Meet the Next Vice-President!

[PoliticalChic]

THat's a real nice attempt at a dodge, but you realize it is a dodge, don't you.

The Devil didn't put that horrible verse in the bible, God did. Or someone who thought he was hearing God, but we have medication for that now.

If you are going to cite this bit of savagery as a moral guide, then you should be able to answer for all of it.

We don't execute rape victims for not crying out like the bible says. We don't execute children for mouthing off to their parents or brides for not being virgins on their wedding nights.

1." If you are going to cite this bit of savagery as a moral guide,..."
THat's a real nice attempt at a dodge, but you realize it is a dodge, don't you.

2. "Or someone who thought he was hearing God,..."
That's a possibility...

3. Of course, the meaning of the Shakespeare quote is that one need not accept every word in the Bible.
You, for example, accept some....

The very concept of all men being created equal stems from the fact that we are all created in God's image.

Is this numbering thing some sort of weird OCD I don't know about?

Incidently, I don't accept the bible at all, at least as a moral guide.

Kinda leaves you on the outside looking in, as our Founders did.

And, you're not happy with the way I choose to post...?
I'll give that all the consideration that is due.


As a Liberal...you'll probably what my mode banned, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, the fact we still believe in Bronze age stupidity is kind of sad, isn't it?

Then again, fear of your imaginary sky friend is probably the only thing that keeps some of you from being even more mean-spirited than you already are, I guess there's some value to it.

Proverbs 9:10
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

Even the Lord doesn't know if this guy is eligible to be the Veep.

Let's stick to board members....what do you think of his governing style?

 

[JoeB131]

1. "So the only reason to be opposed..."
The assumption in your post, both written and implied, is that you have some knowledge of what every person thinks, and feels.
This is absurd.
The wishes of the elite, and the supposed wishes of the minority in question should not dictate the course of events.

I've never had a discussion with a gay marriage opponent that didn't eventually devolve down into a screaming scripture contest or graphic and hateful descriptions of male gay sex that bordered on bad slash fiction. If there is a principaled gay marriage opponent out there, I sure as hell haven't met him yet.

NOw, that said, I would rather have gay marriage be legalized by legislation than by judicial fiat, and I've gotten into some very nasty rows with my liberal friends about that contention.

I'm sure you've had dozens of such discussions....

But somehow, you and the other Liberals have passed judgement to the effect that civil unions, and other accommodations are not acceptable....
....so you must be correct and everyone else incorrect.

Pretty much the definition of Liberal.

NOt a liberal. I'm a Republican who realizes his party has absolutely lost it's fucking mind.

But to the point, that you have a "reasonable" second class solution called "Civil unions" and we should accept that.

Isn't that kind of like saying, "Hey, the Water Cooler that says 'colored' on it is almost as nice as the one for the whites and it dispenses water?"

It's still an admission that you think that my lesbian friends loving relationship she's been in with her partner for years is somehow less than Britany Spear's five hour quickie marriage or any of the stunts pulled by a Kardashian sister.

 

[JoeB131]

Kinda leaves you on the outside looking in, as our Founders did.

The Founders also owned slaves and thought bleeding people was a perfectly valid medical treatment. They were certainly not moral paragons.

And their great accomplishment in life is that they prevented us from being Canadians. Oh, the horror of it all.

And, you're not happy with the way I choose to post...?
I'll give that all the consideration that is due.


As a Liberal...you'll probably what my mode banned, huh?

No, I just think it's weird, honestly. It's about one step above what ChessWarsNow does, and that guy needs medication.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've never had a discussion with a gay marriage opponent that didn't eventually devolve down into a screaming scripture contest or graphic and hateful descriptions of male gay sex that bordered on bad slash fiction. If there is a principaled gay marriage opponent out there, I sure as hell haven't met him yet.

NOw, that said, I would rather have gay marriage be legalized by legislation than by judicial fiat, and I've gotten into some very nasty rows with my liberal friends about that contention.

I'm sure you've had dozens of such discussions....

But somehow, you and the other Liberals have passed judgement to the effect that civil unions, and other accommodations are not acceptable....
....so you must be correct and everyone else incorrect.

