If Democrats want me to vote for them, they're going about it all wrong...

[martybegan]

Trump is a buddhist monk compared to JoeB. if JoeB was ever in power there would be camps springing up all over the place, and not the good ones.

I'm also enjoying the space I occupty in your head rent free.

If that's what makes you wake up in the morning, go with it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

BlakR, if you were to start voting democratic party, I would KNOW that it was time to switch back to the Republican column....

 

[justoffal]

George w bush had nothing to do with the 2008 global currency correction. He just happened to be president when it inevitably hit. If anything he acted quickly enough to prevent closure of all department stores,. all supermarkets and all retail outlets of any kind by taking a drastic action through the treasury department. Basing your philosophy on falsehoods leaves you with conclusions that are false.

Funny how George W. Stupid wasn't responsible for anything.

It wasn't his fault the Iraq intel was wrong.
It wasn't his fault the economy crashed- TWICE
It wasn't his fault that Feds failed to respond to Katrina properly.

We're dealing with the global currency correction here no?

It's not a matter of blaming anyone it's a matter of understanding what happened in 2008 and why it happened.

I don't have either the time or the energy to deal with any of those other issues.The Bush family like many other Republicans and Democrats are ultimately globalists. Much of their behavior and decision-making can be easily explained in that light.

Jo

 

[Third Party]

How does this sound when it is turned on you? He's totally awesome for the "I hate minorities, but I don't want to come off like a dick" crowd.

Actually, it sounds retarded. Biden's record on civil rights has been pretty solid.

So Schultz has a bad one? I asked the other poster the same question he asked me. And for the record, your response sounds retarded too-Biden called Obama a "clean" black.

 

[Third Party]

How does this sound when it is turned on you? He's totally awesome for the "I hate minorities, but I don't want to come off like a dick" crowd.

Actually, it sounds retarded. Biden's record on civil rights has been pretty solid.

Don't say retarded-if one can type, one is not retarded. Besides, you are insulting a lot of people who did not insult you.

 

[Dragonlady]

Social justice is just a weasel term to describe people who think they know better than me how to live my live, and use unearned status and unwarranted gravitas to get that.

Nobody is telling you how to live your life.

We just think gays, minorities and women should be able to live their lives on an equal footing.

Check your privilege, *****!

Wow, you tell me no one is telling me how to live my life, then tell me to check my privilege. A classic example of doublethink.

Of course a ducktalker like you would be good at that.

And you don't want equality, you want punishment for those you don't like.

Let's see, you want to ban gay marriage. Why? Because you're not gay and you don't like it? What difference does it make to you if two men or two women get married? That you think that YOU should not have to extend rights to them or acknowledge their existence is the very definition of "privilege".

The bald fact is that rights for others aren't diminishing your rights or doing YOU harm, and yet you oppose gay marriage. The amount of opposition that those in the position of privilege in the US exercise in suppressing the rights of minorities is appalling.

When gay marriage was legalized in Canada, absolutely nothing in my life changed. Nothing. As a straight, married woman, my life went on exactly as before. It made no difference whatsoever. And yet American conservatives are appoplectic over gay marriage in the USA. Why?

Why can Americans not let other people live their lives in peace. Why must religious conservatives inflict their beliefs and values on the entire fabric of American culture. Why is there a tyanny of theocratic values which do not reflect the marjority of Americans' values.

Fully 80% of American are in favour of abortion, and gay marriage. But we have this loud, vociferous band of religious zealots who are trying to force the government to codify their beliefs that these practices violate God's laws, even though neither practice is mentioned at all in "God's laws" - aka The 10 Commandments.

It is possible to live your entire life without having to deal with either homosexuality or abortion and leave others to live by their own personal beliefs as well.

1. I don't want to ban gay marriage. i supported NY allowing it via legislative action. My issue is with forcing other States to issue them if they don't want to. To me all Obergfell should have done is require all States to recognize out of State marriage licenses, even SSM ones, as part of full faith and credit.

So your entire rant is based on a false premise.

Why can't the baker live in peace? Why should he be forced to perform a contracted, non-timely, non-required service simply because not doing so hurts the feelings of someone else?

That 80% in favor of abortion also probably contains a majority that are OK with restricting it to the 1st trimester unless medically needed.

It is patently ridiculous to leave the matter of gay marriage up to the state. A patchwork quilt of laws simply will not work. Let's look at the reasons why:

Let's assume you get your way and this matter is left up to the states. If John and Jim get married in New York, where gay marriage is legal, and John's employers transfer him to Alabama where it's not, what happens to their marriage in Alabama?

