminate, considering that the US is a nation of laws and it's against the law. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

I get it, you're on the losing side of this argument culturally. We are FINALLY burying the Confederacy, and we're dancing on its grave. Within a decade, we'll probably pass the Equal Rights Amendment and put the final nail in the coffin of bigots, racists and other right-wingers. Happy days ahead.

In the meantime, anti-American politicians like Cruz and the rest of the Guardians of Privilege can bloviate all they want. I encourage it, so people can see the kind of insufferable monsters Republicans truly.

Re: What a Loser

Actually, you said that people who support the right to discriminate have contempt for the Constitution. I called you out on how that statement doesn't make sense and that the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter, and you supported your argument by faultily citing the CRA and by misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.

Businesses DO have the right to discriminate. The courts have even supported certain types of discrimination. For example, Curves health centers are legally allowed to discriminate against men. Alaska airlines is able to legally discriminate against straight people. Places that serve alcohol are legally allowed to discriminate against minors.

The Civil Rights Amendment is a law that is largely unconstitutional. It was a product of a cultural zeitgeist that was unwilling to examine the issue through the lens of constitutional legality. The people do have a right to discriminate. The fact that that right is being trampled by an unjust law doesn't change this fact.

Re: What a Loser

Okay, here we go then.

I talked about religious discrimination first. A society can NOT support both religious liberty and religious discrimination. That's philosophically self-evident. The idea of "freedom" or "liberty" is mocked if linked to a condition that makes such a "freedom" untenable, that is, you are free to be Jewish, but no one will sell you food and you won't have a place to live. As I said, this should be self-evident, and is for most people, but not for you, apparently.

To continue with the example, "Jewish" denotes race as well as religion, and we can not hide behind one bigotry to inflict another.

Then, of course, we have the most ignored amendment to the Constitution ever, the sadly forgotten Ninth amendment, which states in full: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Which is just a stuffy way of saying that just because it ain't in here doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Since the practice of discrimination is antithetical to freedom and liberty, there is conflict. It also conflicts with the notion of promoting the general welfare and ensuring domestic tranquility, since discrimination is an act of open aggression against both individuals and groups.

Your comments on the CRA let me know where you stand, and so I'm assuming that you'd only allow front-loading muskets to be covered by the Second Amendment, right? Nah, conservatives always twist things around to pretend that their philosophy isn't based solely on hatred and lies.

Re: What a Loser

Sorry but no. Like I've already said, but you've apparently decided to ignore me, the courts have upheld the rights of organizations to discriminate on the basis of certain protected classes. The fact that sometimes this is deemed acceptable and other times not comes across as extremely arbitrary. And no, just because you live in a free society does not mean that you are entitled to the labor of another, especially in this day and age when such discriminatory attitudes are exceptionally rare.

As for the Ninth Amendment, I can promise you I'm well aware of it. But oddly enough, that Amendment was cited nowhere in the passage of the CRA of 64. The Supreme Court made their decision based upon an ever expanding and convoluted interpretation of the commerce clause, which has been an interpretation that has been responsible for more government overreach than just about anything else throughout our entire history.

And I fail to see what any of this has to do with muzzle loaded muskets. My understanding of the Constitution is based on a literal reading of the document combined with awareness of the historical context regarding its founding. You are the one who is twisting it to suit your narrative.

Re: What a Loser

Bravo, Doctor.

Some people favor control over freedom. Its borderline fascist how out of whack many have become in pushing their ideals on society. Globally however, we are about to see a major shift to the right continuing throughout this century even if regional shifts do not indicate this trend.


"You are in China. Get out, go see the sights, climb the great wall, stand in front of a tank."

Re: What a Loser

So you're argument is that not permitting a certain class of people to marry each other is "freedom," but allowing it is "control?" That's some first class conservatism right there.

Re: What a Loser

"So you're argument is that not permitting a certain class of people to marry each other is "freedom," but allowing it is "control?" That's some first class conservatism right there."

