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.
Ever meet a gay activist? They are crazy as hell...even worse that your typical prog. Nothing is ever enough for them. p.
While I agree they are barely short of rabid honey badgers, remember they wouldn't even exist if mistreatment wasn't rampant in the past and still existing today.
While I agree they are barely short of rabid honey badgers, remember they wouldn't even exist if mistreatment wasn't rampant in the past and still existing today.
No, they exist because liberals are mentally deranged. Like, you have racial activists who literally are in the upper middle class and attend the (supposedly) best teaching institutions in America and they act like they're slaves who get urinated on in the streets. They're idiots who like to revel in misery and live in a world of their own imagination.
No, they exist because liberals are mentally deranged. Like, you have racial activists who literally are in the upper middle class and attend the (supposedly) best teaching institutions in America and they act like they're slaves who get urinated on in the streets. They're idiots who like to revel in misery and live in a world of their own imagination.
I am a lifelong conservative.
But I'm also gay and a minority.
I promise you I still get crap for being brown. Routinely. In liberal California or conservative Texas...still crap.
Also crap for being gay. Less routinely, but strangers can't know you're gay just by looking at you.
It is NOT made up or imagination.
That being said, I think another poster said it best when they pointed out most other people (even gay people) do not condone or approve of people acting crazy.
I promise you I still get crap for being brown. Routinely. In liberal California or conservative Texas...still crap.
Yeah, but ...so what? Meaning, if you weren't getting crap for being brown or gay, you'd get crap for being short or fat. Life isn't about "never getting crap for anything." People routinely hate other people simply for being in front of them in line at a checkout. I hate people who can't figure out how to stay in a lane when they are driving. Everyone has been hated or given crap because of something in their life and that's part of life. I never get this liberal notion that we're all actually in love with one another.
Right, and similarly you're not free to say "the government makes the rules" only when the rules are liberal ones. You like it when government tells schools to teach gay marriage, then when the government tells schools to teach creationism, you're free to sit there and love it. Right?
You're of course entitled to try and change the government's mind - through legislation - or (OMG!) the courts. Governments in the embarrassing states are trying to teach creationism and smart people are fighting it, in courts and legislatures. That's how it works. Until then, yes - you give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and you kids are being taught an early lesson in questioning religious authority.
Thing is, the question of using the taxpayer's money for religious purposes has been litigated time and again, and it's still considered a no-no. Complex issue, of course - when does instruction end and preaching begin? - - but Lemon v. Kurtzman is still applied. In short, worship on your own dime.
As I said: You're obviously free to disagree with the government rules. You're not free to say "I only obey a higher power!" out of one side of your mouth and "Fork over that sweet government cheese" out of the other - even the Carpenter's Son said so.
Quote:
P.S. Don't attempt to cite the Constitution, since a) the Constitution had no problem teaching religion in schools during the days of the Founders, who actually wrote it...
Surely you haven't forgotten that schools are managed on a state level and that the protections in the First weren't binding for states until the passage of the Fourteenth?
Quote:
and b) you have no problem ignoring the Constitution in any other area.
I think you're getting your conversations mixed up. Talking to your strawman again, as it were.
And that was another cop out post from you where you did not reply to, rebut, or engage with a single thing I actually said. You know as well as I do that your science claims were wrong, which is why you can not back them up, or rebut my challenges to you. And I am sure people are noticing it.
Bring it on. What is your evidence for the claim that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. Lets hear it. Have you got anything? Anything at all? I believe your next post will answer and the answer will be "no" you got nothing. Nichts. Zilch. Squat. Bugger all. Nuffin'but'bluffin. You made the claim, but cant back it up with any game.
Well, just because i'm feeling generous: njquestions, the question of judicial review and the role of the Supreme Court in doing same is covered extensively in Federalist Paper number 78, penned by a certain Alexander Hamilton. On reading it, you will also come to realize that Hamilton considered case law as important as statutory law, and the Constitution reflects this. What you call "legislating from the bench" is a feature, not a bug, and was engineered into the US legal system from the word go.
I never get this liberal notion that we're all actually in love with one another.
We're not. Unharnessed, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. So we make laws and courts - "to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak;" as Hammurabi put it.
Well, just because i'm feeling generous: njquestions, the question of judicial review and the role of the Supreme Court in doing same is covered extensively in Federalist Paper number 78, penned by a certain Alexander Hamilton. On reading it, you will also come to realize that Hamilton considered case law as important as statutory law, and the Constitution reflects this. What you call "legislating from the bench" is a feature, not a bug, and was engineered into the US legal system from the word go.
Actually, sounds like you've never read any Federalist Papers and you're just regurgitating what you were told by someone. It actually states that the judiciary should be the least powerful and injurious to the Constitution -- which is the opposite of what it is, as liberal judges merely invent whatever they want in the Constitution. It also states that judges have the duty to protect the Constitution, which is also the opposite of what liberal judges do. Furthermore, it states that the power of the people is superior to all branches of government and that the duty of judges is to enforce the will of the people, which is also the opposite of what liberal judges do.
Thanks for citing a paper that completely destroys your own argument, though.
Says the guy who has not cited a SINGLE paper.... or anything else..... to support your own arguments. I am still waiting for ANY substantiation for your Biological claims regarding the evolutionary dead end of homosexuality for example. You simply got nothing to support it, do you?
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.
