🔥 Popular | Latest

prismatic-bell: the-invisible-self: pulmonary-poultry: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: mandalorianreynolds: kuriquinn: prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymoga: Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012… Good post OP Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty. WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice. 2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time. 3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy). So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Much appreciated. I love when scholarship and history debunks bullshit …I sadly have more bullshit to report. “removed for violating guidelines”, EVERY screenshot. …goddamnit Let’s try this again I am horrified that @prismatic-bell keeps getting censored + this info is gold. Many thanks, @pulmonary-poultry. This isn’t the only Jewish post of mine that’s mysteriously stopped showing up in searches and/or vanished from my blog entirely, but it is the one I get the most requests to repost, so this saves me from having to rewrite the whole damned essay. @the-invisible-self, thanks for bringing it to my attention that someone was able to preserve the post! : prismatic-bell: the-invisible-self: pulmonary-poultry: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: mandalorianreynolds: kuriquinn: prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymoga: Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012… Good post OP Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty. WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice. 2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time. 3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy). So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Much appreciated. I love when scholarship and history debunks bullshit …I sadly have more bullshit to report. “removed for violating guidelines”, EVERY screenshot. …goddamnit Let’s try this again I am horrified that @prismatic-bell keeps getting censored + this info is gold. Many thanks, @pulmonary-poultry. This isn’t the only Jewish post of mine that’s mysteriously stopped showing up in searches and/or vanished from my blog entirely, but it is the one I get the most requests to repost, so this saves me from having to rewrite the whole damned essay. @the-invisible-self, thanks for bringing it to my attention that someone was able to preserve the post!
Save
stretchtarot:The Sun & Moon, Lenormand cards 31 and 32: summ'it, n. highest point, top, apex; highest degree. summit conference, meeting of heads of States. summon, vt. call together, require presence or au su'perfine, a. extremely fine in quality. superflu'ity (-floo-), n. superfluous amount. super'fluous (-floo-), a. more than enough, excessive; ncedless, uncalled-for. superhu'man abeyond normal human capacity; higher or greater than that of) man. superimpose' (-z), v.t. place on something dar buagharitsta annear A else. superintend', v. have or exercise charge or Ycew denee, or official direction of anking above su blace, upper; etc.; having aving above higher rank, ry or convent Superior). per iene dotank or savng c Avcrage nualie autherty, et FatherSaperior A Superio rit super lative Cor seo-) esof highest degree 6xpressing highes ceg denoted by simte fo ree or form su sing all oth- of adj., etc.) uality, ete., superlative an, n(pl permen) Sdeal superior ture; man of superhun an powers or , n. self service store selling sehold goods ofkinds. (-cher-), aaue to, manifest- gency above Tores of nature; nary operation cheerfulness brght intiuence of dark patches sometimes ob surface. su'stroke, illness ca sive exposure to heat of sun sunn'y, a. ht with sunlight: sun'dae (-da confection of ice fruit, nuts, Sun'day, n tday of wreek, obser Christiansday of rest and worship. sun'der, v.tarchatc& Poet separate. sun'dry, a.various, se veral. sun'dries (-iz), n.pl. oddments, small items. sung, p.p. o sing sunk, p.p. sink. sunk'en, aof eves, cheeks, etc.) lholow fallen in. unny: see sun up, v. (p.t. spped), take supper. sup-, pref.:ee sub super- (or (of); beyod besides, execeding, tonscer ing; of higher kind atore than tisua superabundant, a very ot t06 ab superann'uate Sion, esp. br discards fo8 old annua'tion, n. superb' (or soo-), a. of most excellent or impressive kind, magnificent, majestic. súpercil'ious, a haughtily contemptuous, dis- dainful, or superior. superfi'cial (-shl), a. of or on the surfat Lwithout depth. superficial'ity (-shi-), n cause and n or thing) in ary, a. & he normal numbe e (-z), v. t. place abo or on some- else, esp. so as to cooede. superpo' 5able, a. su'perscribe, v. t. write orinsce over, at top of or outside something. suúpenscrip'tion, n. supersede, v.t take the placef; be adopted or accepted instead of superson ie, a having speed ater than that Of Sound. suners tie n(habit or bet ef based on) Sraonal ar of the1 hakhotn; belief in agic sapematural poversc. supersti- iousshus) a súperstaictore cher) n sucture resting on Somethingg lse as a foundation; parts of pref ovee abeve en to aboge main deck occtras an interruption or as hange süperen'tion, n. erintend per- cter of over- cause see. supervi'sion (-zhn), n. si'pervisor, n. supervi'sory, a. su'pine, a. lying face upwards; indolent, lethargic, inert. supp'er, n. meal taken at end of day, esp. evening meal less formal and substantial than dinner. supp'eriess, a. 31 conduct. mo'rality play, medieval moraliz- ing drama. mo'ralize, v. talk or write on moral aspect of things; interpret morally morass', n. wet swampy area, bog. mor'bid, a. not natural