Jump to content
Paulding.com

the boycott thing doesn't seem to be working


Recommended Posts

Everyone knows, huh? EVERY SINGLE person... huh? Yeah... right.

 

Believe what? I am giving him the benefit out doubt.

 

He did not clarify or expound on what he meant. YOU, like all the other people are "ASS"uming you know what he meant.

 

Nobody asked him to clarify it.

 

If this discussion would take place in a court of law and have a jury or judge decide what he meant,

it would be dismissed because it's pure SPECULATION.

 

YOU love putting words in people's mouths... you do it in just about every thread you post in,

so it really doesn't surprise me that you won't ask for clarification from him either.

I do find it funny that he specifically mentioned FIRST wives. He didn't say "wives," he said, "FIRST WIVES."

 

Typical left wing over reaction emotional bullcheeze.

 

 

 

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

:drinks: :drinks:

 

What drivel. No one is buying that argument. Everyone knows what it was about. I will be willing to bet a year's salary if we did a survey, the overwhelming majority will say he was talking about homosexuality and not the other things you mentioned.. Would you be willing to make that bet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What's so funny is there was no mention of gay or homosexual in what Mr. Cathy said. He didn't denounce anyone or make any comments that referenced being gay or gay marriage in any way shape or form.

Ah, I must be winning because you've started name calling.   Funny how your side loves to point fingers at people and call them haters; yet you are the ones who are hateful.

I am pretty sure that I will be fed up with the bitching first.

"National" as in "nation wide."

 

 

History will see your position as bigoted as the segregationist.

 

Ah, I must be winning because you've started name calling.

 

Funny how your side loves to point fingers at people and call them haters; yet you are the ones who are hateful.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

What drivel. No one is buying that argument. Everyone knows what it was about. I will be willing to bet a year's salary if we did a survey, the overwhelming majority will say he was talking about homosexuality and not the other things you mentioned.. Would you be willing to make that bet?

 

I don't make bets on what idiots "ASS"ume and won't clarify what was meant.

 

Besides, I bet your years salary wouldn't even pay for my range time every week.

 

You taking a poll of people doesn't change what he meant. Only HE can answer as to what he meant.

God, I hope you are NEVER called for jury duty, because you fail to use logic and fact.

 

If he specifically stated that he was against homosexuals, that is one thing. He didn't.

 

As I said... typical left wing extremist over-reactionary bullcheeze.

Edited by Nitro
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I must be winning because you've started name calling.

 

Funny how your side loves to point fingers at people and call them haters; yet you are the ones who are hateful.

 

 

To be fair, I don't think she called you a name. I think she is full of sheeze, but I don't think she called you a name.

 

What has you and Coalson off the highway at the same time? D-Con again? :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't make bets on what idiots "ASS"ume and won't clarify what was meant.

 

You taking a poll of people doesn't change what he meant. Only HE can answer as to what he meant.

God, I hope you are NEVER called for jury duty, because you fail to use logic and fact.

 

If he specifically stated that he was against homosexuals, that is one thing. He didn't.

 

As I said... typical left wing extremist over-reactionary bullcheeze.

 

Nitro - I'm clearly ahead of you because she called me a bigot. :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I don't think she called you a name. I think she is full of sheeze, but I don't think she called you a name.

 

What has you and Coalson off the highway at the same time? D-Con again? :rofl:

 

Oh, I'm not off there. I have about 5 or 6 forums I post on. I still pop in here at times and read zoopropagandist's posts for some comic relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

National public policy of discrimination, that's funny! Who is discriminating? It's funny how everyone forgets the values this country was founded on! Our forefathers believed in GOD!!! This country and our government was founded on Christian beliefs but today we can't get a politician to say they r for or against anything, we can't offend anyone! But who cares if they offend those of us who oppose it! I bridge in a marriage between man and woman, according to the bible, people will call me ignorant, bigot, close minded, why ? Because I have faith in a living God and choose to live by His laws! So u r discriminating against me!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm not off there. I have about 5 or 6 forums I post on. I still pop in here at times and read zoopropagandist's posts for some comic relief.

 

 

She's almost as funny as watching a Mr. Bean marathon!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I must be winning because you've started name calling.

