Kim Davis to join the GOP...

[HappyJoy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/u...riage-dispute-kim-davis-joining-gop.html?_r=0

I guess the dummies calling her a Democrat can rest their typing fingers now. She is finally switching parties BECAUSE of her stance on gay marriage.

There will be more like her that will switch parties because of this.

How many so far? It's been months, years in some states.

There are more people afraid to say the truth about how they really feel because of being labeled intolerant.

I personally don't care about gay marriage and I don't relate to either party. I hate them both but the left is more evil IMHO. And the media is the most evil of all.

The Left is Evil > . <

So, biblical and manly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

Ah, that sounds familiar.

And evil libruls and other assorted leftists don't agree with that? Don't gay people have a right to happiness like the Davis clown seems to think?

Well you're a librul... and adherent to assorted notions of Left-think... who comes to imply that you agree with those principles. And in so doing you demonstrate your ignorance of what rights are.

For a Right to Exist, it does so with intrinsic RESPONSIBILITY. Not the least of which, is to not exercise one's right to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

We know this to be self evidently so.. because where two people have the right to **** the other with their respective rights, the net effect is that neither have any rights... .

Do you understand that? It's important that you do, because if ya don't, then you're not capable of being free. And in general nature, you amount to what is commonly recognized as "FOOD".

So let me know if you've no means to grasp the concept of rights and I'll just write you off and send your ass to ignore with the other vegetables.

Now the principle states that 'all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Therefore sexual deviants are not excluded, where the deviant bears the intrinsic responsibility that sustain their rights.

So sexual behavior is what? It is private behavior... and we can know this, because where one is rightfully entitled to such, the bearer of that right is not entitled to exercise it, to the detriment of another's means to exercise their own rights. And where we expose ourselves, in sexual terms, to those who are offended by our sexual behavior, we usurp their right to not be exposed to such.

So, where we claim a right to our private sexual behavior, we sustain that right by bearing the responsibility to keep that which we rightfully claim to be PRIVATE: PRIVATE!

Understand?

Are you insinuating that gays want to get married so they can have sex in public?

lol, good one.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Are you insinuating that gays want to get married so they can have sex in public?

lol, good one.

Another hysterical swing and a miss... Miss.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/u...riage-dispute-kim-davis-joining-gop.html?_r=0

I guess the dummies calling her a Democrat can rest their typing fingers now. She is finally switching parties BECAUSE of her stance on gay marriage.

There will be more like her that will switch parties because of this.

How many so far? It's been months, years in some states.

There are more people afraid to say the truth about how they really feel because of being labeled intolerant.

I personally don't care about gay marriage and I don't relate to either party. I hate them both but the left is more evil IMHO. And the media is the most evil of all.

What some fear to say are lies, not the 'truth,' and they know it.

 

[Faun]

Hatred begets hatred. Your views are hateful, just as much as theirs. You are equally as intolerant.

To be intolerant of those who are mired in intolerance is a virtue and I thank you for pointing that out.

I must point out, that if you want to claim to be tolerant, then you would be tolerant of those mired in intolerance, in other words, you wouldn't care. Each man and woman are entitled to their opinions. Neither you or I are in such a position to attempt to convince them of it.

This where the tires meet the road ... it's one thing to tolerate someone's opinion. It's another thing entirely to tolerate them violating the law.

Perhaps it's escaped your notice, but the left is not attacking her because of the opinion she holds -- the left is attacking her for imposing said opinion on the public in violation of her oath of office.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This where the tires meet the road ... it's one thing to tolerate someone's opinion. It's another thing entirely to tolerate them violating the law.

Yet you sexual deviants openly broke the law for DECADES... Your media promoted breaking the law... .

You abused the legal process through the open abuse of the Judiciary... illicitly OVER-TURNING THE LAW.

So, it's hysterical that your bleeding asses come running to establish yourselves as proponents of THE LAW.

And it's not going to help as subjective law, is not law. And no American is obligated to so much as recognize it, let alone obey it.

Ya see scamp, our 'consent to be governed' rests entirely upon the objective nature of Constitution and where a people subjectively manipulate that constitution... we openly reject them, their law and their degeneracy on the whole.

Questions?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ok... should the Dutch socialist posing as a US Citizen return to sustain it's 'feelings'... someone let me know.

Here's where we left off:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

Ah, that sounds familiar.

And evil libruls and other assorted leftists don't agree with that? Don't gay people have a right to happiness like the Davis clown seems to think?

Well you're a librul... and adherent to assorted notions of Left-think... who comes to imply that you agree with those principles. And in so doing you demonstrate your ignorance of what rights are.

For a Right to Exist, it does so with intrinsic RESPONSIBILITY. Not the least of which, is to not exercise one's right to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

We know this to be self evidently so.. because where two people have the right to **** the other with their respective rights, the net effect is that neither have any rights... .