and healthy; of, indi- cating, disease. morbid'ity, n. mor'dant, a. biting, stinging; (of acids) corro- (French) monsoon', n. seasonal wind prevailing in S Asia; rainy season accompanying SW. mon- SOon mo l 8 m ional quan- v. to greater eo'ver, adv. me r m rriage, one woman of rmer station claim to У r een man who child m t п S. religious m m ti il m oon or mid- of goatskin Fig 2 rtreated feeble- m moron'ic, red. substance sen pain. ional dance and phipo um ant ra moon. mo moon'stond appearance dreamy. moor, n. heather-cov billed wate moors. moor2, v. t. a shore or place, charg . pl. place mooring. Moor, n. ofMu NW. Africa h moose, n. (pl e NAnank moot, n. (Hi ceting esp. legistative or judicial. a. e a guedr debtable v. raise (quest mор, п. bund use in clear wipe (as) wi mope, v. i. bè mo'ped, n. m moraine ni mo'ral, a. concemedwn character, ere, o with right and wrong; good, virtuous. n. moral teaching; (pl.) habits or conduct from moral point of view. mo'rally, adv. morale(-ahl),n. discipline and spirit pervad. ing army or group of people. mo'ralist, n. one who points out morals; who teaches morality. moralis'tic, a moral'ity, n. moral principles or rules; moa long signals g letters of rac o, etc. r aantity. ra cannot live iman being. ause death; KO arpabe mor Sel, na oE'tale aGmast oreve c hor'tally so as extremely,c Omortal ity, n ng Seoalfo ss of life on alarge scale death-re mor tar, n vessel n which gs, etc., are pounded with a pestle shells. e Sand and water used bricks, ejc. mortaf aulding tortar with flat squa mortgago g deal aceba un throwing ture of lime ints between ard on which college cap highhang FR d cussion C. ixed lo stick for Hopped, elean or with mpp ce of right to money, until ver by mort- gage, preage advatce.. BIAgee, n hol- der of mortgage. mortgagor jor), n. per- son who pledges property in mosigage. mor'tify, v. bring under control by discipline and self-control: humiliate. listress: (of flesh) be affected with gangrene. mortifi- ३2 ca'tion, n. or'tise, n. hole into which end (tenon) of another part of framework, etc., is fitted. v. t. stretchtarot:The Sun & Moon, Lenormand cards 31 and 32

stretchtarot:The Sun & Moon, Lenormand cards 31 and 32

Save
elidyce: luckyladylily: ohnoagremlin: itsvondell: off-in-lala-land: You know, if I was a parent, it would be at this point that I’d rip the game from his hands, stash it in my backpack, and force him to enjoy history goddamnit. This vacation cost a lot and the game is only for the hotel and travel time. imagine trying to force someone to think that stonehenge is fun take your kids places they actually want to go instead of getting mad when they quietly self-entertain, he’s not hurting nobody. me & my shitbag siblings would be climbing that fucking thing, gameboy kid is doing alright Some small child: does not yet have the mental development or contextual understanding to appreciate why these particular rocks are extra interesting. Some adult: God I hate that children don’t think like adults! I would force them to pretend they do because I interpret child thought patterns as a personal insult! Child: *looks at rocks for approx. 30 seconds, listens to vaguely interesting story about them for another minute or so, glances at the rocks again, is Now Done. Parent: I understand that your attention span has done all it can with the stimulation provided. Here is your gameboy to keep you entertained while the adults talk about things you don’t find interesting, like the history of very large rocks. Child: *quietly squats down and plays with the gameboy, allowing adults to enjoy their rocks* Parent: I am very glad that I understand to some extent how children’s minds work, or this holiday would be a miserable experience for both of us. How fortunate that I planned ahead to allow my child periods of rest and quiet entertainment during excursions that are primarily for my benefit and enjoyment. : elidyce: luckyladylily: ohnoagremlin: itsvondell: off-in-lala-land: You know, if I was a parent, it would be at this point that I’d rip the game from his hands, stash it in my backpack, and force him to enjoy history goddamnit. This vacation cost a lot and the game is only for the hotel and travel time. imagine trying to force someone to think that stonehenge is fun take your kids places they actually want to go instead of getting mad when they quietly self-entertain, he’s not hurting nobody. me & my shitbag siblings would be climbing that fucking thing, gameboy kid is doing alright Some small child: does not yet have the mental development or contextual understanding to appreciate why these particular rocks are extra interesting. Some adult: God I hate that children don’t think like adults! I would force them to pretend they do because I interpret child thought patterns as a personal insult! Child: *looks at rocks for approx. 30 seconds, listens to vaguely interesting story about them for another minute or so, glances at the rocks again, is Now Done. Parent: I understand that your attention span has done all it can with the stimulation provided. Here is your gameboy to keep you entertained while the adults talk about things you don’t find interesting, like the history of very large rocks. Child: *quietly squats down and plays with the gameboy, allowing adults to enjoy their rocks* Parent: I am very glad that I understand to some extent how children’s minds work, or this holiday would be a miserable experience for both of us. How fortunate that I planned ahead to allow my child periods of rest and quiet entertainment during excursions that are primarily for my benefit and enjoyment.