1. Will Jim continue to receive coverage through John's workplace health insurance, since they are no longer deemed to be married?

2. If Jim becomes ill and is hospitalized, will John be considered "next of kin" in terms of making medical decisions if Jim can't.

3. Will the state recognize both men as parents of their adopted child?

4. What about property laws in the event that the couple splits?

The idea of states controlling marriage and education based on local needs and mores was one thing when the vast majority of the population was born, living and died within a 50 mile radius, as in the days of the Founders, but in the 21st Century, when families move from state to state, there needs to be national standards, especially in terms of marriage, divorce and property settlements so that when you get married in one state and move to another, the laws which govern your partnership shouldn't change when you move.

Ditto education. I understand that what you needed to know to find employment and contribute to society growing up in 1800 in New York, was vastly different from what you needed to know growing up in a rural community in Alabama, and that in 1800 it made sense to have states control education because who better to understand local needs, but in 21st Century America, your children shouldn't have to cope with an entirely different cirriculum when their parents move to a different state. Today, there are certain things that every American needs to know to grow up and become gainfully employed and a contributing member of society, and Americans are failing miserably to do this.

 

[Dragonlady]

And the idiots try to shame us in Congress , they can't figure out we don't want no part of their grown men in little girls bathrooms B.S.


.

I don't know about you but I personally would NEVER send my 'liittle girl' into a public bathroom by herself. That would be some special kind of insane.

If you can't figure out how to protect your child in a public bathroom, you have plenty to figure out.

?

You never had kids, or you never let them grow up, which is it...

.

No parent allows "little girls" to go into public washrooms on their own. Ever!

Furthermore, every woman has seen trans women in the public washrooms. All of our lives. They go into the stalls, they do their business, they wash their hands, and they leave. Just like everyone else. Only idiots like you make a big deal about it.

^ control freak

So in your world you raise children to always be afraid of the world, you can't watch them 24/7.

.

Well there is that pesky law about adult supervision of children under the 12, at all times. That's one reason why we don't let our daughters go into public washrooms alone.

Then there's that other thing that women that men don't even consider. We never know who or what might be in a public washroom. That old joke about women always going to the washrooms in twos, when they're out in public - there are good and valid reasons why they do. Women are raped in public restrooms all of the time. So if we don't go into a public restrooms on our own, why would we let our young daughters do it?

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't for killing unborn babies. I could be wrong, I mean I only used to lead a bible study group and all....

It must be in the fine print because I couldn't find any reference to abortion in there either.

Lol
Tho shall not kill?

Wrong, as usual.

The Bible doesn't deem the termination of a pregnancy a killing, but rather a "loss of property", and prescribes that the person causing the termination of the pregnancy pay a fine to the husband if his wife isn't otherwise harmed.

Also, the Bible deems "life" to be breath. God created man and then "breathed" life into him. It's in Genesis.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And the idiots try to shame us in Congress , they can't figure out we don't want no part of their grown men in little girls bathrooms B.S.


.

I don't know about you but I personally would NEVER send my 'liittle girl' into a public bathroom by herself. That would be some special kind of insane.

If you can't figure out how to protect your child in a public bathroom, you have plenty to figure out.

?

You never had kids, or you never let them grow up, which is it...

.

No parent allows "little girls" to go into public washrooms on their own. Ever!

Furthermore, every woman has seen trans women in the public washrooms. All of our lives. They go into the stalls, they do their business, they wash their hands, and they leave. Just like everyone else. Only idiots like you make a big deal about it.

^ control freak

So in your world you raise children to always be afraid of the world, you can't watch them 24/7.

.

Well there is that pesky law about adult supervision of children under the 12, at all times. That's one reason why we don't let our daughters go into public washrooms alone.

Then there's that other thing that women that men don't even consider. We never know who or what might be in a public washroom. That old joke about women always going to the washrooms in twos, when they're out in public - there are good and valid reasons why they do. Women are raped in public restrooms all of the time. So if we don't go into a public restrooms on our own, why would we let our young daughters do it?

A law where, Canada?

.

 

[martybegan]

Social justice is just a weasel term to describe people who think they know better than me how to live my live, and use unearned status and unwarranted gravitas to get that.

Nobody is telling you how to live your life.

We just think gays, minorities and women should be able to live their lives on an equal footing.

Check your privilege, *****!

