Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"We reserve the right not to serve faggots"
That is a violation of the laws we already have.
Thats why Republicans need to pass more
<wink> <wink> Just tell em Jesus is telling you to hate fags
If it wasn't for the left making laws that discriminate against Christians, they would not have to pass these laws in the first place.
Jesus and Christians hates the sin not the sinners.
Then why not just let gays marry the person they love and let God worry about it?
That is what the majority of the nation is saying.
Just don't force all the Churches, florists and bakers against their religious ideologies like they are doing now.
Thank you for affirming that a Conservative is incapable of using a flexible mind.Ultra-Conservative Senator/Governor Mike Pence has changed his position.
Southern Conservative Senator/Governor Asa Huchinson is calling for a re-write before he signs it, making clear there will be no discrimination, and pointing out that the Federal law will be his guidepost, not a 'States Rights' position.
Liberals win again.
If Pence is willing to change his mind then ha cannot be a Conservative, nevermind an Ultra-Conservative. He IS a Liberal, So I'm not sure if that means the Libs win because they turned Pence into one of their own or if they lose for the same reason.
On the Bush economy, you do recall that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the Senate and House 6 years into the Bush presidency and controlled the purse strings from that time on. They did absolutely nothing in regards to the housing bubble, in fact they denied the existence until after it popped and in true Democrat fashion, blamed Bush even though he warned them repeatedly. They could have cut funding for the wars then and didn't. The wars continued under the Nancy/Reid/Obama regimes and I doubt the cost was even close to 9 trillion in the years Republicans actually controlled spending. I suspect maybe a trillion tops
Have you seen this video and are you willing to re-think your myopic view?
so long as they can discredit one another, they'll be happy.Synthaholic said:...pointing out that the Federal law will be his guidepost, not a 'States Rights' position.
There it is -- the true target of those responsible for raising the ruckus on both sides of the debate. And as usual, liberals and conservatives alike have played their roles as 'useful idiots' to a tee.
Stupid retarded libs, idiots.So you're as crazy as this guy...Not to worry, we have a lovely room picked out for you, if you survive that is, at our favorite concrete hotel, called the Supermax. You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.
I will never be taken alve, and I guarantee you I'll take more than a few with me when I go.
Poor, unhinged, conservatives.
The housing bible was clintons, Dodd, and franks faults libs like to deny that truth.On the Bush economy, you do recall that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the Senate and House 6 years into the Bush presidency and controlled the purse strings from that time on. They did absolutely nothing in regards to the housing bubble, in fact they denied the existence until after it popped and in true Democrat fashion, blamed Bush even though he warned them repeatedly. They could have cut funding for the wars then and didn't. The wars continued under the Nancy/Reid/Obama regimes and I doubt the cost was even close to 9 trillion in the years Republicans actually controlled spending. I suspect maybe a trillion tops
That's novel....blaming Reid and Pelosi for Bush's spending. Always spinning...that's what conservatives do best. Maybe you buy that crap, but I don't. And yeah, like it's so easy to just cut funding for the wars....just leave our men and women stranded out there....now that's another novel idea.
During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.
During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 12.5 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 53 percent.
Spending Under President George W. Bush Mercatus
Oh, and Bush could have done something regarding the housing bubble....he didn't. He was the one responsible for encouraging it.
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
By Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Stephen Labaton
Published: Sunday, December 21, 2008
WASHINGTON — "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
Have you seen this video and are you willing to re-think your myopic view?
You do realize that your video is dated Feb 1998? Yes Iraq was a threat at one time, but not when Bush came on the scene. It has been exposed and known now for years, there were no WMDs, but Bush pushed for war anyway.... your attempts at putting this on the left is lame. Try something else.
The Bush administration exerted significant pressure on the intelligence community to provide justification for the Iraq War. According to John Brennan, who was Deputy Director of the CIA at the time, “we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there.”
“At the time there were a lot of concerns that it was being politicized by certain individuals within the administration that wanted to get that intelligence base that would justify going forward with the war,” Brennan told PBS. When asked who was exerting this pressure, Brennan said “Some of the neocons” in the administration “were determined to make sure that the intelligence was going to support the ultimate decision.”
