Republican Officials Partnering With Christian Extremists

[bedowin62]

remember how they (the left/democrats) care MORE about the minorities?

Let them leave the Democrat Plantation then it's SMEARS, dirt and garbage

What the fuck are you even trying to say here? Stop embarrassing yourself, you illiterate asshole.

tsk tsk tsk

left-wing losers are extra angry today!!

lol

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

...

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

remember how they (the left/democrats) care MORE about the minorities?

Let them leave the Democrat Plantation then it's SMEARS, dirt and garbage

What the fuck are you even trying to say here? Stop embarrassing yourself, you illiterate asshole.

Thank you for the ad hominem.

Unfortunately I did not see any topic matter in your post.

Issues early today??

If you could read plain simple English and had any comprehension skills at all you would have unerstood.

Line 1 = Left's care more about minorities.

Line 2 = When one leaves the Democratic party, the party then attacks the one who left by smear tactics.

It really is quite simple, surely you are not that stupid??


Oh and I think there would be an implication that a black presidential candidate would be that minority.
OP is blatantly gay, so therefore Liberal / Progressive / Democratic.
OP has tried it's best to assassinate one of it's own due to a conflict in stance on faggots.

 

[Stephanie]

Remember how they told us Obama's Association with the Racist Rev. Wright didn't count as anything

well. NOW look at them digging up such garbage on people nobody even knows

that's their dirty ass politics folks. they played it when Obama was running and now you're seeing it again

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Khmer Rouge killed educated people like teachers, professors, lawyers, etc. Sounds right up your alley.

And the Nazis were christians...proud christians.

One thing this forum makes clear is that the right is vastly better educated and far smarter than the Soros Hate Drones that infect the place.

You made it to what, third grade? Then joined the military because you were 19?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Khmer Rouge were led by an educated left-winger who thought he needed to bring serious, transformational "change" and was determined to "enlighten" others, even if it killed them; and it did

The assclown left in this forum are uneducated morons who lust for free shit from the democrats.

The unique element of the Khmer Rouge is that they fought other Communists in their lust for power, and the METHOD they used is the foundation of the modern American democrat.

Pol Pot and his scumbags were the masters of the most vile demagoguery in history. No group, including the Nazis, had ever before that, engaged in such blatant and dishonest slander and libel. Like the democrats today, the toadies of the Khmer Rouge would openly lie in unison to savage the reputations of enemies. Pot would target a doctor and his scumbags would spread stories that the doctor had young girls locked up which he raped, then harvested the babies from them to experiment on. Similar to what Bode and Progressive Patriot claim about Sarah Palin - and just as fully false.

The Clinton "politics of personal destruction" that defines the methods of the filthy Khmer Rouge democrats is directly out of Pol Pot's playbook.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who is it EXACTLY who is trying to tell WHO how to live their lives? What "anything goes laws " are progressives supporting EXACTLY?

Yeah, you Communists would never tell others who they must bake cakes for, whether they can own a gun, whether they can display a nativity scene, what words and phrases they are allowed to utter....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Who is it EXACTLY who is trying to tell WHO how to live their lives? What "anything goes laws " are progressives supporting EXACTLY?

Yeah, you Communists would never tell others who they must bake cakes for, whether they can own a gun, whether they can display a nativity scene, what words and phrases they are allowed to utter....

We're all communists? Really?? Making assumptions about others and name calling is a sure sign of desperation in any argument. The things that you mentioned have little to do with how you live your life, but all freedoms are balanced by responsibilities and the need to respect the right of others, something clearly lacking on the right.

 

[Stephanie]

Who is it EXACTLY who is trying to tell WHO how to live their lives? What "anything goes laws " are progressives supporting EXACTLY?

Yeah, you Communists would never tell others who they must bake cakes for, whether they can own a gun, whether they can display a nativity scene, what words and phrases they are allowed to utter....

