LGBT Activists Are LIVID About Trump Naming CIA Director Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Till they find the “gay gene” being gay is just a choice.... It’s a science thing you may not understand

That is too idiotic to bother to comment on. I would school you on it but would be off topic.

I don’t care about people choosing to being gay never have… But I do know it’s a choice.
It’s like the tide comes and goes… LOL

If it is, being straight is also a choice since no straight gene has been identified either. When did you chose to be straight? Could YOU have chosen to be gay?

Alll that Tilly is capeable of doing is rating my posts that she disagrees with as "funny" Seems that she can't muster the brain power to actually comment.

So you’re blind as well as delusional! Lol.

Wow!! That is heavy !!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That is too idiotic to bother to comment on. I would school you on it but would be off topic.

I don’t care about people choosing to being gay never have… But I do know it’s a choice.
It’s like the tide comes and goes… LOL

If it is, being straight is also a choice since no straight gene has been identified either. When did you chose to be straight? Could YOU have chosen to be gay?

There’s two straight genes they called male and female… They just work, everything else is beyond awkward. Lol

Thank you for admitting that you don't know the difference between gender and sexual orientation. Are you proud of your ignorance?

Sexual orientation is just another word for delusional

Really??

 

[Tilly]

That is too idiotic to bother to comment on. I would school you on it but would be off topic.

I don’t care about people choosing to being gay never have… But I do know it’s a choice.
It’s like the tide comes and goes… LOL

If it is, being straight is also a choice since no straight gene has been identified either. When did you chose to be straight? Could YOU have chosen to be gay?

Alll that Tilly is capeable of doing is rating my posts that she disagrees with as "funny" Seems that she can't muster the brain power to actually comment.

So you’re blind as well as delusional! Lol.

Wow!! That is heavy !!

Really? Maybe to a retard like you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don’t care about people choosing to being gay never have… But I do know it’s a choice.
It’s like the tide comes and goes… LOL

If it is, being straight is also a choice since no straight gene has been identified either. When did you chose to be straight? Could YOU have chosen to be gay?

Alll that Tilly is capeable of doing is rating my posts that she disagrees with as "funny" Seems that she can't muster the brain power to actually comment.

So you’re blind as well as delusional! Lol.

Wow!! That is heavy !!

Really? Maybe to a retard like you.

Smart people understand facetious. Apparently you don't

 

[Tilly]

If it is, being straight is also a choice since no straight gene has been identified either. When did you chose to be straight? Could YOU have chosen to be gay?

Alll that Tilly is capeable of doing is rating my posts that she disagrees with as "funny" Seems that she can't muster the brain power to actually comment.

So you’re blind as well as delusional! Lol.

Wow!! That is heavy !!

Really? Maybe to a retard like you.

Smart people understand facetious. Apparently you don't

You’re too dumb to be facetious.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If you boys don't think that this matters, think again.........

LGBT Groups Condemn Mike Pompeo’s Appointment as Next Secretary of State

Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin said in a Tuesday press statement that Pompeo was “a reckless choice to lead our nation’s diplomatic efforts” due to his “longstanding opposition to LGBTQ equality.”
The decision to nominate anti-LGBTQ Mike Pompeo could have serious consequences for the United States and LGBTQ people around the globe,” Griffin said, adding that Pompeo could only contribute to the already “rapidly declining” role of the State Department in “advancing human rights” on the international stage.

Pompeo's Anti LGBTQ Statements:

Mike Pompeo

This the top diplomat who's job will be to advance the United States standing in the world on many issues, including human rights!

Fuck 'em. Who cares what these radicals think.. anyway, they need to read up on what a SoS does.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Half of America didn’t vote for trump dope.
She said HALF of trump supporters are racist.

She also said the white women who voted for Trump voted how their husbands instructed them to. Lol.

Ducking the Dyke Dynasty

In that play for sympathy, did hillary include White women whose "husbands" are also women?

 

[emilynghiem]

MARRIAGES are rituals. So are baptisms and funerals.
Yes these are private, and not govt business to dictate.

Marriages are religious rituals for some, for many others they are a secular matter, or some combination of both. BUT....That is not what we were discussing. YOU said the being LGBT is a religious ritual. It was stupid and you know- or at least I hope you do- it so now you're moving the goal posts and making it about marriage

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
What I find to be NEUTRAL is civil unions and legal contracts, void of any mention of the SOCIAL relations
between the partners to a contract.

Anyone can run a business as partners, a household or LLC,
or manage custody or estates as purely a secular arrangement where they have legal authority in decisions.