The Lie That Got Us In The Bush Administration Knew There Were No WMDs in Iraq Antiwar.com Blog
Republicans controlled the House and Senate 6 yrs. of the Clinton Presidency. They deserve 66.6% of the (political credit) for a booming economy..they controlled the purse strings
Bush started with a light recession, 9/11 happened and most Americans wanted some butt kicking including most Democrats, beefed up national security was necessary, Clinton had devastated the military and new equipment, weapons and supplies had to be acquired. Bush's Medicare part D certainly wasn't cheap and no doubt Republicans way overspent but compared to the Obama years, a drop in the bucket.
Gads Woman, the video was made in 1998 and used recorded video's of Democratic leaders pre-Iraqi War...
(Perhaps you should listen to it and re-write your totally misinformed post..)
Saying "Bush encouraged the housing bubble" is just plain stupid .. get real.
On the Bush economy, you do recall that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the Senate and House 6 years into the Bush presidency and controlled the purse strings from that time on. They did absolutely nothing in regards to the housing bubble, in fact they denied the existence until after it popped and in true Democrat fashion, blamed Bush even though he warned them repeatedly. They could have cut funding for the wars then and didn't. The wars continued under the Nancy/Reid/Obama regimes and I doubt the cost was even close to 9 trillion in the years Republicans actually controlled spending. I suspect maybe a trillion tops
That's novel....blaming Reid and Pelosi for Bush's spending. Always spinning...that's what conservatives do best. Maybe you buy that crap, but I don't. And yeah, like it's so easy to just cut funding for the wars....just leave our men and women stranded out there....now that's another novel idea.
During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.
During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 12.5 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 53 percent.
Spending Under President George W. Bush Mercatus
Oh, and Bush could have done something regarding the housing bubble....he didn't. He was the one responsible for encouraging it.
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
By Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Stephen Labaton
Published: Sunday, December 21, 2008
WASHINGTON — "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
Have you seen this video and are you willing to re-think your myopic view?
You do realize that your video is dated Feb 1998? Yes Iraq was a threat at one time, but not when Bush came on the scene. It has been exposed and known now for years, there were no WMDs, but Bush pushed for war anyway.... your attempts at putting this on the left is lame. Try something else.
The Bush administration exerted significant pressure on the intelligence community to provide justification for the Iraq War. According to John Brennan, who was Deputy Director of the CIA at the time, “we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there.”
“At the time there were a lot of concerns that it was being politicized by certain individuals within the administration that wanted to get that intelligence base that would justify going forward with the war,” Brennan told PBS. When asked who was exerting this pressure, Brennan said “Some of the neocons” in the administration “were determined to make sure that the intelligence was going to support the ultimate decision.”
The Lie That Got Us In The Bush Administration Knew There Were No WMDs in Iraq Antiwar.com Blog
Republicans controlled the House and Senate 6 yrs. of the Clinton Presidency. They deserve at least 66.6% of the (political) credit for their part in a booming economy..they controlled the purse strings
Bush started with a light recession, 9/11 happened and most Americans wanted some butt kicking including most Democrats, beefed up national security was necessary, Clinton had devastated the military and new equipment, weapons and supplies had to be acquired. Bush's Medicare part D certainly wasn't cheap and no doubt Republicans way overspent but compared to the Obama years, a drop in the bucket.
Gads Woman, the video was made in 1998 and used recorded video's of Democratic leaders pre-Iraqi War, things no way had things gotten better and the war resolution passed Congress with overwhelming support . ...
(Perhaps you should listen to it and re-write your totally misinformed post..)
Saying "Bush encouraged the housing bubble" is just plain stupid .. get real.
That was a time when Congress and the President negotiated, so sure, they deserve their fair share of the credit.On the Bush economy, you do recall that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the Senate and House 6 years into the Bush presidency and controlled the purse strings from that time on. They did absolutely nothing in regards to the housing bubble, in fact they denied the existence until after it popped and in true Democrat fashion, blamed Bush even though he warned them repeatedly. They could have cut funding for the wars then and didn't. The wars continued under the Nancy/Reid/Obama regimes and I doubt the cost was even close to 9 trillion in the years Republicans actually controlled spending. I suspect maybe a trillion tops
That's novel....blaming Reid and Pelosi for Bush's spending. Always spinning...that's what conservatives do best. Maybe you buy that crap, but I don't. And yeah, like it's so easy to just cut funding for the wars....just leave our men and women stranded out there....now that's another novel idea.
During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.
