OK, This Is Just Crazy.

bobblehead · Jul 7, 2006

Fenian_Bastard said:

bobblehead said:

alleyallen said:

Well at least you answered the question, although based on your other posts on other threads, I'm dubious about your claim that you wouldn't be upset by a burqa-adorned Lady Liberty. That being said, it's not that religious conservatives are automatically tagged with things liberals see wrong with this country. The problem is that religious conservatives are so often behind (or in front of) key issues that liberals attack and see as wrong with this country.
Click to expand...

Glad you entered the parenthetical phrase. I was about to jump all over that.

Biblically, and from the Koran interpretation variances, I understand that Jews and Christians are enemies of Islam. Anyone who considers me and many in this country an enemy is deemed by me as a threat.Â That is not to say I've endorsed everything about the playing out of this war - I have stated before that I would have sealed the borders off, allowed the country time to get on its feet without outside interference, which in my mind, with the borders sealed, would have already been accomplished.Â Instead, we - or he - proclaimed mission accomplished in a real doofus act on a boat. He misread that like so many around him and BEFORE him misread intelligence.Â

I'm surprised the moral remarks weren't attacked...being that I've spoken against the G's so often.Â Whether I believe or not that it is immoral, the guidance of moral law and public law should be governed by the PEOPLE.Â Â We are a republic, with state's rights.Â The reason for that is that what seems right for San Francisco isn't right for places in middle America.Â Since a majority of states still reject by vote this issue, then the federal judiciary should not force them to accept it.Â But if Taxachusetts or Cal. embrace it, so be it.Â Judiciary should defend job discrimination, health care discrimination and such.Â It should not be involved in determining marriage laws, which are the state's laws to make.

That's enough for today.Â
Click to expand...

There's some really nifty stuff in here. First of all, where do the "Koran interpretation variances" come from? Secondly, your theory of American government lost a pretty big argument back at Gettysburg. Thirdly, you presumably reject Brown v. Board as judicial activism. Last, allowing gay people to marry is very much an issue of job discrimination and health-care discrimination. That you find what these couples do icky is a different matter entirely.
Click to expand...

Horse shit on all counts.Â Yours of course.

We could get into the "choice" factor in terms of race and sexual preference, but that's like a spin cycle of a tissy so I won't waste my time stating what many in the persuasion have testified to.

bobblehead · Jul 7, 2006

spnited said:

"The G's"...do you find it that difficult (or repulsive) to even type the word GAY?
Click to expand...

It just seems easier.Â Less finger strain.

It used to mean "happy." So I suppose the correct term is HOMOSEXUAL.

But tell me, why the distinction between "used to mean happy" and "lesbian"? Are homosexual men "happier" in their lifestyle than lesbians?

Just a thought.

alleyallen · Jul 7, 2006

bobblehead said:

spnited said:

"The G's"...do you find it that difficult (or repulsive) to even type the word GAY?
Click to expand...

It just seems easier.Â Less finger strain.

It used to mean "happy." So I suppose the correct term is HOMOSEXUAL.

But tell me, why the distinction between "used to mean happy" and "lesbian"?Â Are homosexual men "happier" in their lifestyle than lesbians?

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

:
Or you could just call them fellow Americans and stop with all the labels.

sportschick · Jul 7, 2006

BYH · Jul 7, 2006

Bobblehead can't type gay because he'll think he'll catch it if he types it.

"He didn't give you gay did he?"

bobblehead · Jul 8, 2006

No, it's just a way of avoiding a direct remark on a topic that, in this rainbow room, is a waste of time.

Kind of like inviting Cindy Sheehan to a military mom's meeting.

hockeybeat · Jul 8, 2006

Conservative Christians amuse me to no end.

The biggest group of hate-filled, fear mongering, Bible thumping idiots that haven't yet grasped "Love each other as I have loved you."

bobblehead · Jul 8, 2006

hockeybeat said:

Conservative Christians amuse me to no end.

The biggest group of hate-filled, fear mongering, Bible thumping idiots that haven't yet grasped "Love each other as I have loved you."
Click to expand...

Doesn't look like you love them either.

At least you're firing remarks from the mirror though. Gives a good glimpse of yourself.

hockeybeat · Jul 8, 2006

bobblehead said:

hockeybeat said:

Conservative Christians amuse me to no end.

The biggest group of hate-filled, fear mongering, Bible thumping idiots that haven't yet grasped "Love each other as I have loved you."
Click to expand...