 

Funny how your side loves to point fingers at people and call them haters; yet you are the ones who are hateful.

 

Wrong again.

 

I specifically said your POSITION was bigoted. I did NOT say you were a bigot.

 

National public policy of discrimination, that's funny! Who is discriminating? It's funny how everyone forgets the values this country was founded on! Our forefathers believed in GOD!!! This country and our government was founded on Christian beliefs but today we can't get a politician to say they r for or against anything, we can't offend anyone! But who cares if they offend those of us who oppose it! I bridge in a marriage between man and woman, according to the bible, people will call me ignorant, bigot, close minded, why ? Because I have faith in a living God and choose to live by His laws! So u r discriminating against me!!

 

Uh, really? Would you please show us in the Constitution where is says anything about our nation being founded on Christian beliefs? What specific item in the Constitution is uniquely Christian?

 

I don't make bets on what idiots "ASS"ume and won't clarify what was meant.

 

Besides, I bet your years salary wouldn't even pay for my range time every week.

 

You taking a poll of people doesn't change what he meant. Only HE can answer as to what he meant.

God, I hope you are NEVER called for jury duty, because you fail to use logic and fact.

 

If he specifically stated that he was against homosexuals, that is one thing. He didn't.

 

As I said... typical left wing extremist over-reactionary bullcheeze.

 

Ooooo K. You keep believing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong again.

 

I specifically said your POSITION was bigoted. I did NOT say you were a bigot.

 

 

 

Uh, really? Would you please show us in the Constitution where is says anything about our nation being founded on Christian beliefs? What specific item in the Constitution is uniquely Christian?

Why is their position bigoted, because it's different from yours and only yours is right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

National public policy of discrimination, that's funny! Who is discriminating? It's funny how everyone forgets the values this country was founded on! Our forefathers believed in GOD!!! This country and our government was founded on Christian beliefs but today we can't get a politician to say they r for or against anything, we can't offend anyone! But who cares if they offend those of us who oppose it! I bridge in a marriage between man and woman, according to the bible, people will call me ignorant, bigot, close minded, why ? Because I have faith in a living God and choose to live by His laws! So u r discriminating against me!!

 

 

No, what's funny is that so many people use that "our country was founded on Christian beliefs" line... when nothing is further from the truth.

Our forefathers did not base our government on Christian beliefs. They based it on freedom of religion by all.

One of the primary reasons for the revolution, besides taxation, was the pressure that was put on colonists to have

England's state sponsored church. Our forefathers specifically warned us about having a nation tied to a specific religion.

 

You need to re-read your history books... especially the writings of our forefathers.

 

And... yes, I am a Christian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is their position bigoted, because it's different from yours and only yours is right?

 

No, because it makes one class of people second class and they are not given the same rights as all other Americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what's funny is that so many people use that "our country was founded on Christian beliefs" line... when nothing is further from the truth.

Our forefathers did not base our government on Christian beliefs. They based it on freedom of religion by all.

One of the primary reasons for the revolution, besides taxation, was the pressure that was put on colonists to have

England's state sponsored church. Our forefathers specifically warned us about having a nation tied to a specific religion.

 

You need to re-read your history books... especially the writings of our forefathers.

 

And... yes, I am a Christian.

Uhm you need to re read our history books. Our country was founded on Christian beliefs, they did not want a church to be able to interfere with what they wanted though, nor did they want a specific church to be recognized as being in power. Great Britain made that mistake already and our forefathers did not want it to befall upon their new country

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because it makes one class of people second class and they are not given the same rights as all other Americans.

That's bull$&$$ me believing in a marriage between man and woman does not mean that I believe anyone is "second class"! Don't assume that! I have a cousin who is gay and love him dearly!!! I would never think less of anyone !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because it makes one class of people second class and they are not given the same rights as all other Americans.

I bet that you have more rights than me ZC. And that would be year's salary for year's salary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's bull{:content:}amp;$ me believing in a marriage between man and woman does not mean that I believe anyone is "second class"! Don't assume that! I have a cousin who is gay and love him dearly!!! I would never think less of anyone !!!

 

He is second class if he is not allowed to marry whomever he wants as you may do. You have first class status and he doesn't.