Pretty much the definition of Liberal.

NOt a liberal. I'm a Republican who realizes his party has absolutely lost it's fucking mind.

But to the point, that you have a "reasonable" second class solution called "Civil unions" and we should accept that.

Isn't that kind of like saying, "Hey, the Water Cooler that says 'colored' on it is almost as nice as the one for the whites and it dispenses water?"

It's still an admission that you think that my lesbian friends loving relationship she's been in with her partner for years is somehow less than Britany Spear's five hour quickie marriage or any of the stunts pulled by a Kardashian sister.

1. Oh, pleeezzzze.

You can claim what you wish.
But your attitudes and posts prove otherwise....as I indicated above.


2. Case in point. Liberal love to conflate civil rights with civil unions. The majority see through the scam....especially black Americans.


3. "But to the point, that you have a "reasonable" second class solution called "Civil unions" and we should accept that."
So, the "we" is you and the rest of the Liberals?
Liberals attribute malevolence to their fellow Americans....projection?


4. Exactly what characteristics of civil unions would be less desirable as compared to the term 'married'?
There is no law against wearing wedding rings.

 

[The T]

I'm sure you've had dozens of such discussions....

But somehow, you and the other Liberals have passed judgement to the effect that civil unions, and other accommodations are not acceptable....
....so you must be correct and everyone else incorrect.

Pretty much the definition of Liberal.

NOt a liberal. I'm a Republican who realizes his party has absolutely lost it's fucking mind.

But to the point, that you have a "reasonable" second class solution called "Civil unions" and we should accept that.

Isn't that kind of like saying, "Hey, the Water Cooler that says 'colored' on it is almost as nice as the one for the whites and it dispenses water?"

It's still an admission that you think that my lesbian friends loving relationship she's been in with her partner for years is somehow less than Britany Spear's five hour quickie marriage or any of the stunts pulled by a Kardashian sister.

1. Oh, pleeezzzze.

You can claim what you wish.
But your attitudes and posts prove otherwise....as I indicated above.


2. Case in point. Liberal love to conflate civil rights with civil unions. The majority see through the scam....especially black Americans.


3. "But to the point, that you have a "reasonable" second class solution called "Civil unions" and we should accept that."
So, the "we" is you and the rest of the Liberals?
Liberals attribute malevolence to their fellow Americans....projection?


4. Exactly what characteristics of civil unions would be less desirable as compared to the term 'married'?
There is no law against wearing wedding rings.

Nor are there of entering into civil Contracts...that accomplish the same purpose.

The term 'Marriage has been wholly owned for many millenia. And it isn't going to be changed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Kinda leaves you on the outside looking in, as our Founders did.

The Founders also owned slaves and thought bleeding people was a perfectly valid medical treatment. They were certainly not moral paragons.

And their great accomplishment in life is that they prevented us from being Canadians. Oh, the horror of it all.

And, you're not happy with the way I choose to post...?
I'll give that all the consideration that is due.


As a Liberal...you'll probably what my mode banned, huh?

No, I just think it's weird, honestly. It's about one step above what ChessWarsNow does, and that guy needs medication.

1. You have zero input in how I post.
Another failure in your life?


2. In a myriad of absurd and incorrect posts, you statement below is the far-and-away winner:
"[The Founder's] great accomplishment in life is that they prevented us from being Canadians."

a. On February 7, 1792, a proclamation offered at least 200 acres to every family of newcomers to Canada, as long as they took an oath of allegiance to the King. In the US, speculators charged $2-$3/acre in NY and Penn.

b. In 1798, Benjamin Mortimer, a Moravian missionary, discussed the people living in Canada: “Most of the inhabitants of Canada are emigrants from the United States; but no sooner did we enter the country, than we perceived that some difference exists between their national characters. In the States, the principal subject of conversation in most public companies which we entered, was the quality of lands. From Tioga to Buffaloe every traveler is supposed to be in quest of them; and little else is cared about, if bargains of that kind can only be made or disposed of to advantage. In Canada, the settlers are more humble in their views. They are mostly poor people, who are chiefly concerned to manage, in the best manner, the farms which have been given them by government.”

