Loading
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."-Samuel Adams
These are a few people from the Left who haven't been on in a while. And since leftists have been in short supply I think a little challenge might be in order. So I put forth an open challenge to the Left to a debate on any topic, barring only Religion, of their choosing.
You bore me. You have nothing to say and support a Nazi who is bringing this country DOWN.
yes patriot, im sure youve read all 100+ pages of the bill. youre such a moron.
what am i trying to say? i shoudve known you would be confused once i began to use 5+ letter words.
to clarify, i was just objecting to basically every statement you typed.
except the true ones-i was suprised. good to know youre learning from me.
i feel like a proud parent who just taught thier child how to read.
so...am i a liberal or a socialist? make up your mind.
also. is obama a nazi or a socialist-because you still seem to be confused with the two.
Common Sense was a great, although mildly dry, book. What exactly did you find wrong with it?
Pissed you off ehh? Like a certain Middle Ages Scotsman?
This is an abortion retard. (both liberal terms used in health bill) What are you trying to say?
You liberals drove this country into the ground. Now your driving it further in the ground.
Good JOB
you think obama is a bully? wasnt it just recently where you said he was a coward? you seem disheveled when it comes to picking a proper insult for our president.
i believe the unemployment figures and national debt.(good job on gathering information)
divorce rates always decline in a resession, semi-recession, depression. as economists say, "its cheaper to keep her".
95% yeah right. so for every 19 people you know, 5 of them will be homeless? aim lower, it might be more believable.
crime rates and abortions are because people ar not financially stable. dont worry, there arent any women going outside screaming "obama killed my baby!" just a crazy man on the internet.
why do you care about tax cuts? im pretty sure you dont have a job or posses any qualities that would get you hired any time soon.
denying reality? if i lived in a world where i was shorthanded the knowledge of acceptance and tolerance would that be better?
what is unrealistic about gay people having a "traditional" marriage that involves an actual wedding? i understand its a challenge for you to wrap your head around the issue but stear clear of foolishness and try to understand.
ive viewed it from the other side. i used to be against it. i discovered that there was no valid case for the opposition(evident on your part) and realized marriage is supposed to be a personal and concious decision.
answered that already. your comprehension is wasting away.
um, yes i do.
creating facts? think about that. can you actually do that, im pretty sure thats impossible- you shouldve said "adjusting facts" or "making claims". what you said before was just silly.
i couldve said the same thing to you. this post puts you into another category of stupidity.
Commone Sense, and pretty much everything about it. Ugh.... I had to put it sown cause it pissed me off so much, funny thing is I was warned to put it down because the owner of the book told me so and told me to put it down. Ended up having a very interesting political debate last night over quite a few beers.
1st, which one were you reading.
2nd what didn't you like about it?
I started reading Glenn Beck's sorry excuse for a book and I almost threw up in my mouth.
As I said, a Civil Union should be of the same legal status as Marriage. And the government has no right to deny them to anybody(Excepting certain scenarios.). But Marriage is a tradition, born of the people and of a definition defined by them. If somebody wants Marriage between homosexual couples legalized they can convince the public. It is not beholden to any one but ALL of the public, to every group, class etcetera. To change the definition you must get the approval of the public to which it belongs.
There is a very big difference between accident and intention. And I hadn't even considered it being unintentionally implied.
Ehh, I'll have you watching Glenn and reading Rush in no time.
In regards to what I said maybe I should explain more, the gov't doesn't have the right to tell people who they can or cannot marry or what have you and neither do the people. The only people who should have a say in who they are legally allowed to have serious committed relationships with are those said people. Why do you get the right to tell the gay guy down the street he can't marry his boyfriend, but that same couple doesn't have any say in you marrying your girlfriend? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
If you think about the motivation then you will see what I'm talking about with the punishment. If I walk into a house and intentionally slaughter a whole family I will most likely be punished by death. If I'm driving my car, obeying all laws of the road and I accidentally strike a pedestrian and kill them I will not be sentenced to death, nor will I be given any jail time. If I purposely walk out of a store with a VCR, I'm going to jail. If I walk out of a store with the same VCR still in my basket with tons of other things and it was overlooked I won't be going to jail because once I'm stopped I would realize what happened and would go back and pay for it. Etc, etc, etc.
And no there won't be any turning. I like my liberal ways.
So, you agree with most of what I said, I will convert you yet... MWWWWHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAA!!!!!
I get what your saying, but it really makes no sense. I could make a case that a poor man who killed a rich man hated him for his economic situation. But it still would not change the fact a man who was innocent of any wrong was killed by another unjustly. If somebody plans to kill another and then carries out the crime what does the motivation, or, again, lack thereof, have to do with the end result? The person is no less dead if the person who killed him did it without emotion or hated him.
I don't think the government has any right to say yay or nay to how people choose to express their commitment to one another.