However, the minute you ADD in the social relationship of marriage,
that introduces SOCIAL and PERSONAL relations that are not the business of govt.

So that's where I draw the line with secular.

Even using the word "marriage" invokes religious meaning
to other people in the public besides just you! if the whole
public has a say in the laws, then those objections count, too.

Just like using the word "creation" in a public school textbook, you have the right to object
even if to someone else that's just another standard term.

You may not have an issue with marriage used for secular civil contexts.

But given the reaction this has caused, even my boyfriend who is NOT Christian
and NOT religious, refuses this "change in definition" of "marriage"
and doesn't BELIEVE in the laws written and using that term for same sex partnerships.

Whether you call this religious or secular, TheProgressivePatriot
people have the right to CONSENT to laws that represent the public whether locally, statewide or nationally.

When it comes to beliefs, I find the only way to reach CONSENT
is to mediate and write the laws by consensus so everyone CONSENTS equally.

With laws that DON'T INVOLVE BELIEFS (like how much to spend
on highways) people ARE willing to "consent to majority rule" and the process for govt to create amend and enforce laws.

But for issues involving BELIEFS they do NOT CONSENT to have GOVT decide these things.
So that's another big warning sign that beliefs are involved.
The major key issues I have found (that can't be forced by govt without imposing on people's beliefs) include:
the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, marriage laws, school policies on sex education creation evolution prayer
(and now LGBT) and some immigration issues that involve beliefs about native jurisdiction and birthright.
Right to health care surfaced as a political belief later, as did the Global Warming debate.
Right to vote and gun rights also carry more symbolic/religious meaning than just the literal laws,
so that becomes politically religious, and drug laws also involve political beliefs that people don't agree on forcing through govt.

Since I believe in respecting all people's free choice, consent and beliefs equally in the mediation process,
in order to reach a consensus by agreeing on points or by separating instead of imposing on each other,
I would apply the same conflict resolution process to any situation, to make sure nobody's beliefs are violated.
If a policy or solution really represents the best interest of the people, it would have support of those people
it is supposed to protect and include equally. So if someone is left out, still protesting, how can I say that law
reflects consent of the governed? The way I know that it represents the public, there should be general agreement on law,
as there is universal respect for the First Amendment, and also the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980. If you read those 10 principles, those are well written as general standards.
www.ethics-commission.net

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
What I find to be NEUTRAL is civil unions and legal contracts, void of any mention of the SOCIAL relations
between the partners to a contract.

Anyone can run a business as partners, a household or LLC,
or manage custody or estates as purely a secular arrangement where they have legal authority in decisions.

However, the minute you ADD in the social relationship of marriage,
that introduces SOCIAL and PERSONAL relations that are not the business of govt.

So that's where I draw the line with secular.

Even using the word "marriage" invokes religious meaning
to other people in the public besides just you! if the whole
public has a say in the laws, then those objections count, too.

Just like using the word "creation" in a public school textbook, you have the right to object
even if to someone else that's just another standard term.

You may not have an issue with marriage used for secular civil contexts.

But given the reaction this has caused, even my boyfriend who is NOT Christian
and NOT religious, refuses this "change in definition" of "marriage"
and doesn't BELIEVE in the laws written and using that term for same sex partnerships.

Sure Emily, just because a few nutters have a problem with calling it marriage- a phenomenon which mysteriously surfaced after gays won the right to marry, we'll just upend the entire cultural and legal framework that has developed over time in order to avoid the issue . Because a few anti government zealots don't think that the government should be involved in personal relationships, we'll depersonalize marriage and relegate it to the status of a business contract. You all need to get over it and move on.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Whether you call this religious or secular, TheProgressivePatriot
people have the right to CONSENT to laws that represent the public whether locally, statewide or nationally.

Sure Emily, and if I don't consent to a particular law, I don't have to follow it, right? Gee, I don't think that there should be a stop sign here- no one asked me about it so fuck it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

When it comes to beliefs, I find the only way to reach CONSENT
is to mediate and write the laws by consensus so everyone CONSENTS equally.

Right Emily, keep fantasizing about that. It would be one hell of a town hall meeting

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

With laws that DON'T INVOLVE BELIEFS (like how much to spend
on highways) people ARE willing to "consent to majority rule" and the process for govt to create amend and enforce laws.

A glimmer of rational thought!

 

[jillian]

Outraged people get outraged!
Film at 11.

I know nothing about this guy, but since all the right folks are foaming the mouth, I love him.