Save
sugabebe16: luckyladylily: ohnoagremlin: itsvondell: off-in-lala-land: You know, if I was a parent, it would be at this point that I’d rip the game from his hands, stash it in my backpack, and force him to enjoy history goddamnit. This vacation cost a lot and the game is only for the hotel and travel time. imagine trying to force someone to think that stonehenge is fun take your kids places they actually want to go instead of getting mad when they quietly self-entertain, he’s not hurting nobody. me & my shitbag siblings would be climbing that fucking thing, gameboy kid is doing alright Some small child: does not yet have the mental development or contextual understanding to appreciate why these particular rocks are extra interesting. Some adult: God I hate that children don’t think like adults! I would force them to pretend they do because I interpret child thought patterns as a personal insult! This is why most adults/ parents are trash. They forget their kid has a right to independent thought and don’t have to give a shit about what their parents interests are. ESPECIALLY if the parent doesn’t do the same for their child. Reminds me of my Mom forcing us to visit 5 to 6 old church ruins before even goinh to the hotel: sugabebe16: luckyladylily: ohnoagremlin: itsvondell: off-in-lala-land: You know, if I was a parent, it would be at this point that I’d rip the game from his hands, stash it in my backpack, and force him to enjoy history goddamnit. This vacation cost a lot and the game is only for the hotel and travel time. imagine trying to force someone to think that stonehenge is fun take your kids places they actually want to go instead of getting mad when they quietly self-entertain, he’s not hurting nobody. me & my shitbag siblings would be climbing that fucking thing, gameboy kid is doing alright Some small child: does not yet have the mental development or contextual understanding to appreciate why these particular rocks are extra interesting. Some adult: God I hate that children don’t think like adults! I would force them to pretend they do because I interpret child thought patterns as a personal insult! This is why most adults/ parents are trash. They forget their kid has a right to independent thought and don’t have to give a shit about what their parents interests are. ESPECIALLY if the parent doesn’t do the same for their child. Reminds me of my Mom forcing us to visit 5 to 6 old church ruins before even goinh to the hotel
Save
prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymoga: Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012… Good post OP Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty. WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice. 2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time. 3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy). So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Much appreciated. : wha!? Sl BAPU BAPTIST CHUR(H SUS DISGUST MyCHILD Dortyouatti? SaSin!God condemns W all! BRIAN heed to have a talk 0 CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE TH ISLAMIC TEMPUE I didnt die ona Cross for this BS RADICAL righte homoSexvality ar the last 2.000 yearsold. prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymoga: Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012… Good post OP Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty. WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice. 2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time. 3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy). So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Much appreciated.