Wow, you tell me no one is telling me how to live my life, then tell me to check my privilege. A classic example of doublethink.

Of course a ducktalker like you would be good at that.

And you don't want equality, you want punishment for those you don't like.

Let's see, you want to ban gay marriage. Why? Because you're not gay and you don't like it? What difference does it make to you if two men or two women get married? That you think that YOU should not have to extend rights to them or acknowledge their existence is the very definition of "privilege".

The bald fact is that rights for others aren't diminishing your rights or doing YOU harm, and yet you oppose gay marriage. The amount of opposition that those in the position of privilege in the US exercise in suppressing the rights of minorities is appalling.

When gay marriage was legalized in Canada, absolutely nothing in my life changed. Nothing. As a straight, married woman, my life went on exactly as before. It made no difference whatsoever. And yet American conservatives are appoplectic over gay marriage in the USA. Why?

Why can Americans not let other people live their lives in peace. Why must religious conservatives inflict their beliefs and values on the entire fabric of American culture. Why is there a tyanny of theocratic values which do not reflect the marjority of Americans' values.

Fully 80% of American are in favour of abortion, and gay marriage. But we have this loud, vociferous band of religious zealots who are trying to force the government to codify their beliefs that these practices violate God's laws, even though neither practice is mentioned at all in "God's laws" - aka The 10 Commandments.

It is possible to live your entire life without having to deal with either homosexuality or abortion and leave others to live by their own personal beliefs as well.

1. I don't want to ban gay marriage. i supported NY allowing it via legislative action. My issue is with forcing other States to issue them if they don't want to. To me all Obergfell should have done is require all States to recognize out of State marriage licenses, even SSM ones, as part of full faith and credit.

So your entire rant is based on a false premise.

Why can't the baker live in peace? Why should he be forced to perform a contracted, non-timely, non-required service simply because not doing so hurts the feelings of someone else?

That 80% in favor of abortion also probably contains a majority that are OK with restricting it to the 1st trimester unless medically needed.

It is patently ridiculous to leave the matter of gay marriage up to the state. A patchwork quilt of laws simply will not work. Let's look at the reasons why:

Let's assume you get your way and this matter is left up to the states. If John and Jim get married in New York, where gay marriage is legal, and John's employers transfer him to Alabama where it's not, what happens to their marriage in Alabama?

1. Will Jim continue to receive coverage through John's workplace health insurance, since they are no longer deemed to be married?

2. If Jim becomes ill and is hospitalized, will John be considered "next of kin" in terms of making medical decisions if Jim can't.

3. Will the state recognize both men as parents of their adopted child?

4. What about property laws in the event that the couple splits?

The idea of states controlling marriage and education based on local needs and mores was one thing when the vast majority of the population was born, living and died within a 50 mile radius, as in the days of the Founders, but in the 21st Century, when families move from state to state, there needs to be national standards, especially in terms of marriage, divorce and property settlements so that when you get married in one state and move to another, the laws which govern your partnership shouldn't change when you move.

Ditto education. I understand that what you needed to know to find employment and contribute to society growing up in 1800 in New York, was vastly different from what you needed to know growing up in a rural community in Alabama, and that in 1800 it made sense to have states control education because who better to understand local needs, but in 21st Century America, your children shouldn't have to cope with an entirely different cirriculum when their parents move to a different state. Today, there are certain things that every American needs to know to grow up and become gainfully employed and a contributing member of society, and Americans are failing miserably to do this.

You didn't read what I said. Leave the ISSUING of the licenses to the State. They still have to treat any license issued by another State equally to their own.

Sorry, but things like education at below the university level are something the locals can handle. And the closer the people running things are to the people they serve, the more accountable there are.

The feds can set minimum guidelines but that is it.

When you put the power at the federal level, you put it out of reach of anyone who has an issue with what is going on locally. But for progressives like you that is a feature not a bug, it lets you do your social engineering and prevents people from having enough access to complain about it or stop it.

 

[Fang]

they want to raise taxes

they want to let in endless streams of millions of illegal aliens

they want as many babies to be aborted as possible

they want to destroy the economy to solve a problem they made up called "global warming"

they hate white people and I'm white

they hate straight people and I'm straight

they hate Christians and I'm Christian

...give me one reason I should ever vote Democrat.

How about this, they want to nullify my vote and impeach the President I voted for without a shred of evidence of anything instead of telling me why their policies will be better for me.

 

[MaryAnne11]

I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't for killing unborn babies. I could be wrong, I mean I only used to lead a bible study group and all....