In some states hat crimes carry additional time or in the case of murder it is looked at to always be 1st degree murder or a capital crime. Punishment for all capital crimes are always harsher and usually the offender cannot plea out, they will have to take their chances with a judge or jury. For example if I'm at a bar where it's all black people and white person walks in and I do nothing but talk smack to the white person all night, because and only because they are white, and it escalates to the point of a fight and during the course of that fight I end up killing them, I will be charged with capital murder. Whereas if the same thing happened and I never once opened my mouth to them about their race and a fight started because they bumped into me and during the course of that fight I killed them I would originally be charged with second degree murder, which I can plea down to aggravated assault and some degree of manslaughter. Which carries much less weight then a capital charge, I'd be out in a minimum of 5 years in most states with the lessor charge. The higher charge carries 1 to multiple life sentences, or death. The intent weighs heavily as to why the person was killed.
Then I must appologize. I thought Civil Unions were the same as Marriage. To quote my favorite movie, that's something we shall have to remedy. A Civil Union should be legally equivalent to Marriage.
I think your saying the same thing I am, but slightly different. I'm saying it is the domain of the people, a centuries old tradition that they have every right to define as they see fit. Your saying it is the domain of the people, a centuries old tradition that the government should make available to everybody and their cousin, literally, what the people want be damned.
Choose to be homosexual?
Hate-Crimes? Not the best thing to use in defence of anything. Hate-Crimes are racist, sexist, homophobic and any other ic/ist you can think of. Now, before we begin the charging of our flak guns let me explain.
Hate-Crimes are blatantly saying that one group, pick whichever you like, is in need of nannying. That they are too weak to look after themselves. That they can't survive without the government. Let me give some blunt examples that apply to both this and gun laws.
If one person takes the life of another because of their skin color and another man takes the life of another for no reason, is one or the other deader? Seriously, does the thought, or lack thereof, change the end result?
If one person takes the life of another with a gun and another man takes the life of another with a knife, does it change the end result? Is either of them any deader?
See? Punish the crime, not the weapon, not the who, not the why-the CRIME. Hate makes the crime no less heinous, nor does the weapon used. It is still a crime against another.
CPB: Since I'm not going to weed through this whole discussion to find out where we left off I will just start anew. Since we are talking about Gay Marriage here I will continue on that topic. If you look back through history and I'm not talking about biblical history I'm talking about the history of humans through archeology, anthropology (my specialty) and sociology you would notice that even before the Christian religion had evolved marriage and pair-bonding had occurred. Cave drawings, burial sites and archeological digs support this as fact. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans as well as the majority of society's were pagans according to Christianity. Not to mention that Christianity did not evolve into a religion until Jesus Christ came along, so to use the fact that marriage is a religious concept is fruitless mainly because Christians do not recognize (nor tend to respect) any other religion other than there own. Marriage was an established fact and right among all of the early civilizations. It usually was an alliance that offered money, respect, protection, elevated status, etc in the early world. Usually the land owners or the Kings are the ones who performed the marriage ceremonies before the Catholic church enveloped marriage and stole it for it's own religious purposes. It was then turned into a means to control people and their sexuality. A woman who wasted pure could not get married because she was a w***e according to the church (unless her parents had the money to pay off the church for their daughters lustful tendencies) , while a man could w***e around from the time of puberty and still have a respectable marriage to a wealthy virgin.
Now to present day. Marriage has changed from an act of necessity and profit to an act of love in the western world. We don't force people to marry, nor do we force people to stay together. Since marriage is an act of love that we enter into of our own volition then why can't everyone have the same choice? You complain to high heaven that Obama is taking away your power to choose, but your high and mighty opinion is to take away many other people's power to choose. As of right now since I choose to be heterosexual I can choose to enter into a civil union with someone or I can choose to marry them. You are not giving gay people that same choice. You say that they should only have civil unions. The problem therein is that civil unions are not recognized state to state, country to country, and they are not recognized by the federal government. So now if I was gay and I had a civil union ceremony in upstate NY and we took our honeymoon in Canada and something happened to my partner I would legally have no say in what happens to my partner because I am not her wife (which like I said is recognized everywhere). I would not even be able to have her transported home. I would have to involve her mother and father to do the job for me. Now is that what adults are supposed to do? Are they supposed to involve a blood relative any time something legal comes up? No. Straight people don't have to do it and neither should gay people. Not to mention there is the matter of insurance (all types) that state family consists of blood relatives and/or a spouse. A spouse will never be your civil union partner. There are also dealings with will's, estates, children, property, debts, taxes, etc, etc, etc. Yes those things can be legally taken care of and the documents can be so airtight that there would be no way a court could find a loop hole, however to create all the documents needed and to have a lawyers team do all the research and legwork necessary to do all of that it could cost upwards of $50,000. That's a college education for a child, that's a down payment for a house, that's a brand new car paid for in cash, why should a gay couple have to put that much money into their relationship up front just to solidify it? Straight people don't they have no need to because they are automatically protected. And if you try to say people use that money to spend on a wedding you are wrong, the average cost of a wedding in 2008 was $21,814. The 2007 average was $28,704. That's 30K less than what a gay person would spend just to make sure their union is airtight.