Trump Replaces Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with Mike Pompeo | Human Rights Campaign

Mike Pompeo

your choice of words is interesting. (well, not really),

Pompeo nis a conspiracy nut and a terrible choice. and basically tells our allies we're a banana republic whose intel forces and diplomatic corps are one and the same.

you know, just like your boy Vladimir.,

but "livid"? trump trolls make up the stupidest things because you walk around perpetually hating everyone who isn't a trumptard

 

[jillian]

MARRIAGES are rituals. So are baptisms and funerals.
Yes these are private, and not govt business to dictate.

Marriages are religious rituals for some, for many others they are a secular matter, or some combination of both. BUT....That is not what we were discussing. YOU said the being LGBT is a religious ritual. It was stupid and you know- or at least I hope you do- it so now you're moving the goal posts and making it about marriage

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
What I find to be NEUTRAL is civil unions and legal contracts, void of any mention of the SOCIAL relations
between the partners to a contract.

Anyone can run a business as partners, a household or LLC,
or manage custody or estates as purely a secular arrangement where they have legal authority in decisions.

However, the minute you ADD in the social relationship of marriage,
that introduces SOCIAL and PERSONAL relations that are not the business of govt.

So that's where I draw the line with secular.

Even using the word "marriage" invokes religious meaning
to other people in the public besides just you! if the whole
public has a say in the laws, then those objections count, too.

Just like using the word "creation" in a public school textbook, you have the right to object
even if to someone else that's just another standard term.

You may not have an issue with marriage used for secular civil contexts.

But given the reaction this has caused, even my boyfriend who is NOT Christian
and NOT religious, refuses this "change in definition" of "marriage"
and doesn't BELIEVE in the laws written and using that term for same sex partnerships.

Whether you call this religious or secular, TheProgressivePatriot
people have the right to CONSENT to laws that represent the public whether locally, statewide or nationally.

When it comes to beliefs, I find the only way to reach CONSENT
is to mediate and write the laws by consensus so everyone CONSENTS equally.

With laws that DON'T INVOLVE BELIEFS (like how much to spend
on highways) people ARE willing to "consent to majority rule" and the process for govt to create amend and enforce laws.

But for issues involving BELIEFS they do NOT CONSENT to have GOVT decide these things.
So that's another big warning sign that beliefs are involved.
The major key issues I have found (that can't be forced by govt without imposing on people's beliefs) include:
the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, marriage laws, school policies on sex education creation evolution prayer
(and now LGBT) and some immigration issues that involve beliefs about native jurisdiction and birthright.
Right to health care surfaced as a political belief later, as did the Global Warming debate.
Right to vote and gun rights also carry more symbolic/religious meaning than just the literal laws,
so that becomes politically religious, and drug laws also involve political beliefs that people don't agree on forcing through govt.

Since I believe in respecting all people's free choice, consent and beliefs equally in the mediation process,
in order to reach a consensus by agreeing on points or by separating instead of imposing on each other,
I would apply the same conflict resolution process to any situation, to make sure nobody's beliefs are violated.
If a policy or solution really represents the best interest of the people, it would have support of those people
it is supposed to protect and include equally. So if someone is left out, still protesting, how can I say that law
reflects consent of the governed? The way I know that it represents the public, there should be general agreement on law,
as there is universal respect for the First Amendment, and also the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980. If you read those 10 principles, those are well written as general standards.
www.ethics-commission.net

please let us know when trumptards wish to engage is discussion. they're the minority of the country but that doesn't stop them from shoving their insanity down everyone else's throats.

which is why you're seeing their House seats being picked off --- one at a time.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But for issues involving BELIEFS they do NOT CONSENT to have GOVT decide these things.
So that's another big warning sign that beliefs are involved.
The major key issues I have found (that can't be forced by govt without imposing on people's beliefs) include:
the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, marriage laws, school policies on sex education creation evolution prayer
(and now LGBT) and some immigration issues that involve beliefs about native jurisdiction and birthright.
Right to health care surfaced as a political belief later, as did the Global Warming debate.
Right to vote and gun rights also carry more symbolic/religious meaning than just the literal laws,
so that becomes politically religious, and drug laws also involve political beliefs that people don't agree on forcing through govt.