 

Uhm you need to re read our history books. Our country was founded on Christian beliefs, they did not want a church to be able to interfere with what they wanted though, nor did they want a specific church to be recognized as being in power. Great Britain made that mistake already and our forefathers did not want it to befall upon their new country

 

If that's true, then please point to the uniquely Christian principles in the Constitution. If we were founded on Christian beliefs, it would be in the Constitution, would it not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm you need to re read our history books. Our country was founded on Christian beliefs, they did not want a church to be able to interfere with what they wanted though, nor did they want a specific church to be recognized as being in power. Great Britain made that mistake already and our forefathers did not want it to befall upon their new country

 

 

Please find me ANY document ANYWHERE, by ANY of our forefathers that say ANYTHING about this country being founded upon Christian beliefs.

 

If you do your research, that majority of our forefathers held to deism and Freemasonry tenets.

 

I know American history VERY well... and you are flat out wrong.

Edited by Nitro
Link to post
Share on other sites

He is second class if he is not allowed to marry whomever he wants as you may do. You have first class status and he doesn't.

 

 

 

If that's true, then please point to the uniquely Christian principles in the Constitution. If we were founded on Christian beliefs, it would be in the Constitution, would it not?

Please read this Link

 

http://www.afn.org/~govern/Christian_Nation.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please find me ANY document ANYWHERE, by ANY of our forefathers that say ANYTHING about this country being founded upon Christian beliefs.

 

I know American history VERY well... and you are flat out wrong.

I hope you do not teach

 

 

 

 

http://www.afn.org/~govern/Christian_Nation.html

 

That is revisionist (and very poor) history.

And you are a history scholar?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you do not teach

 

 

 

 

http://www.afn.org/~govern/Christian_Nation.html

 

 

And you are a history scholar?

 

I hope YOU don't teach. Once again, show me ANY document that is government based or issued by our forefathers that say this country

is founded on Christian beliefs.

 

Let me tell you, I CAN issue a legal document that says it ISN'T.

 

Do a little search on the Treaty of Tripoli and look at article 11. This is a LEGAL US Document of the Government.

 

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

 

This was signed in during Washington's last term as President. Last time I checked, he was a founding forefather.

 

Oh, and I'll bet you are going to say a treaty isn't law... So, before you do, the Constitution specifically says that it is:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

 

 

I suggest you do a little more research and learn your US History... because you are so far off base it's not funny.

 

Yes, I am a history scholar. :rolleyes:

Edited by Nitro
Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as you people want to deny the truth you can not. It would have been unheard of especially in colonial america and the beginnings of our beloved country that the founders would not have made this a christian nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as you people want to deny the truth you can not. It would have been unheard of especially in colonial america and the beginnings of our beloved country that the founders would not have made this a christian nation.

 

 

I'm not denying the truth... I'm relaying the truth.

 

You can't provide one piece of documented evidence that our founding fathers formed a Christian nation. Not one.

 

You DO NOT know US History. BTW, please capitalize America.

 

Our founding fathers were not Christian... so why in the hell would they form a nation based on a religion that they are not part of?

 

You should really let your Bible thumping beliefs quit interfering with actual facts.

 

Like I said, I am a Christian... but I know what the facts and history of this country are. And they are most definitely not Christian based.

 

I provided you with a United States legal document... you have provide NOTHING of fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope YOU don't teach. Once again, show me ANY document that is government based or issued by our forefathers that say this country

is founded on Christian beliefs.

 

Let me tell you, I CAN issue a legal document that says it ISN'T.

 

Do a little search on the Treaty of Tripoli and look at article 11. This is a LEGAL US Document of the Government.

 

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

 

This was signed in during Washington's last term as President. Last time I checked, he was a founding forefather.

 

Oh, and I'll bet you are going to say a treaty isn't law... So, before you do, the Constitution specifically says that it is:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

 

 

I suggest you do a little more research and learn your US History... because you are so far off base it's not funny.

 

Yes, I am a history scholar. :rolleyes:

Go back to fingschool. Washington approved nothing, this was a treaty with the Muslims and the last thing you want ot be in a muslim country is christian, and this treaty lasted how long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the constitution was founded on Christian principles can some one please explain why Christians are so strongly against alcohol? A majority of the constitutional coventions were held in taverns after all. Just asking ....