Save
hatey-mchaterson: timemachineyeah: a-spoon-is-born: funoftheday: You don’t say. For the record, she actually abandoned the movement BEFORE they all got whooping cough, but abandoned it too late. There’d been a breakout of measles in her area that caused her to reassess, and she and her doctor had already drafted and started a catch-up vaccination schedule, but her kids caught whooping cough just before it could be started. Then she wrote a blog post for The Scientific Parent explaining how she and her husband had come to wrong decisions in the first place, how they changed their mind, the consequences they suffered as a result, and asking other parents to please vaccinate their kids. And now she’s an activist for destroying the misinformation of anti-vaxxers, and reaching out to anti-vaxxers because she’s understands their fears but knows their kids deserve better.  She was trying to the best for her kids and just didn’t know how to interpret the validity of information or its sources, an actual skill that can be actually difficult and that is under-taught and a necessary first step to being able to trust vaccination research, so chose no action over taking an action she wasn’t sure of. She kept looking into it with family and friends and even eventually came to the right conclusion before her kids became sick, but it was still too late. Honestly it was pretty brave of her to publicly admit she was wrong. She could have just quietly vaccinated her kids and not become a national news story, but instead she spoke out, even saying “I’m writing this from quarantine, the irony of which isn’t lost on me.” and also “I am not looking forward to any gloating or shame as this ‘defection’ from the antivaxx camp goes public, but, this isn’t a popularity contest.  Right now my family is living the consequences of misinformation and fear.  I understand that families in our community may be mad at us for putting their kids at risk.” She understood the consequences and still put herself and her story out there.  You know what, it does take a big person to admit they were wrong so publicly and work to undo the harm. I believe I made fun of her in the past, but timemachineyeah changed my mind. : Anti-vaxx mom abandons movement after all seven her of her kids get whooping cough 画20 TOM BOGGION O APR 2015 AT 16.00 E Smawa "6 Adrian Hareweo CKB Omawa mother Tara Hls CBC soreeshot hatey-mchaterson: timemachineyeah: a-spoon-is-born: funoftheday: You don’t say. For the record, she actually abandoned the movement BEFORE they all got whooping cough, but abandoned it too late. There’d been a breakout of measles in her area that caused her to reassess, and she and her doctor had already drafted and started a catch-up vaccination schedule, but her kids caught whooping cough just before it could be started. Then she wrote a blog post for The Scientific Parent explaining how she and her husband had come to wrong decisions in the first place, how they changed their mind, the consequences they suffered as a result, and asking other parents to please vaccinate their kids. And now she’s an activist for destroying the misinformation of anti-vaxxers, and reaching out to anti-vaxxers because she’s understands their fears but knows their kids deserve better.  She was trying to the best for her kids and just didn’t know how to interpret the validity of information or its sources, an actual skill that can be actually difficult and that is under-taught and a necessary first step to being able to trust vaccination research, so chose no action over taking an action she wasn’t sure of. She kept looking into it with family and friends and even eventually came to the right conclusion before her kids became sick, but it was still too late. Honestly it was pretty brave of her to publicly admit she was wrong. She could have just quietly vaccinated her kids and not become a national news story, but instead she spoke out, even saying “I’m writing this from quarantine, the irony of which isn’t lost on me.” and also “I am not looking forward to any gloating or shame as this ‘defection’ from the antivaxx camp goes public, but, this isn’t a popularity contest.  Right now my family is living the consequences of misinformation and fear.  I understand that families in our community may be mad at us for putting their kids at risk.” She understood the consequences and still put herself and her story out there.  You know what, it does take a big person to admit they were wrong so publicly and work to undo the harm. I believe I made fun of her in the past, but timemachineyeah changed my mind.

hatey-mchaterson: timemachineyeah: a-spoon-is-born: funoftheday: You don’t say. For the record, she actually abandoned the movemen...

Save
coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.   Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”. It’s insanely stupid, and it disturbs me that anyone would even consider this idea.  Crazy Uncle Joe would be an absolutely horrible President, even more of a puppet than Obama.   Friend, buddy, pal, chum. I am not even sort of saying that this would be a good idea and I don’t even think it’s on the table. Biden has shown no interest in running, much less appointing Obama as VP. He would be an idiot to do that because it almost certainly wouldn’t make it through the electoral college. This is just a thought exercise, nothing more.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.   Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”. It’s insanely stupid, and it disturbs me that anyone would even consider this idea.  Crazy Uncle Joe would be an absolutely horrible President, even more of a puppet than Obama.   Friend, buddy, pal, chum. I am not even sort of saying that this would be a good idea and I don’t even think it’s on the table. Biden has shown no interest in running, much less appointing Obama as VP. He would be an idiot to do that because it almost certainly wouldn’t make it through the electoral college. This is just a thought exercise, nothing more.
Save
urben911: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. I’m pretty sure from the wording of the amendment it would be perfectly legal. If they ran as biden/Obama that would be legal because Obama isn’t being elected as president. If something happened to Biden where the vp would have to take over then you could have Obama in the white house legally. At least that’s what I get from the wording of the constitution. THANK YOU.It really isn’t that complicated.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 urben911: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. I’m pretty sure from the wording of the amendment it would be perfectly legal. If they ran as biden/Obama that would be legal because Obama isn’t being elected as president. If something happened to Biden where the vp would have to take over then you could have Obama in the white house legally. At least that’s what I get from the wording of the constitution. THANK YOU.It really isn’t that complicated.