We're all communists? Really?? Making assumptions about others and name calling is a sure sign of desperation in any argument. The things that you mentioned have little to do with how you live your life, but all freedoms are balanced by responsibilities and the need to respect the right of others, something clearly lacking on the right.

and post garbage from some site called: rightwingwatch isn't desperate? they have NO FACTS to back up their spew just their word on it. grow up

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Check it out!! Republican candidates lying and looking stupid trying to say that interracial marriage is different than same sex marriage. The logic, or lack thereof is hysterical!

On Marriage, More Missteps from Republican Presidential Candidates http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/on-marriage-more-missteps-from-republican-presidential-candidates


A few weeks ago, it was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal telling NBC’s Chuck Todd during an interview on “Meet the Press” that religious objections to interracial marriage and same-sex marriage weren’t comparable and to say otherwise was “offensive to evangelical Christians, to Catholics that are trying to follow their church's teachings, and millions of other Americans who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.” He joins fellow presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz in saying that objecting to interracial marriage was not the same as objecting to marriage equality on religious grounds.

Really? How is it not the same? Notice that he fails to explain. They should be embarrassed and ashamed because the fact is that then, just like now, they used religion to oppose a type of marriage that they disapproved of. Now, they are trying to say that it was wrong then but right now? He is doing nothing more than obfuscating the issue with double speak.

Rubio Said Interracial Marriage And Same-Sex Marriage Were Not Comparable “Because Here You’re Talking About The Definition Of An Institution, Not The Value Of A Single Human Being.”

No Rubio. In both cases you either are or are not talking about the definition of an institution. Prior to Loving that institution was defined as being between two people of the same race. Prior to Obergefell it was defined as being between two people of the opposite sex. You can say that both changed marriage. Or, you can say that neither changed it at all and just made it more inclusive. In any case, they both had the exact same effect on marriage.

Likewise, in both cases we are indeed talking about the value of single human beings. You can’t have it both ways. He seems to be trying to say that same sex marriage has no impact on the lives of human being, so it must follow that he does not consider gays human. Then we have Cruz:

Cruz: “No Religious Backing” For Denying Interracial Couples Marriage Licenses, Unlike Same-Sex Couples. According to Today News: “Over the weekend, Cruz said he would support Texas state clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because of religious objections. Asked if that would be the same as refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, Cruz disagreed. ‘There's no religious backing for that

Bovine excrement!

Forde-Mazrui based his talk on a book review he wrote of Randall Kennedy’s "Interracial Intimacies," about the historic opposition to interracial relationships in America and racial identity issues that resulted.

As he read the book, Forde-Mazrui said, he repeatedly saw that opponents’ arguments against interracial relationships mirrored those of gay rights opponents. Like the arguments against gay marriage, “Much of the opposition to interracial relationships was grounded in religious beliefs.”

In Loving, Virginia’s Supreme Court justified a ban on interracial marriages by citing religious beliefs. http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_fall/forde.htm

 

[Stephanie]

Check it out!! Republican candidates lying and looking stupid trying to say that interracial marriage is different than same sex marriage. The logic, or lack thereof is hysterical!

On Marriage, More Missteps from Republican Presidential Candidates http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/on-marriage-more-missteps-from-republican-presidential-candidates


A few weeks ago, it was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal telling NBC’s Chuck Todd during an interview on “Meet the Press” that religious objections to interracial marriage and same-sex marriage weren’t comparable and to say otherwise was “offensive to evangelical Christians, to Catholics that are trying to follow their church's teachings, and millions of other Americans who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.” He joins fellow presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz in saying that objecting to interracial marriage was not the same as objecting to marriage equality on religious grounds.

Really? How is it not the same? Notice that he fails to explain. They should be embarrassed and ashamed because the fact is that then, just like now, they used religion to oppose a type of marriage that they disapproved of. Now, they are trying to say that it was wrong then but right now? He is doing nothing more than obfuscating the issue with double speak.

Rubio Said Interracial Marriage And Same-Sex Marriage Were Not Comparable “Because Here You’re Talking About The Definition Of An Institution, Not The Value Of A Single Human Being.”