 

Since when are "Christian's" against alcohol?

 

Didn't Christ serve wine at the last supper?

 

I know there are some "extreme" versions of the Christian faith that are against it, but certainly not all.

 

Hell, the United States Marines were formed in a tavern!

 

Oh, I'm a Christian and I just cursed! Ah-woo-woo!

 

Go back to fingschool. Washington approved nothing, this was a treaty with the Muslims and the last thing you want ot be in a muslim country is christian, and this treaty lasted how long.

 

 

Hey, knuckle-head. I didn't say Washington approved anything. I said he was in office when it was adopted in to LAW.

 

 

Last time I checked, the President doesn't "approve" the law. That's the job of the Congress.

 

I'd have though someone who thinks they know so much about government and it's history would know that. :rolleyes:

 

Oh, did you know that Thomas Jefferson was atheist the ministers of his day?

While he wasn't truly an atheist, I would think they writer of our Constitution would not be called that by

the clergy, if he was founding the country on Christian principles.

Edited by Nitro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when are "Christian's" against alcohol?

 

Didn't Christ serve wine at the last supper?

 

I know there are some "extreme" versions of the Christian faith that are against it, but certainly not all.

 

Hell, the United States Marines were formed in a tavern!

 

Oh, I'm a Christian and I just cursed! Ah-woo-woo!

 

 

 

 

Hey, knuckle-head. I didn't say Washington approved anything. I said he was in office when it was adopted in to LAW.

 

 

Last time I checked, the President doesn't "approve" the law. That's the job of the Congress.

 

I'd have though someone who thinks they know so much about government and it's history would know that. :rolleyes:

 

he did not sign it into law either

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is second class if he is not allowed to marry whomever he wants as you may do. You have first class status and he doesn't.

 

 

Can I marry my mother? (not that I would, just making a point)

 

 

 

Courts have held up time and again that states have the legal right to regulate marriage. None of us can marry anyone we want, we have to abide by the rules.

 

Once again, you're spouting propaganda with no legal grounds.

 

You need to contact the mothership for better responses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

he did not sign it into law either

 

Well, Mr. or Mrs. history buff... here's another tid-bit of information for you.

 

The President doesn't sign in to law, Constitutional documents.

 

The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797.

It was ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797

 

 

Starting with Johnson, signing of Constitutional documents of the President was instituted for ceremonial purposes.

Their signature is nothing more than a witness signature... it carries not legal bounds to actually instituting the law.

 

 

As far as how long the treaty lasted... it doesn't matter. It was enacted DURING our forefathers time.

It was later repealed. If it wasn't their view, it would never gotten enacted.

Try using your noggin' for something other than a hat rack.

 

 

But once again, please show me ANYTHING from our founding fathers that stated they were starting a Christian nation?

Do you not understand that they were not Christian's?

Just keep babbling... you can't and won't post ANYTHING from our founding fathers that state otherwise.

Edited by Nitro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I marry my mother? (not that I would, just making a point)

 

 

 

Courts have held up time and again that states have the legal right to regulate marriage. None of us can marry anyone we want, we have to abide by the rules.

 

Once again, you're spouting propaganda with no legal grounds.

 

You need to contact the mothership for better responses.

 

That is a different issue altogether as that involves incest.

 

This is not about incest but about the legal contract to marry the person you want to marry.

 

The argument you're using is the same as the one used to support Jim Crow laws. There is no difference between that civil rights issue and gay rights. The same 14th Amendment should apply to everyone. It is working its way through the courts. Again, one day your position will be viewed in the same light as the segregationist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when are "Christian's" against alcohol?

 

Didn't Christ serve wine at the last supper?

 

I know there are some "extreme" versions of the Christian faith that are against it, but certainly not all.

 

Hell, the United States Marines were formed in a tavern!

 

Oh, I'm a Christian and I just cursed! Ah-woo-woo!

 

 

 

 

Hey, knuckle-head. I didn't say Washington approved anything. I said he was in office when it was adopted in to LAW.

 

 

Last time I checked, the President doesn't "approve" the law. That's the job of the Congress.

