Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Typical attack the news source, not the content tactic.
Opinion pieces should not be used as news sources. Bias influences content. If you're going to take up protesting you'll need to learn that. Protest 101: Get your facts straight so you don't look like an idiot out there on the picket line. You're welcome. Again.
Now then: You will be, I assume, protesting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so.... more free advice..... get comfy shoes. You'll be out there a looooooooooooooong time. And the Supreme Court will probably refuse to hear your case, if you can find someone to file it, because they've already ruled on the laws you don't like and marriage equality is now law in 31 states, but... whatever. I'm a big fan of the First Amendment and it's your life.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 10-24-2014 at 04:15 PM..
Opinion pieces should not be used as news sources. Bias influences content. If you're going to take up protesting you'll need to learn that. Protest 101: Get your facts straight so you don't look like an idiot out there on the picket line. You're welcome. Again.
Now then: You will be, I assume, protesting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so.... more free advice..... get comfy shoes. You'll be out there a looooooooooooooong time. And the Supreme Court will probably refuse to hear your case, if you can find someone to file it, because they've already ruled on the laws you don't like and marriage equality is now law in 31 states, but... whatever. I'm a big fan of the First Amendment and it's your life.
If you think news sources aren't biased to some degree then you are the one who needs an education. Let's face it. Yes, your side is going to win. Hooray SSM will soon be legal everywhere. I will have to accept it as a common form of society, and continue to watch a once great nation descend into darkness and immorality.
What I don't get is why your side feels it so necessary to aggressively brow bent Christians if we dare not agree with everything you stand for. Apparently you just can't respect a difference of opinion and have to be insulting. I still have a right to believe what I want, and I should still have that right to voice that belief without being venomized by the left. Thanks for NOTHING.
If you think news sources aren't biased to some degree then you are the one who needs an education. Let's face it. Yes, your side is going to win. Hooray SSM will soon be legal everywhere. I will have to accept it as a common form of society, and continue to watch a once great nation descend into darkness and immorality.
What I don't get is why your side feels it so necessary to aggressively brow bent Christians if we dare not agree with everything you stand for. Apparently you just can't respect a difference of opinion and have to be insulting. I still have a right to believe what I want, and I should still have that right to voice that belief without being venomized by the left. Thanks for NOTHING.
Wow...
You can voice it all you want, you're allowed to do that. No one is trying to take that away from you.
It said a subpoena was issued for pastors to turn over their sermons. I don't know how much more plain the article has to be. The term SERMON was originally used. Why are you trying to distort the facts? The request was made.
So what is not factual? Are you claiming that the request for sermons was NEVER made? Prove it.
I am saying exactly what I mean. Your claim was not factual. You stated the mayor of Houston was trying to force pastors to submit their sermons for approval. Do you see those words "for approval"? I have highlighted them for you a number of times. They are your words, yet you don't seem to be noticing their presence.
Great. Now please point out the part which states the mayor of Houston attempted to force pastors to submit their sermons for approval. I have read this link too, yet still don't see it.
What I don't get is why your side feels it so necessary to aggressively brow bent Christians if we dare not agree with everything you stand for. Apparently you just can't respect a difference of opinion and have to be insulting. I still have a right to believe what I want, and I should still have that right to voice that belief without being venomized by the left. Thanks for NOTHING.
I haven't read anyone here arguing that you do not have the right to believe what you want.
If you think news sources aren't biased to some degree then you are the one who needs an education. Let's face it. Yes, your side is going to win. Hooray SSM will soon be legal everywhere. I will have to accept it as a common form of society, and continue to watch a once great nation descend into darkness and immorality.
What I don't get is why your side feels it so necessary to aggressively brow bent Christians if we dare not agree with everything you stand for. Apparently you just can't respect a difference of opinion and have to be insulting. I still have a right to believe what I want, and I should still have that right to voice that belief without being venomized by the left. Thanks for NOTHING.
I don't cae if you agree or disagree with me or what your opinion of me is. When it goes from opinion to legislating that I live my life by your beliefs, then I have a problem.
You have every right to voice any opinion you choose, but I have the same freedom to voice my opinion of your opinion. That is the beauty of freedom of speech, everyone has it.
I am saying exactly what I mean. Your claim was not factual. You stated the mayor of Houston was trying to force pastors to submit their sermons for approval. Do you see those words "for approval"? I have highlighted them for you a number of times. They are your words, yet you don't seem to be noticing their presence.
I don't see see where those words have any bearing to your claim. She wasn't requesting the sermons for her personal amusement or enlightenment. It was to approve or disapprove of their speech inside the church in regards to this lawsuit.
I don't see see where those words have any bearing to your claim. She wasn't requesting the sermons for her personal amusement or enlightenment. It was to approve or disapprove of their speech inside the church in regards to this lawsuit.
lol it was to determine WHAT was said and use it as content in their case.
Who cares about whether they "approve" of it or not?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