Save
hst3000: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. Being elected is the default way to become president. I don’t doubt someone would argue it, but it’s a STUPID ARGUMENT. The rest of the argument in that article is ‘well there’s no law saying the parties can’t run a dog for election’ type of crap. “Being elected is the default way to become president” Yes but it’s not the only way. Teddy Roosevelt not initially get elected to the office, he became president when McKinley died. Whether or not it’s a stupid argument is beside the point. We’re talking about theoretical legality.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. Being elected is the default way to become president. I don’t doubt someone would argue it, but it’s a STUPID ARGUMENT. The rest of the argument in that article is ‘well there’s no law saying the parties can’t run a dog for election’ type of crap. “Being elected is the default way to become president” Yes but it’s not the only way. Teddy Roosevelt not initially get elected to the office, he became president when McKinley died. Whether or not it’s a stupid argument is beside the point. We’re talking about theoretical legality.
Save
coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.   Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.   Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”.
Save
hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.
Save
terrapinfox: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 i read that article and it still doesn’t seem possible given “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”and at first i thought this’d be a good way to secure trump his second term, but… judging by the sheer amount of lunatics in usa atm, a kinda technicality shadow president could have a chance, which would be terrifying and dangerous tbh. The article lose things out pretty clearly, and I summarize it in the OP: the exact wording of the 22nd amendment says that a person cannot be ELECTED more than twice to the office of president. It does not prohibit someone becoming president through a line of succession, Having not been directly elected to the office. A former president would not be constitutionally ineligible based on those parameters.It’s a loophole in the wording but the law is literally build on loopholes. A constitutional lawyer could and would argue this if they tried to make it happen. Now this article also points out they almost certainly wouldn’t try to make it happen because of the backlash and lack of likelihood that the electoral college would approve such a ticket. But it is theoretically possible.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 terrapinfox: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 i read that article and it still doesn’t seem possible given “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”and at first i thought this’d be a good way to secure trump his second term, but… judging by the sheer amount of lunatics in usa atm, a kinda technicality shadow president could have a chance, which would be terrifying and dangerous tbh. The article lose things out pretty clearly, and I summarize it in the OP: the exact wording of the 22nd amendment says that a person cannot be ELECTED more than twice to the office of president. It does not prohibit someone becoming president through a line of succession, Having not been directly elected to the office. A former president would not be constitutionally ineligible based on those parameters.It’s a loophole in the wording but the law is literally build on loopholes. A constitutional lawyer could and would argue this if they tried to make it happen. Now this article also points out they almost certainly wouldn’t try to make it happen because of the backlash and lack of likelihood that the electoral college would approve such a ticket. But it is theoretically possible.
Save
coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.
Save
hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57
Save
girlactionfigure: New stage production of ‘Diary Of Anne Frank’ replaces Nazis with ICE agents hunting for illegal immigrantsThe new production will re-interpret the story as one of illegal immigrants hiding from ICE agents, a promotional notice in Broadway World explains.‘Zimmerman’s unique take on the staging was inspired by the true story of a Jewish woman in Los Angeles who created a Safe House’ for a Latina mother and her two daughters after her husband was deported by ICE,’ the notice reads. 'The characters in the attic will be played by a LatinX cast.’ Genesis Ochoa will star in the show as Anne Frank, and the cast includes Keith Coogan, Tasha Dixon, David Gurrola, Heather Olt, Raquenel, Robert C. Raicch, Teddi Shaffer, Raymond Abel Tomas, and Emiliano Torres. More: Here Oh for fucks sake.Like you want to tell that story? Fine. Make a play about the immigrants all you want. But don’t call it the Diary of Anne Frank. Don’t erase the actual experience of a fucking holocaust victim for your little political gotcha.: Sam Eskenasi Following @SamEskenasi Complain about ICE or the immigration problems in the USA all you want, but this is not cool. girlactionfigure: New stage production of ‘Diary Of Anne Frank’ replaces Nazis with ICE agents hunting for illegal immigrantsThe new production will re-interpret the story as one of illegal immigrants hiding from ICE agents, a promotional notice in Broadway World explains.‘Zimmerman’s unique take on the staging was inspired by the true story of a Jewish woman in Los Angeles who created a Safe House’ for a Latina mother and her two daughters after her husband was deported by ICE,’ the notice reads. 'The characters in the attic will be played by a LatinX cast.’ Genesis Ochoa will star in the show as Anne Frank, and the cast includes Keith Coogan, Tasha Dixon, David Gurrola, Heather Olt, Raquenel, Robert C. Raicch, Teddi Shaffer, Raymond Abel Tomas, and Emiliano Torres. More: Here Oh for fucks sake.Like you want to tell that story? Fine. Make a play about the immigrants all you want. But don’t call it the Diary of Anne Frank. Don’t erase the actual experience of a fucking holocaust victim for your little political gotcha.
Save