It must be in the fine print because I couldn't find any reference to abortion in there either.

Lol
Tho shall not kill?

Jesus did nor say that.

 

[Rustic]

Social justice is just a weasel term to describe people who think they know better than me how to live my live, and use unearned status and unwarranted gravitas to get that.

Nobody is telling you how to live your life.

We just think gays, minorities and women should be able to live their lives on an equal footing.

Check your privilege, *****!

Wow, you tell me no one is telling me how to live my life, then tell me to check my privilege. A classic example of doublethink.

Of course a ducktalker like you would be good at that.

And you don't want equality, you want punishment for those you don't like.

Let's see, you want to ban gay marriage. Why? Because you're not gay and you don't like it? What difference does it make to you if two men or two women get married? That you think that YOU should not have to extend rights to them or acknowledge their existence is the very definition of "privilege".

The bald fact is that rights for others aren't diminishing your rights or doing YOU harm, and yet you oppose gay marriage. The amount of opposition that those in the position of privilege in the US exercise in suppressing the rights of minorities is appalling.

When gay marriage was legalized in Canada, absolutely nothing in my life changed. Nothing. As a straight, married woman, my life went on exactly as before. It made no difference whatsoever. And yet American conservatives are appoplectic over gay marriage in the USA. Why?

Why can Americans not let other people live their lives in peace. Why must religious conservatives inflict their beliefs and values on the entire fabric of American culture. Why is there a tyanny of theocratic values which do not reflect the marjority of Americans' values.

Fully 80% of American are in favour of abortion, and gay marriage. But we have this loud, vociferous band of religious zealots who are trying to force the government to codify their beliefs that these practices violate God's laws, even though neither practice is mentioned at all in "God's laws" - aka The 10 Commandments.

It is possible to live your entire life without having to deal with either homosexuality or abortion and leave others to live by their own personal beliefs as well.

1. I don't want to ban gay marriage. i supported NY allowing it via legislative action. My issue is with forcing other States to issue them if they don't want to. To me all Obergfell should have done is require all States to recognize out of State marriage licenses, even SSM ones, as part of full faith and credit.

So your entire rant is based on a false premise.

Why can't the baker live in peace? Why should he be forced to perform a contracted, non-timely, non-required service simply because not doing so hurts the feelings of someone else?

That 80% in favor of abortion also probably contains a majority that are OK with restricting it to the 1st trimester unless medically needed.

It is patently ridiculous to leave the matter of gay marriage up to the state. A patchwork quilt of laws simply will not work. Let's look at the reasons why:

Let's assume you get your way and this matter is left up to the states. If John and Jim get married in New York, where gay marriage is legal, and John's employers transfer him to Alabama where it's not, what happens to their marriage in Alabama?

1. Will Jim continue to receive coverage through John's workplace health insurance, since they are no longer deemed to be married?

2. If Jim becomes ill and is hospitalized, will John be considered "next of kin" in terms of making medical decisions if Jim can't.

3. Will the state recognize both men as parents of their adopted child?

4. What about property laws in the event that the couple splits?

The idea of states controlling marriage and education based on local needs and mores was one thing when the vast majority of the population was born, living and died within a 50 mile radius, as in the days of the Founders, but in the 21st Century, when families move from state to state, there needs to be national standards, especially in terms of marriage, divorce and property settlements so that when you get married in one state and move to another, the laws which govern your partnership shouldn't change when you move.

Ditto education. I understand that what you needed to know to find employment and contribute to society growing up in 1800 in New York, was vastly different from what you needed to know growing up in a rural community in Alabama, and that in 1800 it made sense to have states control education because who better to understand local needs, but in 21st Century America, your children shouldn't have to cope with an entirely different cirriculum when their parents move to a different state. Today, there are certain things that every American needs to know to grow up and become gainfully employed and a contributing member of society, and Americans are failing miserably to do this.

Lol
Tough shit, Behave normal And you will be universally excepted...

 

[Rustic]

I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't for killing unborn babies. I could be wrong, I mean I only used to lead a bible study group and all....

It must be in the fine print because I couldn't find any reference to abortion in there either.

Lol
Tho shall not kill?

Wrong, as usual.

The Bible doesn't deem the termination of a pregnancy a killing, but rather a "loss of property", and prescribes that the person causing the termination of the pregnancy pay a fine to the husband if his wife isn't otherwise harmed.

Also, the Bible deems "life" to be breath. God created man and then "breathed" life into him. It's in Genesis.