Doesn't look like you love them either.

At least you're firing remarks from the mirror though. Gives a good glimpse of yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't hate people like you. You amuse me.

bobblehead · Jul 8, 2006

hockeybeat said:

bobblehead said:

hockeybeat said:

Conservative Christians amuse me to no end.

The biggest group of hate-filled, fear mongering, Bible thumping idiots that haven't yet grasped "Love each other as I have loved you."
Click to expand...

Doesn't look like you love them either.

At least you're firing remarks from the mirror though. Gives a good glimpse of yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't hate people like you. You amuse me.
Click to expand...

We at last have something in common. You amuse me too - and to the extent that I know your political persuasions will never, ever pack enough muscle to make a difference.

hockeybeat · Jul 8, 2006

bobblehead said:

hockeybeat said:

bobblehead said:

hockeybeat said:

Conservative Christians amuse me to no end.

The biggest group of hate-filled, fear mongering, Bible thumping idiots that haven't yet grasped "Love each other as I have loved you."
Click to expand...

Doesn't look like you love them either.

At least you're firing remarks from the mirror though. Gives a good glimpse of yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't hate people like you. You amuse me.
Click to expand...

We at last have something in common.Â You amuse me too - and to the extent that I know your political persuasions will never, ever pack enough muscle to make a difference.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that, Karate Kid.

Fenian_Bastard · Jul 8, 2006

bobblehead said:

Fenian_Bastard said:

bobblehead said:

alleyallen said:

Well at least you answered the question, although based on your other posts on other threads, I'm dubious about your claim that you wouldn't be upset by a burqa-adorned Lady Liberty. That being said, it's not that religious conservatives are automatically tagged with things liberals see wrong with this country. The problem is that religious conservatives are so often behind (or in front of) key issues that liberals attack and see as wrong with this country.
Click to expand...

Glad you entered the parenthetical phrase. I was about to jump all over that.

Biblically, and from the Koran interpretation variances, I understand that Jews and Christians are enemies of Islam. Anyone who considers me and many in this country an enemy is deemed by me as a threat. That is not to say I've endorsed everything about the playing out of this war - I have stated before that I would have sealed the borders off, allowed the country time to get on its feet without outside interference, which in my mind, with the borders sealed, would have already been accomplished. Instead, we - or he - proclaimed mission accomplished in a real doofus act on a boat. He misread that like so many around him and BEFORE him misread intelligence.

I'm surprised the moral remarks weren't attacked...being that I've spoken against the G's so often. Whether I believe or not that it is immoral, the guidance of moral law and public law should be governed by the PEOPLE. We are a republic, with state's rights. The reason for that is that what seems right for San Francisco isn't right for places in middle America. Since a majority of states still reject by vote this issue, then the federal judiciary should not force them to accept it. But if Taxachusetts or Cal. embrace it, so be it. Judiciary should defend job discrimination, health care discrimination and such. It should not be involved in determining marriage laws, which are the state's laws to make.

That's enough for today.
Click to expand...

There's some really nifty stuff in here. First of all, where do the "Koran interpretation variances" come from? Secondly, your theory of American government lost a pretty big argument back at Gettysburg. Thirdly, you presumably reject Brown v. Board as judicial activism. Last, allowing gay people to marry is very much an issue of job discrimination and health-care discrimination. That you find what these couples do icky is a different matter entirely.
Click to expand...

Horse shit on all counts. Yours of course.

We could get into the "choice" factor in terms of race and sexual preference, but that's like a spin cycle of a tissy so I won't waste my time stating what many in the persuasion have testified to.
Click to expand...

Inches from English.
A little further from science, I think.

Log in or Sign up

OK, This Is Just Crazy.

bobblehead Guest

bobblehead Guest

alleyallen Guest

sportschick Active Member

BYH Active Member

bobblehead Guest

hockeybeat Guest

bobblehead Guest

hockeybeat Guest

bobblehead Guest

hockeybeat Guest

Fenian_Bastard Guest

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

OK, This Is Just Crazy.

bobblehead Guest

bobblehead Guest

alleyallen Guest

sportschick Active Member

BYH Active Member

bobblehead Guest

hockeybeat Guest

bobblehead Guest

hockeybeat Guest

bobblehead Guest

hockeybeat Guest

Fenian_Bastard Guest

Share This Page

Useful Searches