Since I believe in respecting all people's free choice, consent and beliefs equally in the mediation process,
in order to reach a consensus by agreeing on points or by separating instead of imposing on each other,
I would apply the same conflict resolution process to any situation, to make sure nobody's beliefs are violated.
If a policy or solution really represents the best interest of the people, it would have support of those people
it is supposed to protect and include equally. So if someone is left out, still protesting, how can I say that law
reflects consent of the governed? The way I know that it represents the public, there should be general agreement on law,
as there is universal respect for the First Amendment, and also the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980. If you read those 10 principles, those are well written as general standards.
www.ethics-commission.net

I can't take it any more!!

 

[jillian]

MARRIAGES are rituals. So are baptisms and funerals.
Yes these are private, and not govt business to dictate.

Marriages are religious rituals for some, for many others they are a secular matter, or some combination of both. BUT....That is not what we were discussing. YOU said the being LGBT is a religious ritual. It was stupid and you know- or at least I hope you do- it so now you're moving the goal posts and making it about marriage

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
What I find to be NEUTRAL is civil unions and legal contracts, void of any mention of the SOCIAL relations
between the partners to a contract.

Anyone can run a business as partners, a household or LLC,
or manage custody or estates as purely a secular arrangement where they have legal authority in decisions.

However, the minute you ADD in the social relationship of marriage,
that introduces SOCIAL and PERSONAL relations that are not the business of govt.

So that's where I draw the line with secular.

Even using the word "marriage" invokes religious meaning
to other people in the public besides just you! if the whole
public has a say in the laws, then those objections count, too.

Just like using the word "creation" in a public school textbook, you have the right to object
even if to someone else that's just another standard term.

You may not have an issue with marriage used for secular civil contexts.

But given the reaction this has caused, even my boyfriend who is NOT Christian
and NOT religious, refuses this "change in definition" of "marriage"
and doesn't BELIEVE in the laws written and using that term for same sex partnerships.

Whether you call this religious or secular, TheProgressivePatriot
people have the right to CONSENT to laws that represent the public whether locally, statewide or nationally.

When it comes to beliefs, I find the only way to reach CONSENT
is to mediate and write the laws by consensus so everyone CONSENTS equally.

With laws that DON'T INVOLVE BELIEFS (like how much to spend
on highways) people ARE willing to "consent to majority rule" and the process for govt to create amend and enforce laws.

But for issues involving BELIEFS they do NOT CONSENT to have GOVT decide these things.
So that's another big warning sign that beliefs are involved.
The major key issues I have found (that can't be forced by govt without imposing on people's beliefs) include:
the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, marriage laws, school policies on sex education creation evolution prayer
(and now LGBT) and some immigration issues that involve beliefs about native jurisdiction and birthright.
Right to health care surfaced as a political belief later, as did the Global Warming debate.
Right to vote and gun rights also carry more symbolic/religious meaning than just the literal laws,
so that becomes politically religious, and drug laws also involve political beliefs that people don't agree on forcing through govt.

Since I believe in respecting all people's free choice, consent and beliefs equally in the mediation process,
in order to reach a consensus by agreeing on points or by separating instead of imposing on each other,
I would apply the same conflict resolution process to any situation, to make sure nobody's beliefs are violated.
If a policy or solution really represents the best interest of the people, it would have support of those people
it is supposed to protect and include equally. So if someone is left out, still protesting, how can I say that law
reflects consent of the governed? The way I know that it represents the public, there should be general agreement on law,
as there is universal respect for the First Amendment, and also the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980. If you read those 10 principles, those are well written as general standards.
www.ethics-commission.net

your "beliefs" shouldn't have anything to do with law. we're a secular country. and when your fiscal policy is to divert all wealth to the top 1% with a massive and irresponsible tax cut, but then increase military spending by an unnecessary and unwanted (by the military) sum, and then cry poverty when it comes to things like roads... that isn't true.

 

[PredFan]

This White House has a swinging door policy.
People can’t wait to get out.

Asshole : People love working in the WH.

No they like leaving even more.

Can any business be successful with constant massive turnovers?
Of course not.

This presidency is in total chaos and the cult still thinks it’s “ morning in America.”

It's lunacy itself for a sane person to try to make sense to people like you who post stupid shit like this, but you accidentally hit on something I've been thinking about lately.

Trump is not just capable of running this country, he's capable of doing it entirely by himself. He knows that and he's doing it. That is why he doesn't tolerate anyone who doesn't actually contribute, or that hinders him. "Can a business be successful with constant massive turnovers?" It can when Donald Trump is running it. That's obvious since the country has been better off since he's been there than it was in the decades before him.

I know a retard like you will laugh, but that's because he's doing things YOU don't like and since you are an America- hating leftist you hate the things that are good for the country. Facts are still facts despite the fact that you don't like them.