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.
What I quoted you as saying is that I thought they should be UP FOR DEBATE. If it's clear that they are not constitutionally sound, then why put forth the bill (other than to waste taxpayer money debating a dead issue, which is a favorite pass-time of the GOP)?
And I'll go out on a limb and say that 99% of my liberal colleagues not only support the right to debate all points of view, but because they are not AFRAID of opposing points of view, they welcome it. That is the whole problem with your ilk. You're so terrified of anything outside your own narrow world that you're absolutely terrified to even discuss it.
I give you:
Gun controls
Immigration
Health Care
Abortion Rights
and on and on and on.
If you had an open mind, you wouldn't be putting up these crazy arguments, changing the rules and lying so often. Grow up and get some big-boy pants. If you have a position, defend it on the up and up, and if you are proven wrong, then learn something, and grow as a human being. REALLY MAN!
You still missed the point. Like, not even close. Is that on purpose?
And if you're going to accuse me of "lying" you best show me where I've lied. I'll wait.
Well, there we have it folks! You can only debate if you have an "open mind!" Entrenched positions shall not be tolerated!
dv1033 says so!
Debate:
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
So yeah, dv1033 was kinda right. If you are fully entrenched in your position, then you can state it, but you really can't debate it. Once you state it, there is not much left to do except repeat yourself, or make stuff up. You've done a pretty good job at that, but have been an utter failure at the art of debate.
And, if a Christian pastor stands before Congress and preaches "fire and brimstone" about XYZ social policy and Congress acts on that fire and brimstone as a result, you will be perfectly fine with this collision of church and state?
Um, the Pope is a Christian. He is the head of the Catholic Church, which is the original Christian church. He is also the head of state of a sovereign city-state located within the nation of Italy. The Pope wasn't invited to preach. and "fire and brimstone" isn't really his style. But still, I don't see a collision of church and state here. The Pope is a world figure. He is certainly a prominent religious figure, but his popularity extends well beyond the Catholic Church. His speech in Congress was not a mass, nor a wielding of religious authority. What, exactly, did you find objectionable about his speech?
Debate:
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
So yeah, dv1033 was kinda right. If you are fully entrenched in your position, then you can state it, but you really can't debate it. Once you state it, there is not much left to do except repeat yourself, or make stuff up. You've done a pretty good job at that, but have been an utter failure at the art of debate.
Unbelievable. This is the state of liberalism in America these days. Petty, petulant, childish bull crap. When the going gets tough, pull out a random definition of "debate" and debate that!
You still missed the point. Like, not even close. Is that on purpose?
And if you're going to accuse me of "lying" you best show me where I've lied. I'll wait.
I quoted it.
You said something, I responded, and you said I said something different. That would be a lie. Crikey, are you going to make me look that up for you too? (I figured even YOU could decipher the mono-syllabic words.)
(and before you go there, by "said", I obviously mean "Typed")
What the Pope said is not the issue. This is about the collision of church and state, and the palpable hypocrisy in embracing the Pope's moral teachings as a matter of social policy while some woman in Podunk gets thrown in jail for standing up for religious belief in the face of a social policy she disagrees with.
If some evangelical pastor stands before Congress spewing hate, and Congress responds with legislation in agreement, what would you say to that?
Uh, what legislation exactly is happening as a direct result of something the pope said? And that lady isn't doing her job, she should be fired. The fact that you don't think so is embarrassing for you, not to mention totally hypocritical.
Um, the Pope is a Christian. He is the head of the Catholic Church, which is the original Christian church. He is also the head of state of a sovereign city-state located within the nation of Italy. The Pope wasn't invited to preach. and "fire and brimstone" isn't really his style. But still, I don't see a collision of church and state here. The Pope is a world figure. He is certainly a prominent religious figure, but his popularity extends well beyond the Catholic Church. His speech in Congress was not a mass, nor a wielding of religious authority. What, exactly, did you find objectionable about his speech?
I said absolutely NOTHING about the POPE preaching FIRE AND BRIMSTONE. It was a hypothetical response to a point being made to that poster! What part of my post caused you to believe that I was referring to the POPE?
Well, there we have it folks! You can only debate if you have an "open mind!" Entrenched positions shall not be tolerated!
dv1033 says so!
People don't like debating against a wall..... I see you can't actually debate any of my points..... Your deflection is noted and I've reported you for trolling again.
What the Pope said is not the issue. This is about the collision of church and state, and the palpable hypocrisy in embracing the Pope's moral teachings as a matter of social policy while some woman in Podunk gets thrown in jail for standing up for religious belief in the face of a social policy she disagrees with.
If some evangelical pastor stands before Congress spewing hate, and Congress responds with legislation in agreement, what would you say to that?
How can what the Pope said not be the issue? If you are complaining about a collision of church and state, where was the collision? Who is embracing the Pope's moral teachings as a matter of social policy? Which moral teachings are you concerned about?
That woman in Podunk was an elected government official, whose job required her to perform her duties impartially. When an elected government official decides to perform her duties according to her religious beliefs, impartiality is dead. The courts simply required her to perform her duties impartially.
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.