Do you understand that? It's important that you do, because if ya don't, then you're not capable of being free. And in general nature, you amount to what is commonly recognized as "FOOD".

So let me know if you've no means to grasp the concept of rights and I'll just write you off and send your ass to ignore with the other vegetables.

Now the principle states that 'all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Therefore sexual deviants are not excluded, where the deviant bears the intrinsic responsibility that sustain their rights.

So sexual behavior is what? It is private behavior... and we can know this, because where one is rightfully entitled to such, the bearer of that right is not entitled to exercise it, to the detriment of another's means to exercise their own rights. And where we expose ourselves, in sexual terms, to those who are offended by our sexual behavior, we usurp their right to not be exposed to such.

So, where we claim a right to our private sexual behavior, we sustain that right by bearing the responsibility to keep that which we rightfully claim to be PRIVATE: PRIVATE!

Understand?

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Well you're a librul... and adherent to assorted notions of Left-think... who comes to imply that you agree with those principles. And in so doing you demonstrate your ignorance of what rights are.

For a Right to Exist, it does so with intrinsic RESPONSIBILITY. Not the least of which, is to not exercise one's right to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

We know this to be self evidently so.. because where two people have the right to **** the other with their respective rights, the net effect is that neither have any rights... .

Do you understand that? It's important that you do, because if ya don't, then you're not capable of being free. And in general nature, you amount to what is commonly recognized as "FOOD"....

I'm a socialist, not a librul (I'm not even sure what the definition of a librul is) but I agree that society wouldn't work if people don't respect other peoples rights.

Now the principle states that 'all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Therefore sexual deviants are not excluded, where the deviant bears the intrinsic responsibility that sustain their rights.

So sexual behavior is what? It is private behavior... and we can know this, because where one is rightfully entitled to such, the bearer of that right is not entitled to exercise it, to the detriment of another's means to exercise their own rights. And where we expose ourselves, in sexual terms, to those who are offended by our sexual behavior, we usurp their right to not be exposed to such.

So, where we claim a right to our private sexual behavior, we sustain that right by bearing the responsibility to keep that which we rightfully claim to be PRIVATE: PRIVATE!

Understand?

Well.... yes....people shouldnt **** in public, I think most people (except the perverts) can agree with that.


But maybe I missed something, what makes you think evil libruls don't agree with that?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Can't blame her, you idiot dems demonized her.

If you think (of course you don't) her behavior is laudable, I"ll simplify the issue for those who do think.

Consider Human Sacrifice:

If a sect of true believers decided God's will required a young female virgin needed to be killed annually for the group to prosper, should those who put the child to death be found culpable of the act, or praised?

It seems the usual hypocrites praise the bigot.

 

[Wry Catcher]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/u...riage-dispute-kim-davis-joining-gop.html?_r=0

I guess the dummies calling her a Democrat can rest their typing fingers now. She is finally switching parties BECAUSE of her stance on gay marriage.

Well this only speaks to the tolerance (or lack thereof) of the Democratic Party.

She needs to do the job she was elected to, but this intolerance for her viewpoints only speak ill of Democrats.

Yeah, sure...and anyone who speaks ill of the behavior of anyone is a bigot too. You are the people Pogo warned us about ("We have met the enemy and he is us").

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you insinuating that gays want to get married so they can have sex in public?

lol, good one.

Another hysterical swing and a miss... Miss.

If you want the right to marry you have to tolerate the right of others to marry.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Left is Evil > . <

The Moon is made of Cheese

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Any questions?

How early did you start drinking ?

 

[bodecea]

This where the tires meet the road ... it's one thing to tolerate someone's opinion. It's another thing entirely to tolerate them violating the law.

Yet you sexual deviants openly broke the law for DECADES... Your media promoted breaking the law... .

You abused the legal process through the open abuse of the Judiciary... illicitly OVER-TURNING THE LAW.

So, it's hysterical that your bleeding asses come running to establish yourselves as proponents of THE LAW.

And it's not going to help as subjective law, is not law. And no American is obligated to so much as recognize it, let alone obey it.

Ya see scamp, our 'consent to be governed' rests entirely upon the objective nature of Constitution and where a people subjectively manipulate that constitution... we openly reject them, their law and their degeneracy on the whole.

Questions?

You really sound shrill...like someone who is trying hard to convince themselves that they've been in the right while the world around them shows they are wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Needless to say this has nothing to do with Kim Davis, what political party she belongs to, or what's written on marriage licenses.

This is about the unwarranted anger and opposition on the part of the social right to the Obergefell ruling.

And this is not good faith opposition, where those who disagree in good faith with the ruling do so with the understanding that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to the states, not private persons or organizations such as churches and other religious entities, that private persons and churches are at liberty to deny same-sex couples access to religious marriage rituals, and that same-sex couples marrying in no way adversely effects the marriages of opposite-sex couples or society as a whole.