During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 12.5 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 53 percent.
Spending Under President George W. Bush Mercatus
Oh, and Bush could have done something regarding the housing bubble....he didn't. He was the one responsible for encouraging it.
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
By Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Stephen Labaton
Published: Sunday, December 21, 2008
WASHINGTON — "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
Have you seen this video and are you willing to re-think your myopic view?
You do realize that your video is dated Feb 1998? Yes Iraq was a threat at one time, but not when Bush came on the scene. It has been exposed and known now for years, there were no WMDs, but Bush pushed for war anyway.... your attempts at putting this on the left is lame. Try something else.
The Bush administration exerted significant pressure on the intelligence community to provide justification for the Iraq War. According to John Brennan, who was Deputy Director of the CIA at the time, “we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there.”
“At the time there were a lot of concerns that it was being politicized by certain individuals within the administration that wanted to get that intelligence base that would justify going forward with the war,” Brennan told PBS. When asked who was exerting this pressure, Brennan said “Some of the neocons” in the administration “were determined to make sure that the intelligence was going to support the ultimate decision.”
The Lie That Got Us In The Bush Administration Knew There Were No WMDs in Iraq Antiwar.com Blog
Republicans controlled the House and Senate 6 yrs. of the Clinton Presidency. They deserve at least 66.6% of the (political) credit for their part in a booming economy..they controlled the purse strings
Bush started with a light recession, 9/11 happened and most Americans wanted some butt kicking including most Democrats, beefed up national security was necessary, Clinton had devastated the military and new equipment, weapons and supplies had to be acquired. Bush's Medicare part D certainly wasn't cheap and no doubt Republicans way overspent but compared to the Obama years, a drop in the bucket.
Gads Woman, the video was made in 1998 and used recorded video's of Democratic leaders pre-Iraqi War, things no way had things gotten better and the war resolution passed Congress with overwhelming support . ...
(Perhaps you should listen to it and re-write your totally misinformed post..)
Saying "Bush encouraged the housing bubble" is just plain stupid .. get real.
Does this mean the Democrats were responsible for the Reagan recovery?
The video started with Democrat leaders in 1998 then to 2003...On the Bush economy, you do recall that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the Senate and House 6 years into the Bush presidency and controlled the purse strings from that time on. They did absolutely nothing in regards to the housing bubble, in fact they denied the existence until after it popped and in true Democrat fashion, blamed Bush even though he warned them repeatedly. They could have cut funding for the wars then and didn't. The wars continued under the Nancy/Reid/Obama regimes and I doubt the cost was even close to 9 trillion in the years Republicans actually controlled spending. I suspect maybe a trillion tops
That's novel....blaming Reid and Pelosi for Bush's spending. Always spinning...that's what conservatives do best. Maybe you buy that crap, but I don't. And yeah, like it's so easy to just cut funding for the wars....just leave our men and women stranded out there....now that's another novel idea.
During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.
During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 12.5 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 53 percent.
Spending Under President George W. Bush Mercatus
Oh, and Bush could have done something regarding the housing bubble....he didn't. He was the one responsible for encouraging it.
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
By Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Stephen Labaton
Published: Sunday, December 21, 2008
WASHINGTON — "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0
Have you seen this video and are you willing to re-think your myopic view?
You do realize that your video is dated Feb 1998? Yes Iraq was a threat at one time, but not when Bush came on the scene. It has been exposed and known now for years, there were no WMDs, but Bush pushed for war anyway.... your attempts at putting this on the left is lame. Try something else.
The Bush administration exerted significant pressure on the intelligence community to provide justification for the Iraq War. According to John Brennan, who was Deputy Director of the CIA at the time, “we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there.”
“At the time there were a lot of concerns that it was being politicized by certain individuals within the administration that wanted to get that intelligence base that would justify going forward with the war,” Brennan told PBS. When asked who was exerting this pressure, Brennan said “Some of the neocons” in the administration “were determined to make sure that the intelligence was going to support the ultimate decision.”
The Lie That Got Us In The Bush Administration Knew There Were No WMDs in Iraq Antiwar.com Blog
That is a violation of the laws we already have.
Thats why Republicans need to pass more
<wink> <wink> Just tell em Jesus is telling you to hate fags
If it wasn't for the left making laws that discriminate against Christians, they would not have to pass these laws in the first place.