From "The Civil War of 1812,” by Alan Taylor

You reveal another characteristic of Liberals...

" Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

 

[JoeB131]

1. Oh, pleeezzzze.

You can claim what you wish.
But your attitudes and posts prove otherwise....as I indicated above.

No, my attitudes are perfectly correct. It's where the GOP used to be before it lost its mind, and let the wealthy manipulate stupid religious people into frothy mobs to vote against their own economic interests.

And the ironic thing is that it's ultimately self-destructive.

2. Case in point. Liberal love to conflate civil rights with civil unions. The majority see through the scam....especially black Americans.

Blacks can't be as bigoted as anyone else? I know some gay folks who are kind of racist, so it kind of cuts both ways, doesn't it. All bigotry is unacceptable, as is all discrimination.

3. "But to the point, that you have a "reasonable" second class solution called "Civil unions" and we should accept that."
So, the "we" is you and the rest of the Liberals?
Liberals attribute malevolence to their fellow Americans....projection?

Again, every discussion I've had on this subject usually exposes the malevolence involved. This is the last little bit of acceptable bigotry you can get away with.

4. Exactly what characteristics of civil unions would be less desirable as compared to the term 'married'?
There is no law against wearing wedding rings.

How about the fact you have to create a special new category?

Incidently, I think that Civil Unions would kind of a trap on your side. Because once you got them in all 50 states, it's just a flip of a judicial switch to call them all "Marriage". Sometimes you gotta take away the binky!

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Oh, pleeezzzze.

You can claim what you wish.
But your attitudes and posts prove otherwise....as I indicated above.

No, my attitudes are perfectly correct. It's where the GOP used to be before it lost its mind, and let the wealthy manipulate stupid religious people into frothy mobs to vote against their own economic interests.

And the ironic thing is that it's ultimately self-destructive.

2. Case in point. Liberal love to conflate civil rights with civil unions. The majority see through the scam....especially black Americans.

Blacks can't be as bigoted as anyone else? I know some gay folks who are kind of racist, so it kind of cuts both ways, doesn't it. All bigotry is unacceptable, as is all discrimination.

3. "But to the point, that you have a "reasonable" second class solution called "Civil unions" and we should accept that."
So, the "we" is you and the rest of the Liberals?
Liberals attribute malevolence to their fellow Americans....projection?

Again, every discussion I've had on this subject usually exposes the malevolence involved. This is the last little bit of acceptable bigotry you can get away with.

4. Exactly what characteristics of civil unions would be less desirable as compared to the term 'married'?
There is no law against wearing wedding rings.

How about the fact you have to create a special new category?

Incidently, I think that Civil Unions would kind of a trap on your side. Because once you got them in all 50 states, it's just a flip of a judicial switch to call them all "Marriage". Sometimes you gotta take away the binky!

Exactly what characteristics of civil unions would be less desirable as compared to the term 'married'?
There is no law against wearing wedding rings.

 

[JoeB131]

1. You have zero input in how I post.
Another failure in your life?


2. In a myriad of absurd and incorrect posts, you statement below is the far-and-away winner:
"[The Founder's] great accomplishment in life is that they prevented us from being Canadians."

a. On February 7, 1792, a proclamation offered at least 200 acres to every family of newcomers to Canada, as long as they took an oath of allegiance to the King. In the US, speculators charged $2-$3/acre in NY and Penn.

b. In 1798, Benjamin Mortimer, a Moravian missionary, discussed the people living in Canada: “Most of the inhabitants of Canada are emigrants from the United States; but no sooner did we enter the country, than we perceived that some difference exists between their national characters. In the States, the principal subject of conversation in most public companies which we entered, was the quality of lands. From Tioga to Buffaloe every traveler is supposed to be in quest of them; and little else is cared about, if bargains of that kind can only be made or disposed of to advantage. In Canada, the settlers are more humble in their views. They are mostly poor people, who are chiefly concerned to manage, in the best manner, the farms which have been given them by government.”

From "The Civil War of 1812,” by Alan Taylor

You reveal another characteristic of Liberals...

" Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

The fact you read a harpy like Coulter explains much.

My comment went RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD, didn't it?

The Founders were not demigods. They were rich assholes who didn't want to pay their fair share. If they ended up on the end of a British Rope, the worst thing that would happen today is America would be Canada, a nice democracy that still pledges allegience to the crown.

Sorry, been to Canada. Other than the weather, it's really kind of nice.

 

[JoeB131]

1. Oh, pleeezzzze.

You can claim what you wish.
But your attitudes and posts prove otherwise....as I indicated above.

No, my attitudes are perfectly correct. It's where the GOP used to be before it lost its mind, and let the wealthy manipulate stupid religious people into frothy mobs to vote against their own economic interests.

And the ironic thing is that it's ultimately self-destructive.




Blacks can't be as bigoted as anyone else? I know some gay folks who are kind of racist, so it kind of cuts both ways, doesn't it. All bigotry is unacceptable, as is all discrimination.



Again, every discussion I've had on this subject usually exposes the malevolence involved. This is the last little bit of acceptable bigotry you can get away with.

4. Exactly what characteristics of civil unions would be less desirable as compared to the term 'married'?
There is no law against wearing wedding rings.

How about the fact you have to create a special new category?

Incidently, I think that Civil Unions would kind of a trap on your side. Because once you got them in all 50 states, it's just a flip of a judicial switch to call them all "Marriage". Sometimes you gotta take away the binky!

Exactly what characteristics of civil unions would be less desirable as compared to the term 'married'?
There is no law against wearing wedding rings.

Did I fucking stutter?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, my attitudes are perfectly correct. It's where the GOP used to be before it lost its mind, and let the wealthy manipulate stupid religious people into frothy mobs to vote against their own economic interests.

And the ironic thing is that it's ultimately self-destructive.




Blacks can't be as bigoted as anyone else? I know some gay folks who are kind of racist, so it kind of cuts both ways, doesn't it. All bigotry is unacceptable, as is all discrimination.



Again, every discussion I've had on this subject usually exposes the malevolence involved. This is the last little bit of acceptable bigotry you can get away with.





How about the fact you have to create a special new category?

Incidently, I think that Civil Unions would kind of a trap on your side. Because once you got them in all 50 states, it's just a flip of a judicial switch to call them all "Marriage". Sometimes you gotta take away the binky!

Exactly what characteristics of civil unions would be less desirable as compared to the term 'married'?
There is no law against wearing wedding rings.

Did I fucking stutter?

1. I don't use that language...and find that others do when they are losing an argument.
True?

2. Exactly what characteristics of civil unions would be less desirable as compared to the term 'married'?

You can't name a single detriment of civil unions as compared to 'married'?
Proves my point, doesn't it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. You have zero input in how I post.
Another failure in your life?


2. In a myriad of absurd and incorrect posts, you statement below is the far-and-away winner:
"[The Founder's] great accomplishment in life is that they prevented us from being Canadians."

a. On February 7, 1792, a proclamation offered at least 200 acres to every family of newcomers to Canada, as long as they took an oath of allegiance to the King. In the US, speculators charged $2-$3/acre in NY and Penn.

b. In 1798, Benjamin Mortimer, a Moravian missionary, discussed the people living in Canada: “Most of the inhabitants of Canada are emigrants from the United States; but no sooner did we enter the country, than we perceived that some difference exists between their national characters. In the States, the principal subject of conversation in most public companies which we entered, was the quality of lands. From Tioga to Buffaloe every traveler is supposed to be in quest of them; and little else is cared about, if bargains of that kind can only be made or disposed of to advantage. In Canada, the settlers are more humble in their views. They are mostly poor people, who are chiefly concerned to manage, in the best manner, the farms which have been given them by government.”

From "The Civil War of 1812,” by Alan Taylor

You reveal another characteristic of Liberals...

" Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

The fact you read a harpy like Coulter explains much.

My comment went RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD, didn't it?

The Founders were not demigods. They were rich assholes who didn't want to pay their fair share. If they ended up on the end of a British Rope, the worst thing that would happen today is America would be Canada, a nice democracy that still pledges allegience to the crown.