This is about a tiny, hateful minority of social conservatives angry and resentful that they've lost the ability to disadvantage the homosexuals they despise through force of law, to use the law as a weapon against gay Americans, and to send a message to gay Americans that they're unwelcome to participate in society as equals.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well you're a librul... and adherent to assorted notions of Left-think... who comes to imply that you agree with those principles. And in so doing you demonstrate your ignorance of what rights are.

For a Right to Exist, it does so with intrinsic RESPONSIBILITY. Not the least of which, is to not exercise one's right to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

We know this to be self evidently so.. because where two people have the right to **** the other with their respective rights, the net effect is that neither have any rights... .

Do you understand that? It's important that you do, because if ya don't, then you're not capable of being free. And in general nature, you amount to what is commonly recognized as "FOOD"....

I'm a socialist, not a librul (I'm not even sure what the definition of a librul is)

It's a socialists.

... I agree that society wouldn't work if people don't respect other peoples rights.

Mighty white of ya.

Now the principle states that 'all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Therefore sexual deviants are not excluded, where the deviant bears the intrinsic responsibility that sustain their rights.

So sexual behavior is what? It is private behavior... and we can know this, because where one is rightfully entitled to such, the bearer of that right is not entitled to exercise it, to the detriment of another's means to exercise their own rights. And where we expose ourselves, in sexual terms, to those who are offended by our sexual behavior, we usurp their right to not be exposed to such.

So, where we claim a right to our private sexual behavior, we sustain that right by bearing the responsibility to keep that which we rightfully claim to be PRIVATE: PRIVATE!

Understand?

Well.... yes....people shouldnt **** in public, I think most people (except the perverts) can agree with that.


But maybe I missed something, what makes you think evil libruls don't agree with that?

Who besides libruls are promoting the distribution of pornography through public access networks?

Who besides liberals are represented here:

and here:

Note the sexual behavior in nothing short of "Public".

Should we discuss the more traditional media? "50 Shades of Ghey", the recent televising of Sexualized MUPPETS in prime time, on network (public) television; the recent Federal Licensing of DEGENERACY... .

Suffice it to say that there is NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH... about the PUBLIC ADVOCACY TO NORMALIZE SEXUAL ABNORMALITY... that is not public.

And of course, not the least of which is their chronic pretense of Marriage... a public institution.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Please feel free to cash this reality check ...it will not bounce an ounce...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

ID the Christians

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

what if Kim Davis had converted to Muslim four years and said as a Muslim she could not condone Gay marriage...would she still enjoy the support of the Fundamentalist Christians ?

 

[bodecea]

Well you're a librul... and adherent to assorted notions of Left-think... who comes to imply that you agree with those principles. And in so doing you demonstrate your ignorance of what rights are.

For a Right to Exist, it does so with intrinsic RESPONSIBILITY. Not the least of which, is to not exercise one's right to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

We know this to be self evidently so.. because where two people have the right to **** the other with their respective rights, the net effect is that neither have any rights... .

Do you understand that? It's important that you do, because if ya don't, then you're not capable of being free. And in general nature, you amount to what is commonly recognized as "FOOD"....

I'm a socialist, not a librul (I'm not even sure what the definition of a librul is)

It's a socialists.

... I agree that society wouldn't work if people don't respect other peoples rights.

Mighty white of ya.

Now the principle states that 'all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Therefore sexual deviants are not excluded, where the deviant bears the intrinsic responsibility that sustain their rights.

So sexual behavior is what? It is private behavior... and we can know this, because where one is rightfully entitled to such, the bearer of that right is not entitled to exercise it, to the detriment of another's means to exercise their own rights. And where we expose ourselves, in sexual terms, to those who are offended by our sexual behavior, we usurp their right to not be exposed to such.

So, where we claim a right to our private sexual behavior, we sustain that right by bearing the responsibility to keep that which we rightfully claim to be PRIVATE: PRIVATE!

Understand?

Well.... yes....people shouldnt **** in public, I think most people (except the perverts) can agree with that.


But maybe I missed something, what makes you think evil libruls don't agree with that?

Who besides libruls are promoting the distribution of pornography through public access networks?

Who besides liberals are represented here:

and here:

Note the sexual behavior in nothing short of "Public".

Should we discuss the more traditional media? "50 Shades of Ghey", the recent televising of Sexualized MUPPETS in prime time, on network (public) television.

Suffice it to say that there is NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH... about the PUBLIC ADVOCACY TO NORMALIZE SEXUAL ABNORMALITY... that is not public.

And of course, not the least of which is their chronic pretense of Marriage... a public institution.[/QUOTE]
How many beads have YOU earned at Mardi Gras? And your second picture is at Folsom St...with is a gay AND straight leather event. Don't go if you don't like it.....but you sure like the pics, don't you?