No Rubio. In both cases you either are or are not talking about the definition of an institution. Prior to Loving that institution was defined as being between two people of the same race. Prior to Obergefell it was defined as being between two people of the opposite sex. You can say that both changed marriage. Or, you can say that neither changed it at all and just made it more inclusive. In any case, they both had the exact same effect on marriage.

Likewise, in both cases we are indeed talking about the value of single human beings. You can’t have it both ways. He seems to be trying to say that same sex marriage has no impact on the lives of human being, so it must follow that he does not consider gays human. Then we have Cruz:

Cruz: “No Religious Backing” For Denying Interracial Couples Marriage Licenses, Unlike Same-Sex Couples. According to Today News: “Over the weekend, Cruz said he would support Texas state clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because of religious objections. Asked if that would be the same as refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, Cruz disagreed. ‘There's no religious backing for that

Bovine excrement!

Forde-Mazrui based his talk on a book review he wrote of Randall Kennedy’s "Interracial Intimacies," about the historic opposition to interracial relationships in America and racial identity issues that resulted.

As he read the book, Forde-Mazrui said, he repeatedly saw that opponents’ arguments against interracial relationships mirrored those of gay rights opponents. Like the arguments against gay marriage, “Much of the opposition to interracial relationships was grounded in religious beliefs.”

In Loving, Virginia’s Supreme Court justified a ban on interracial marriages by citing religious beliefs. http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_fall/forde.htm

You want to see LYING check out your own President and party. and ALL the "missteps" of those idiots you have running for President. get back to us when you do

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Check it out!! Republican candidates lying and looking stupid trying to say that interracial marriage is different than same sex marriage. The logic, or lack thereof is hysterical!

On Marriage, More Missteps from Republican Presidential Candidates http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/on-marriage-more-missteps-from-republican-presidential-candidates


A few weeks ago, it was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal telling NBC’s Chuck Todd during an interview on “Meet the Press” that religious objections to interracial marriage and same-sex marriage weren’t comparable and to say otherwise was “offensive to evangelical Christians, to Catholics that are trying to follow their church's teachings, and millions of other Americans who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.” He joins fellow presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz in saying that objecting to interracial marriage was not the same as objecting to marriage equality on religious grounds.

Really? How is it not the same? Notice that he fails to explain. They should be embarrassed and ashamed because the fact is that then, just like now, they used religion to oppose a type of marriage that they disapproved of. Now, they are trying to say that it was wrong then but right now? He is doing nothing more than obfuscating the issue with double speak.

Rubio Said Interracial Marriage And Same-Sex Marriage Were Not Comparable “Because Here You’re Talking About The Definition Of An Institution, Not The Value Of A Single Human Being.”

Obviously you cannot address anything that I present in a rational, logical or constructive way. All that you can do is attack my sources while being unable to refute anything, and use Obama and Democrats as red herrings in order to deflect attention away from that fact that you have no actual argument.

No Rubio. In both cases you either are or are not talking about the definition of an institution. Prior to Loving that institution was defined as being between two people of the same race. Prior to Obergefell it was defined as being between two people of the opposite sex. You can say that both changed marriage. Or, you can say that neither changed it at all and just made it more inclusive. In any case, they both had the exact same effect on marriage.

Likewise, in both cases we are indeed talking about the value of single human beings. You can’t have it both ways. He seems to be trying to say that same sex marriage has no impact on the lives of human being, so it must follow that he does not consider gays human. Then we have Cruz:

Cruz: “No Religious Backing” For Denying Interracial Couples Marriage Licenses, Unlike Same-Sex Couples. According to Today News: “Over the weekend, Cruz said he would support Texas state clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because of religious objections. Asked if that would be the same as refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, Cruz disagreed. ‘There's no religious backing for that

Bovine excrement!

Forde-Mazrui based his talk on a book review he wrote of Randall Kennedy’s "Interracial Intimacies," about the historic opposition to interracial relationships in America and racial identity issues that resulted.

As he read the book, Forde-Mazrui said, he repeatedly saw that opponents’ arguments against interracial relationships mirrored those of gay rights opponents. Like the arguments against gay marriage, “Much of the opposition to interracial relationships was grounded in religious beliefs.”