Sorry, been to Canada. Other than the weather, it's really kind of nice.

Did you miss the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the great nation in which we live?

Liberals tend to.

 

[The T]

1. You have zero input in how I post.
Another failure in your life?


2. In a myriad of absurd and incorrect posts, you statement below is the far-and-away winner:
"[The Founder's] great accomplishment in life is that they prevented us from being Canadians."

a. On February 7, 1792, a proclamation offered at least 200 acres to every family of newcomers to Canada, as long as they took an oath of allegiance to the King. In the US, speculators charged $2-$3/acre in NY and Penn.

b. In 1798, Benjamin Mortimer, a Moravian missionary, discussed the people living in Canada: “Most of the inhabitants of Canada are emigrants from the United States; but no sooner did we enter the country, than we perceived that some difference exists between their national characters. In the States, the principal subject of conversation in most public companies which we entered, was the quality of lands. From Tioga to Buffaloe every traveler is supposed to be in quest of them; and little else is cared about, if bargains of that kind can only be made or disposed of to advantage. In Canada, the settlers are more humble in their views. They are mostly poor people, who are chiefly concerned to manage, in the best manner, the farms which have been given them by government.”

From "The Civil War of 1812,” by Alan Taylor

You reveal another characteristic of Liberals...

" Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

The fact you read a harpy like Coulter explains much.

My comment went RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD, didn't it?

The Founders were not demigods. They were rich assholes who didn't want to pay their fair share. If they ended up on the end of a British Rope, the worst thing that would happen today is America would be Canada, a nice democracy that still pledges allegience to the crown.

Sorry, been to Canada. Other than the weather, it's really kind of nice.

Did you miss the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the great nation in which we live?

Liberals tend to.

And the reason they were written and how they intertwine?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The fact you read a harpy like Coulter explains much.

My comment went RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD, didn't it?

The Founders were not demigods. They were rich assholes who didn't want to pay their fair share. If they ended up on the end of a British Rope, the worst thing that would happen today is America would be Canada, a nice democracy that still pledges allegience to the crown.

Sorry, been to Canada. Other than the weather, it's really kind of nice.

Did you miss the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the great nation in which we live?

Liberals tend to.

And the reason they were written and how they intertwine?

But our crypto-Liberal friend imagines some Canadian involvement as the most important consideration....

Amazing.

 

[The T]

Did you miss the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the great nation in which we live?

Liberals tend to.

And the reason they were written and how they intertwine?

But our crypto-Liberal friend imagines some Canadian involvement as the most important consideration....

Amazing.

Meaning he doesn't recognize the Constitution, the Federalists, The DOI...just Chicago Thug Politics of Obama, his hero whom oddly enough doesn't either.

 

[SniperFire]

I still say the next Vice-President should be my barber, Earl. He has his shit together, knows everything and gives a great hair cut to boot.

A big upgrade over Biden, then.

 

[JoeB131]

Did I fucking stutter?

1. I don't use that language...and find that others do when they are losing an argument.
True?

2. Exactly what characteristics of civil unions would be less desirable as compared to the term 'married'?

You can't name a single detriment of civil unions as compared to 'married'?
Proves my point, doesn't it.

I only use that kind of language on the stupid.

The very fact that you want to call it something else because you can't accept it, is discrimination.

It's really just more of this..

 

[JoeB131]

Did you miss the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the great nation in which we live?

Liberals tend to.

No, I'm just not impressed by it.

They wrote a document so flawed in necessitated a civil war 80 years later to fix the glaring problems.

I'm not a constitutional fetishist like a lot of you folks are. And frankly, neither were founders, because they put into place a lot of mechanisms to amend it.

 

[JoeB131]

And the reason they were written and how they intertwine?

But our crypto-Liberal friend imagines some Canadian involvement as the most important consideration....

Amazing.

Meaning he doesn't recognize the Constitution, the Federalists, The DOI...just Chicago Thug Politics of Obama, his hero whom oddly enough doesn't either.

Sorry, guy, Obama's not my hero.

I just don't share your hatred of him.