Sorry, you confused yourself. Let me help you out there. Detailed answer, actually. It depends on what constitutes a marriage. If you go by either the traditional secular version or the religious version, "marriage" as it is isn't in any danger of changing. But if you are referring to government unions that are simply contracts for medical proxy, property, rights, etc... then that's a good place to start.

I know of no one who is against people obtaining property rights and the like from another person or persons regardless of gender, orientation, race, relation, etc. People can even have ceremonies if they want them to appear legitimate...no problem. So who exactly is being denied anything? No one. The entire premise was more a push for social acceptance....nothing more.

So if you confused yourself to believe my contention was not permitting people to obtain medical/property rights, you were mistaken. Apparently first class conservatism may be a bit beyond most progressives' comprehension in that regard. Course it appears your idea of freedom is forcing private business owners to betray their personal beliefs because its what you want which is why more are accurately contending the modern day leftist movement is becoming increasingly fascist each day. Long gone are the moderates.


In the end though, both points are rather moot. The changing demographics will swallow up the movement this century as we are going to see a severe global shift to the right.

"Wow. It's impossible to talk to someone who just outright lies like that. Check out the law in Ohio, for example, of people being denied rights by the State based on sexual preference. I say you're lying out of respect, by the way. The alternative is that you're deeply stupid or completely delusional."

There is nothing being denied by the state. People can be with any other consenting adult(s) they wish. They can get medical proxy, property, rights, voting, etc. Even those with a defective preference can obtain the same benefits if they entered into a government contract with a member of the opposite gender. But your rights end whre others begin. And private business owners can discriminate however they deem fit. It appearte more likely you're delusional if you believe the world should be forced to accept such a defect. But as I said, globally, it about to shift the other way hard and for a VERY prolonged period of time.


Re: What a Loser


So who exactly is being denied anything? No one.


Wow. It's impossible to talk to someone who just outright lies like that. Check out the law in Ohio, for example, of people being denied rights by the State based on sexual preference. I say you're lying out of respect, by the way. The alternative is that you're deeply stupid or completely delusional.

Re: What a Loser


Course it appears your idea of freedom is forcing private business owners to betray their personal beliefs because its what you want which is why more are accurately contending the modern day leftist movement is becoming increasingly fascist each day. Long gone are the moderates.


That only becomes a problem when those private business owners use their religious or personal beliefs to take away from the rights of others.



It appearte more likely you're delusional if you believe the world should be forced to accept such a defect.


I'm sorry but I must ask - by using the term "defect", are you referring to the LGBT community/same-sex relations?

It's not delusional for a person to feel that it is appropriate for everyone or "the world" to accept a union between two consenting partners of the same sex. Love is love. It's a human experience and shouldn't be discriminated against just because it's between a two of the same sex. Everyone has the right to feel the way they feel but when it's stepping on the feet of others' rights or tearing a person or group of people down because of their differences, that is where it becomes unacceptable.


Respect what you have 🌌

Re: What a Loser

What you're talking about is a problem with the courts, isn't it? As you said, things seem to be extremely arbitrary. My points was that, philosophically, we can't have both things in a society, and the Constitution very much guarantees one of them, so the other must go.

As for the Ninth, the courts didn't use it for 200 years. Again, that's a problem with the courts. One need look no further than the treasonous Bush v. Gore decision to see that there are huge problems with the courts. We must accept that they are political, not legal, institutions.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're also against the recent decision regarding Abercrombie and Fitch and religious liberty?

As for the muskets, it was kind of obvious what your "philosophy" is, and the constitution has nothing at all to say about semi-automatic handguns, so, according to your views, those could be made illegal if we so desired it. Or, actually, almost all guns, since very few people are part of a "well regulated militia."

Re: What a Loser

The other must go only according to your very odd view on what constitutes freedom. And yes, there are absolutely huge problems with the courts, and it could definitely be argued that it's as much a political institution as anything else since SCJ's often seem to vote along partisan lines, just like Congress does. I can't think of a better system though. Can you?