Lol
At conception

 

[Cecilie1200]

they want to raise taxes

they want to let in endless streams of millions of illegal aliens

they want as many babies to be aborted as possible

they want to destroy the economy to solve a problem they made up called "global warming"

they hate white people and I'm white

they hate straight people and I'm straight

they hate Christians and I'm Christian

...give me one reason I should ever vote Democrat.

Democrats only ever have one reason they offer voters: so that you can congratulate yourself on what a "nice, compassionate" person you are, and how superior you are to "eeeeevil" Republicans.

If you happen to be a person who doesn't give a damn what other people think and who is capable of having self-esteem without their help, then you're right and there's no reason for you to vote Democrat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Trust me, the Dems aren't seeking your vote.

Yeah, Democrats are above needing votes to win elections. That's for silly little plebes who think laws and consent of the governed matter.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah because we believe in Jesus Christ


.

Then act like it.

Sorry, who the hell died and made YOU Grand High Arbiter of Christianity?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't for killing unborn babies. I could be wrong, I mean I only used to lead a bible study group and all....

It must be in the fine print because I couldn't find any reference to abortion in there either.

Oh, it's in there. Here's the instructions for the priest to perform them.
Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia

For the 10,000 time that's not an abortion. One bad translation mentions a womb; that's not what it is.

I'm guessing that was in this week's talking point memo.

Only someone stupid enough to be a pro-abort leftist and proud of it could be ignorant enough to believe THAT is how an abortion is performed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't for killing unborn babies. I could be wrong, I mean I only used to lead a bible study group and all....

Yeah? What did he say about it? Must have been something unequivocal for you to be so sure.

Let us know when you're elected Pope and actually have the authority to impose your "Jesus Only" interpretation of the Bible on someone.

Not that I'll care even then, since I'm not Catholic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't for killing unborn babies. I could be wrong, I mean I only used to lead a bible study group and all....

It must be in the fine print because I couldn't find any reference to abortion in there either.

Oh, it's in there. Here's the instructions for the priest to perform them.
Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia

Please don't pretend you have a clue what the bible says. It's an inaccurate translation.

Bitter Water that Causes a Curse: Does Numbers 5:11-22 Condone Abortion?

Skeptics claim that these verses prove that the God of the Old Testament condones abortion. As Atheist John Hamill wrote: “The verses appear to describe explicit divine support for abortion. In fact, the context in which it seems that Yahweh approves of abortion, is when a husband wishes to force his wife to terminate a pregnancy (even against her will) if he suspects he may not be the biological father.”1 Do these verses condone abortion?2

First, it is important to ask why the skeptic believes this passage discusses abortion. The bulk of the passage has to do with adultery and nowhere even mentions pregnancy. The accusation of condoning abortion is based primarily, if not entirely, on the final verses that say of the woman “your womb miscarry” and “may this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your womb miscarries.” In truth, the NIV in this case provides an unfortunate and inaccurate translation of the terms in the passage. Compare how these terms from verses 21 and 22 are translated in other versions.

NKJV: “when the Lord makes your thigh rot and your belly swell…and make your belly swell and your thigh rot.”

KJV: “when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell…to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot.”

ESV: “when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell…and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.”

ASV: “doth make thy thigh fall away, and thy body to swell…and make thy body to swell, and thy thigh fall away.”

Notice that other translations say nothing about a miscarriage or miscarrying. The term that the NIV translates “womb” is yarek. This word actually means “thigh, loin, side, or base.”3 It can be used to describe both males and females. It is used in Genesis 32:25 to describe the area that God wounded on Jacob when they wrestled, described as “the socket of his hip” (NKJV). It obviously could not have been Jacob’s “womb.” Judges 3:16 contains the word, describing Ehud’s dagger that he fastened “on his right thigh.” Furthermore, the term translated “miscarry” is the Hebrew word naphal, which means, “to fall, waste away, rot.”4 It can be used as broadly as an animal falling into a pit (as in Exodus 21:33), a sword falling from one’s hand (Ezekiel 30:22), or a violent or untimely death (Judges 5:27).

Again, only someone ignorant enough to be a pro-abort in the first place would be ignorant enough to think THAT is how an abortion is performed. I can only assume they think modern medicine does it by waving a magic wand and sprinkling glitter.

Even if one believes that the Bible was saying her womb would be made to miscarry, that would be a reference to making her infertile as punishment for her adultery, not aborting a baby which wasn't even MENTIONED anywhere in the entire passage.