The point is this is America, we are supposed to be the land of the free but we are not the land of the free. We are the land of: since we can find people who don't like you and will disagree with you we can effectively ostracize you and make you feel less than human. We are the land of: we have to make legislation of what a hate crime really is because people have forgotten the phrase do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We are the land of: I only care about myself and my happiness and everyone else can go to s**t because it's all about me and me only. The irony of this whole topic of debate is that everyone says I don't want my right to choose to be taken away, don't tread on me, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and figure out how to get what you want because this is America and where there is a will there is a way; but you and everyone else on here effectively diminishes everything you spout about because if you don't agree with someones choice you want it to be stamped out or give them some other paltry alternative. Isn't it sooooo ironic?
No suprise there, liberals are infamous for denying reality and filling in their own facts.
I'd be much more impressed if you actually approached the situation from a detached position and viewed it in a different perspective.
Why exactly do gays need Marriage to love each other or to be intimate?
You know religion, eh? Once more with the creating facts to support your assertions. I have read examples of your knowledge in the past and they have not impressed.
your plan didnt work, people still think youre stupid.
Who you heels, RN 2009 & Rossetteismyname/Minniemouse
As you can see ALL liberals except a few idiots who have decided to support stupidity. The other liberals have ran for cover because you cannot defend this idiot. Only stupid people are still defending this community organizer. A thug. Bully.
12% unemplyment
24% REAL unemployment
Dollar Shrinking
Mortgage failures UP
GAS UP
Abortions UP
Divorce UP
Crime UP
National Debt UP
Good job socialist
When Bush tax cuts expire in next 90 days 95% of Americans will take home less. Employers will lay off more people.
Hope you and the rats you hang with get some of that money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o
"When you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody"
YOUR socialist prez not mine.
Do you want more PROOF.
Please look under my profile and start watching the socialist you support.
OK I admit I'm stupid but I am a American who is self made. I did not ask for handouts. I did not ask for charity. I did not ask for you to take from someone who has worked hard to give to me. That's what you and Obama are about.
if you need video for me to prove that your stupid than your proof is under my profile.
So we have agreed I am stupid but smart enough to not need my government to care for me. your smart and and a socialist becuase you support a self proclaimed socialist. Do you need the Joe the Plumber video or is your brain to small to remember.
I love you correcting my spelling while you spell words incorrectly. Must mean your stupid too. So your stupid and a socialist.
so, you admit that youre wrong? so glad thats cleared up.
what have i lied about ( another add to the list of difficult questions)
chewed on my what? i didnt plagiarize. do you know what that word means? it means to copy someones writing (word for word) and not cite it whatsoever. i gave an address in total MLA format.
what you did was attempt sounding educated without quoting the context nor stating that you used a source.
your plan didnt work, people still think youre stupid.
if the quote is based on nothing then why did you bring it up(i think thats question #6)
when has he admitted to it? please find a legit article or video. do you know how to copy a link?
like i said, i have nothing to hide. what reason would i deny being a socialist?(#9) im a strong democrat and nothing less.
said "i dont know anything of hate". get your facts together.
and I said your a liar. Fact is straight
i "chewed" on you for plagiarism not copying and pasting.
And I chewed on yours. Besides wasnt taking credit so use proper words
It's a dumb quote based on nothing. i love that quote, its awesome but not socialist driven. it just means that the hardest workers have almost nothing
YOU are a socialist. If you support this prez your socialsit PERIOD. No debate here. He has admitted to it. He hires people who believe in it. His followers are all for it or stupid
Wake up cheekie
i said "i dont know anything of hate". get your facts together.
i "chewed" on you for plagiarism not copying and pasting.
"myour rat friends?"
is that sopposed to say "my rat friends" ,"your rat friends" or "our rat friends" i cant tell because you bunched the letters too closely.lol
if i was a socialist, i would admit to it-i have nothing to hide.
i love that quote, its awesome but not socialist driven. it just means that the hardest workers have almost nothing( material wise).
families will be in the streets because of you. which is worse?
im done? by that you mean...
in case you forgot:
2.)how are you capable to tell me what certain emotions im aware of?
3.)how did i kill any comments?
4.)why did you choose to respond to that specfic comment(one that was written nearly a week ago)
you only answered the first one. stop embarrasing yourself and give up
Have a good weekend my little socialist
First off the "you don't know hate" is funny.
The second is you chewed on me last week for cutting and pasting now your doing it.
Your the coward who supports taking from me and giving to myour rat friends,
Your a socialist so come out and admit it. Your the coward. Say it. I'm not an American I'm a socialist
Proof
Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
Blood will be in the streets because of you and your views.
The unions are running out of Obama money and will be getting mad soon. When that happens your done. Cheeks
i misspelled "ignorance" like you misspelled "acknowledge".lol.
i addressed my error so...what are you talking about? i knew my questions were too hard for you to answer. coward
once again:
1.)how exactly is it a problem?( using an online source)
2.)how are you capable to tell me what certain emotions im aware of?
3.)how did i kill any comments?
4.)why did you choose to respond to that specfic comment(one that was written nearly a week ago)
you must be upset that i didnt tell you if my football team won last week.
SPREAD THE WORD