As for the Abercrombie decision, yes I am opposed to it. Abercrombie should be allowed to maintain a certain image in furtherance of their brand. Just as fitness centers or the local Jenny Craig can refuse to hire a fat person, Abercrombie should be allowed to require their employees to conform to the image they want their company to portray.

And as for the Second Amendment, again it is YOU who are the one who is twisting the document to serve your purposes. It very specifically says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Limiting the available weapons of the people to muskets is an infringement upon that right. The clause regarding the militia is 5b4 prefatory, with the latter part that left-wingers hate being the operative, and much more important, clause. The prefatory offers only an introduction and explanation to the operative, but does not in any way change the meaning of the operative, that the right cannot be infringed.

To get back on topic though, the CRA of 64 aside, Ted Cruz and those of like mind do have a legal leg to stand on based on precedent. Much of the argument from the left regarding cases like Sweet Cakes is based on the belief that while individuals have Constitutional protections regarding religious liberty, corporations do not thus are not allowed to let it influence company policy. However, with the recent Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby decision businesses are allowed to bypass certain federal laws if it can be shown that following the law violates deeply held religious convictions. And this was a decision regarding a mega-corporation. The decision would be much more applicable to a business that constitutes little more than a husband/wife team. While I disagree with the Abercrombie ruling, it does not conflict in any way with these other sorts of cases since their policy was not based on any sort of religious belief.

Re: What a Loser

I was surprised by the A&F decision as well, especially it being 8-1. I took it to be a preliminary ruling to restrict the rights of homosexuals in employment.

I'm afraid it's you who are desperately twisting the Second Amendment. As you yourself said, your philosophy looks at the historical context. I didn't say that about you, you said that about you. And we absolutely limit available weapons. There is a whole slew of weaponry the military has that I'm not permitted to own, so that argument is, well, not. Also, the "well regulated militia" clause is a conditional clause, that is, since we need a well regulated militia for security, people needs arms. Of course, that is no longer true. We have a standing military for that now. Only those who don't care about what the Constitution says at all could read the Second Amendment and think that it applies to any guns that are made today.

Hobby Lobby, of course, is a political decision made by anti-American right-wingers that seek only power for their tribe. It's an embarrassment to the nation, much like Ted Cruz is.

Re: What a Loser

No, I'm not twisting the Second Amendment. At all. My philosophy is in accordance with both the historical context and the literal interpretation of the text. The clause regarding the militia is NOT conditional. It is prefatory and explanatory. It could be rewritten as "Because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep in bear arms shall not be infringed," and retain the exact same meaning. Shall NOT be infringed. It doesn't say that or even imply that gun ownership is conditional upon militia service, which makes sense since militias were by definition transient entities. Our standing army doesn't change anything either. The existence of a standing army was anathema to the founding fathers, and was seen as a tool to oppress the people. If anything, the existence of a standing army legitimizes the Second Amendment even more, since whenever a government becomes destructive to the rights of the people, the people b68 have the right to abolish it.


Only those who don't care about what the Constitution says at all could read the Second Amendment and think that it applies to any guns that are made today.


Based on what reasoning? The existence of a standing army? Poppycock.


Hobby Lobby, of course, is a political decision made by anti-American right-wingers that seek only power for their tribe. It's an embarrassment to the nation, much like Ted Cruz is.


Well that's your interpretation, but it is also the law. Bet Roe vs. Wade doesn't rustle your jimmies.

Re: What a Loser

Many not be anything in the directly Constitution, but SCOTUS has ruled on it more than once which makes it part 5b4 of Constitutional law as a result:


Laws...are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.


Reynolds v. United States (1879)


Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

Employment v. Smith (1990)

The Reynolds ruling was quoted by Scalia in his majority opinion in the 1990 case.

Want to argue with Scalia on the issue, then please, be our guest...

Re: What a Loser


Want to argue with Scalia on the issue, then please, be our guest...


Uh, the only person I was arguing with was IAMVOX who stated that anyone who supports the right of a business to discriminate hates the Constitution even though the Constitution is silent on the matter.

So way to, like, miss the point and stuff.

Re: What a Loser

@iamvox: I second that.