 

I'd have though someone who thinks they know so much about government and it's history would know that. :rolleyes:

 

Oh, did you know that Thomas Jefferson was atheist the ministers of his day?

While he wasn't truly an atheist, I would think they writer of our Constitution would not be called that by

the clergy, if he was founding the country on Christian principles.

 

Tun tavern 1776 :)

 

I dunno, not being able to buy beer on Sunday comes to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a different issue altogether as that involves incest.

 

This is not about incest but about the legal contract to marry the person you want to marry.

 

The argument you're using is the same as the one used to support Jim Crow laws. There is no difference between that civil rights issue and gay rights. The same 14th Amendment should apply to everyone. It is working its way through the courts. Again, one day your position will be viewed in the same light as the segregationist.

 

 

Actually it's about a Christian man standing by his convictions on same sex marriages. :pardon:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a different issue altogether as that involves incest.

 

This is not about incest but about the legal contract to marry the person you want to marry.

 

The argument you're using is the same as the one used to support Jim Crow laws. There is no difference between that civil rights issue and gay rights. The same 14th Amendment should apply to everyone. It is working its way through the courts. Again, one day your position will be viewed in the same light as the segregationist.

 

I'm not advocating incest and you know it. I was shooting down your "free to marry anyone" crap. None of us are free to marry anyone we want. We all have to play by the rules in the state we marry in.

 

And don't start with the 14th. You know good and well it was to address slavery.

 

Your canned responses are quite dated. You really really need to get new propaganda from your superiors. I see the same dozen or so canned responses from you propagandists on various forums. They teach you just enough to mislead the uninformed. You people are the JW's of politics.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Mr. or Mrs. history buff... here's another tid-bit of information for you.

 

The President doesn't sign in to law, Constitutional documents.

 

The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797.

It was ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797

 

 

Starting with Johnson, signing of Constitutional documents of the President was instituted for ceremonial purposes.

Their signature is nothing more than a witness signature... it carries not legal bounds to actually instituting the law.

 

 

As far as how long the treaty lasted... it doesn't matter. It was enacted DURING our forefathers time.

It was later repealed. If it wasn't their view, it would never gotten enacted.

Try using your noggin' for something other than a hat rack.

Ok you are a fool if you believe that the foundation of this country is not christian. I couold care less what argument you make and vice versa. Basically this topic along with others has gone awry and we are arguing moot points. I will forfeit and say that you and ZC have won, for I know that within the nest 2 years lbgt will have what they want and soon our melting pot will become a couldron in the eternal depths of Hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not advocating incest and you know it. I was shooting down your "free to marry anyone" crap. None of us are free to marry anyone we want. We all have to play by the rules in the state we marry in.

 

And don't start with the 14th. You know good and well it was to address slavery.

 

Your canned responses are quite dated. You really really need to get new propaganda from your superiors. I see the same dozen or so canned responses from you propagandists on various forums. They teach you just enough to mislead the uninformed. You people are the JW's of politics.

 

Where did I say you were advocating incest? Where? Hmmm? Where? Please, oh please, where did I say you were advocating incest? I said the issue you raised was about incest and that is an altogether different topic than gay marriage.

 

Please try to keep up with the conversation.

 

The 14th Amendment is the argument and the basis. Anyone with a degree knows this. I'm sure you are aware of it because it is covered in Poly Sci 102, American History to 1865, and American History After 1865. So you should have covered all that.

 

The 14th Amendment also applies to all civil rights cases, just like the court applied the 14th Amendment when it upheld GA's ban on guns in churches. You know this but are intentionally not telling the whole story.

 

Again, your arguments are the same as those that were used to deny civil rights before and they won't work now, either.

 

Ok you are a fool if you believe that the foundation of this country is not christian. I couold care less what argument you make and vice versa. Basically this topic along with others has gone awry and we are arguing moot points. I will forfeit and say that you and ZC have won, for I know that within the nest 2 years lbgt will have what they want and soon our melting pot will become a couldron in the eternal depths of Hell.

 

So let me see if I get this right. You want your religious views to be the basis of our laws now. How is that different than the Muslims who put their Islamic ideas in their laws? You want the US government to make laws that conform to your views about sin and righteousness, correct? How is that different than the Taliban, sans the violence?

Edited by zoocrew
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...