Jesus and Christians hates the sin not the sinners.
Then why not just let gays marry the person they love and let God worry about it?
That is what the majority of the nation is saying.
Just don't force all the Churches, florists and bakers against their religious ideologies like they are doing now.
Can I ask?
In the grand scope of things, can't we worry about more important things than the delicate sensibilities of florists and bakers?
Oh the horror......I have to drop flowers off at a GAY wedding
What will people think?
Thats why Republicans need to pass more
<wink> <wink> Just tell em Jesus is telling you to hate fags
If it wasn't for the left making laws that discriminate against Christians, they would not have to pass these laws in the first place.
Jesus and Christians hates the sin not the sinners.
Then why not just let gays marry the person they love and let God worry about it?
That is what the majority of the nation is saying.
Just don't force all the Churches, florists and bakers against their religious ideologies like they are doing now.
Can I ask?
In the grand scope of things, can't we worry about more important things than the delicate sensibilities of florists and bakers?
Oh the horror......I have to drop flowers off at a GAY wedding
What will people think?
Nice to see you trivialize the rights of an opposite opinion and don't care about their 1st amendment rights.
There needs to be a balance for both of their rights.
I don't know why anyone would support some of these people, who wants to shut theses businesses down or wants to burn them down.
If you are keeping score at home, that is liberals 39,480,283,994,095,837,728,940,583 and conservatives zero.That's the spirit!Mike Pence is a stupid weakling who caved under pressure when he really didn't need to...
If it wasn't for the left making laws that discriminate against Christians, they would not have to pass these laws in the first place.
Jesus and Christians hates the sin not the sinners.
Then why not just let gays marry the person they love and let God worry about it?
That is what the majority of the nation is saying.
Just don't force all the Churches, florists and bakers against their religious ideologies like they are doing now.
Can I ask?
In the grand scope of things, can't we worry about more important things than the delicate sensibilities of florists and bakers?
Oh the horror......I have to drop flowers off at a GAY wedding
What will people think?
Nice to see you trivialize the rights of an opposite opinion and don't care about their 1st amendment rights.
There needs to be a balance for both of their rights.
I don't know why anyone would support some of these people, who wants to shut theses businesses down or wants to burn them down.
Actually it is both trivial and offensive
If the Christianity of these bakers or florists is so strong that they can't even drop off a cake or flowers to a gay wedding......show me where their heartfelt religion prevents them for doing the same for weddings with a pregnant bride, divorced couples remarrying, atheists or adulterers
It is pure hypocrisy
your attempts at putting this on the left is lame.
Thats why Republicans need to pass more
<wink> <wink> Just tell em Jesus is telling you to hate fags
If it wasn't for the left making laws that discriminate against Christians, they would not have to pass these laws in the first place.
Jesus and Christians hates the sin not the sinners.
Then why not just let gays marry the person they love and let God worry about it?
That is what the majority of the nation is saying.
Just don't force all the Churches, florists and bakers against their religious ideologies like they are doing now.
Can I ask?
In the grand scope of things, can't we worry about more important things than the delicate sensibilities of florists and bakers?
Oh the horror......I have to drop flowers off at a GAY wedding
What will people think?
Nice to see you trivialize the rights of an opposite opinion and don't care about their 1st amendment rights.
There needs to be a balance for both of their rights.
I don't know why anyone would support some of these people, who wants to shut theses businesses down or wants to burn them down.
It is pure hypocrisy
Mean-spirited is using religion, to beat on homosexuals. Funding said bigots, same thing.If it wasn't for the left making laws that discriminate against Christians, they would not have to pass these laws in the first place.
Jesus and Christians hates the sin not the sinners.
Then why not just let gays marry the person they love and let God worry about it?
That is what the majority of the nation is saying.
Just don't force all the Churches, florists and bakers against their religious ideologies like they are doing now.
Can I ask?
In the grand scope of things, can't we worry about more important things than the delicate sensibilities of florists and bakers?
Oh the horror......I have to drop flowers off at a GAY wedding
What will people think?
Nice to see you trivialize the rights of an opposite opinion and don't care about their 1st amendment rights.
There needs to be a balance for both of their rights.
I don't know why anyone would support some of these people, who wants to shut theses businesses down or wants to burn them down.
It just shows all the mean spirited people there is in this country...and it isn't pretty
... 