Spot-on breakdown of this incident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK7nu1-NTmA

Re: What a Loser

Reading posts like this make me happy that candidates like Ted Cruz don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election and that views like this are slowly but surely beginning to die out.

Re: What a Loser

Amen!

Plus, the guy is Canadian. He can't even be president.

Re: What a Loser

Actually he is close to the top in fundraising and his support is rising. True some of his views are becoming less popular regionally...but it's foolhardy to deny they aren't gaining in popularity globally. They aren't dying off they are being replaced by stronger advocates elsewhere.

Re: What a Loser

I wonder how many people who are constantly crying racism/sexism/homophobia, etc would be so quick and willing to defend Aryans or white supremacists who are denied service at a black or Jewish establishment.

Bottom line, I can't stand ANYONE who feels the need to bully or force their personal beliefs on others.

If so and so a place won't bake you're *beep* cake or marry you, go to someone who will.

Stop expecting the entire planet to accomodate you - I don't care what race,religion,gender or sexual orientation you are.


I'm no fan of Cruz, but he pretty much owned her.

Re: What a Loser

Having a race is like having an arm, or having to breath oxygen. Being a white supremacist is like being a supporter of rape or a sociopathic sadist. One is who you are, the other is a mental sickness or a deliberate act of choosing evil.

Re: What a Loser


Why do sexual degenerates feel compelled to spew and spread their mental disorder upon others..!?


Sentences like these make me feel truly sad for the human race. I'm embarrassed to be of the same species as someone who could liken a gay woman to a sexual degenerate with a mental disorder.

--
'Save me, Barry!'

Re: What a Loser

True, there needs to be more compassion on top of logic. I cannot believe people still refer to it as a mental disorder. Biological defect or immoral I could see but to try to portray is as a mental disorder is wildly inaccurate.

Re: What a Loser

It's no more immoral or a birth defect than being left-handed.

--
'Save me, Barry!'

Re: What a Loser

Morality is subjective. And it is not a birth defect but a biological one. But no more of one than being colorblind, brittle bones, etc.

Re: What a Loser

I don't see how or why it is considered a "birth defect" to be attracted to the same sex, rather than the opposite.

It's still love, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual.

Respect what you have 🌌

Re: What a Loser

Pretty sure being left handed isn't a biological dead end.

Re: What a Loser

I don't think she is a degenerate. I believe she has a right to seek happiness however she chooses as long as she isn't hurting someone else.

Re: What a Loser

She's so dumb.

Re: What a Loser


Trying to ambush Senator Cruz and fails MISERABLY - Why do sexual degenerates feel compelled to spew and spread their mental disorder upon others..!?


Kind of like you feeling so compelled to spew and spread your ignorance and lack of compassion, perspective and understanding about others, UPON others?!

Respect what you have 🌌

Re: What a Loser

How did she fail miserably when all did was deflect? Mentioning that gay people have it worse in other countries where ISIS terrorizes peole? With that logic, all Americans have it better than people in "other countries".

Re: What a Loser

Well it is in her Vice series and it's hysterical watching that sleasebag Cruz squirm. By "ambush" you mean she ruined his cheesy photo op by trying to get him to discuss an actual issue? I would say she has 50 IQ points on Cruz but that would be giving him too much credit.

The Constitution does need to be clarified because we need freedom FROM religion! This is NOT a Christian country and it says that it is no where in the Constitution. Several of the Founding Fathers were Atheists and the creator references were added to pacify the conservative Christians in Congress but there's no specific reference to the Christian god or Jesus. Heck if we have to pick a god I say we go for Odin. Conservatives are all war hawks, or as I prefer to say chicken hawks, so they should adopt a war god instead of a pacifist like Jesus. If we all adopt Odin then at least the braver ones among us would get to go to Valhalla. Or better yet make Buddhism the national religion. Since it's a pacifist religion we could save a fortune on wars and for once balance the budget. That's the solution we dump the Old Testament and follow Buddha. I'll even agree to Buddhist chants in schools so you get your religion in schools. I'd call that a win/win!
Top