In Loving, Virginia’s Supreme Court justified a ban on interracial marriages by citing religious beliefs. http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_fall/forde.htm

You want to see LYING check out your own President and party. and ALL the "missteps" of those idiots you have running for President. get back to us when you do

 

[bedowin62]

Progressive Patriot is an oxymoron

it's a moron too!!!!^^^^^^

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Progressive Patriot is an oxymoron

it's a moron too!!!!^^^^^^

Brilliant!! Just fucking brilliant.

 

[Stephanie]

what a boring thread. a bunch of leftwing LIES, smears and dirt

whoa. it's wasted a few brain cells reading all the crap.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We're all communists? Really??

Let's see. you promote government ownership of the means of production under a strict authoritarian regime...

Yeah, that is "Communist."

Making assumptions about others and name calling is a sure sign of desperation in any argument. The things that you mentioned have little to do with how you live your life, but all freedoms are balanced by responsibilities and the need to respect the right of others, something clearly lacking on the right.

You started this thread based on demagoguery from the Soros hate site, "Rightwingwatch," one of many virulent sites dedicated to slander and libel against the enemies of the party.

You are again fomenting the extremist bigotry of your party - preaching the hatred of Christians, which are on the list for destruction by the Khmer Rouge democrats. You claims are outright lies - you list a white nationalist who is dead, and died in prison, as an example of "Christians."

Seriously dude, your Stalinist tactics are typical for Communists.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Progressive & patriot are polar opposites.


Just sayin

 

[Uncensored2008]

Check it out!! Republican candidates lying and looking stupid trying to say that interracial marriage is different than same sex marriage. The logic, or lack thereof is hysterical!

While your slander serves your filthy party, HOW is that "lying," Comrade?

Oh, you're just spewing mindless hate against enemies of the party.

Really? How is it not the same? Notice that he fails to explain. They should be embarrassed and ashamed because the fact is that then, just like now, they used religion to oppose a type of marriage that they disapproved of. Now, they are trying to say that it was wrong then but right now? He is doing nothing more than obfuscating the issue with double speak.

Are you illiterate, Comrade?

He stated his reasoning. Whether you agree or not is up to you - but your lie that he didn't say it is just the typical shit from you Communists - zero integrity from any of you.

No Rubio. In both cases you either are or are not talking about the definition of an institution. Prior to Loving that institution was defined as being between two people of the same race. Prior to Obergefell it was defined as being between two people of the opposite sex. You can say that both changed marriage. Or, you can say that neither changed it at all and just made it more inclusive. In any case, they both had the exact same effect on marriage.

His opinion differs from the opinion that George Soros programs into you. Because race is an inherent attribute and sexual preference is a matter of choice, he makes a distinction. You can disagree - but instead you chose to slander and libel.

Hey, you're a Communist - it's what you do.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We're all communists? Really??

Let's see. you promote government ownership of the means of production under a strict authoritarian regime...

Yeah, that is "Communist."

Making assumptions about others and name calling is a sure sign of desperation in any argument. The things that you mentioned have little to do with how you live your life, but all freedoms are balanced by responsibilities and the need to respect the right of others, something clearly lacking on the right.

You started this thread based on demagoguery from the Soros hate site, "Rightwingwatch," one of many virulent sites dedicated to slander and libel against the enemies of the party.

You are again fomenting the extremist bigotry of your party - preaching the hatred of Christians, which are on the list for destruction by the Khmer Rouge democrats. You claims are outright lies - you list a white nationalist who is dead, and died in prison, as an example of "Christians."

Seriously dude, your Stalinist tactics are typical for Communists.

Let's see. you promote government ownership of the means of production under a strict authoritarian regime...

Really, I do?? I Didn't know that. Prey tell, what is that idiocy based on?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Brilliant!! Just fucking brilliant.

He has a point.

Those who seek an end to the Constitutional Republic to be replaced by a central authoritarian state are not "patriots," but rather "revolutionaries."