Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

[protectionist]

Reagan Neocon? Why do so many people use that term without knowing what it meant. Reagan was a fiscal conservative, he wasn't a big government spender.

What was even his military use that justifies the label? Grenada? OK, he toppled the government, but clearly nation building was not his primary objective in selecting an Island in the Caribbean to topple a Communist government. He didn't topple Lebanon even though he was involved in it. He didn't topple Libya, he just retaliated against them for terrorism like the German disco attack. He wrecked the USSR financially.

You realize "Neocon" has an actual definition. How does it make sense more than tangentially to Reagan?

Who are you talking to ???????????

I was talking to you. I wrote a great rebuttal ... to a point you didn't make. I thought you called him a neo-conservative, you called him a non-conservative. Yes, I do have reading glasses, no, I wasn't wearing them. I'm not sure I agree with your view, but I do understand your confusion. Damn, one letter is one letter off, and yet such a different meaning. I need to be punished...

Bad kaz, read better, bad kaz! Twenty lashes for you...

No harm done. We all mistakes. At least you're not makin them on every post, like all the design-of-nature refuters on this board.

As for Reagan's non-Conservatism, well, first one must have a distinct perception of what REAL Conservatism is. This might vary from person to person, but the biggest distinction is a generational one. In general, I've found that people under 40, who call themselves Conservatives, are what I call Psuedo-Conservatives (or Reaganists). They are too young to remember the days before Reagan lowered the marginal individual tax (top bracket) down to 28%, and it's never risen above 39.6% since. Before Reagan though, that tax varied from 70-94%. Reagan singlehandedly changed the definition of Conservative from it's true definition (CONSERVING America's values, principles and culture, and providing a strong National Defense and infrastructure), to one of simply protecting the fortunes of the super rich from taxation, thereby supporting a small, weak govt, with low taxes and low spending. Quite amazing how one greedy guy with one of the highest employee incomes in America, could change an entire national political philosophy, just to pad his own pocket.

Maybe the best way to show the distinction between Reagan's non-Conservatism and REAL Conservatism is to compare him to a REAL conservative and observe the stark difference. For the REAL Conservative, I'll choose the guy in my avatar > Dwight D. Eisenhower.

1. For his whole 8 years of presidency, the top bracket tax was never less than 91%. This supported the FBI, the CIA, INS, DEA, all the military, etc. Reagan lowered this tax to 28%.

2. Eisenhower created the US interstate highway system, while under Reagan's admin, infrastructure was largely ignored.

3. Eisenhower chased huge numbers of illegal aliens back to Mexico, with his Operation Wetback in 1954. 32 years later, Reagan gave them amnesty.

4. Eisenhower did and said nothing to support homosexuals. Reagan condemned the Briggs initiative in California, helping to prevent the law which would have kept queers out of schools.

5. Lastly, while Ike, as Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War II, was grinding his way across Germany, and on his way to victory in Berlin, in 1945, Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Who are you talking to ???????????

I was talking to you. I wrote a great rebuttal ... to a point you didn't make. I thought you called him a neo-conservative, you called him a non-conservative. Yes, I do have reading glasses, no, I wasn't wearing them. I'm not sure I agree with your view, but I do understand your confusion. Damn, one letter is one letter off, and yet such a different meaning. I need to be punished...

Bad kaz, read better, bad kaz! Twenty lashes for you...

No harm done. We all mistakes. At least you're not makin them on every post, like all the design-of-nature refuters on this board.

As for Reagan's non-Conservatism, well, first one must have a distinct perception of what REAL Conservatism is. This might vary from person to person, but the biggest distinction is a generational one. In general, I've found that people under 40, who call themselves Conservatives, are what I call Psuedo-Conservatives (or Reaganists). They are too young to remember the days before Reagan lowered the marginal individual tax (top bracket) down to 28%, and it's never risen above 39.6% since. Before Reagan though, that tax varied from 70-94%. Reagan singlehandedly changed the definition of Conservative from it's true definition (CONSERVING America's values, principles and culture, and providing a strong National Defense and infrastructure), to one of simply protecting the fortunes of the super rich from taxation, thereby supporting a small, weak govt, with low taxes and low spending. Quite amazing how one greedy guy with one of the highest employee incomes in America, could change an entire national political philosophy, just to pad his own pocket.

Maybe the best way to show the distinction between Reagan's non-Conservatism and REAL Conservatism is to compare him to a REAL conservative and observe the stark difference. For the REAL Conservative, I'll choose the guy in my avatar > Dwight D. Eisenhower.

1. For his whole 8 years of presidency, the top bracket tax was never less than 91%. This supported the FBI, the CIA, INS, DEA, all the military, etc. Reagan lowered this tax to 28%.

2. Eisenhower created the US interstate highway system, while under Reagan's admin, infrastructure was largely ignored.

3. Eisenhower chased huge numbers of illegal aliens back to Mexico, with his Operation Wetback in 1954. 32 years later, Reagan gave them amnesty.

4. Eisenhower did and said nothing to support homosexuals. Reagan condemned the Briggs initiative in California, helping to prevent the law which would have kept queers out of schools.

5. Lastly, while Ike, as Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War II, was grinding his way across Germany, and on his way to victory in Berlin, in 1945, Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it.

That's some serious I Like Ike. He wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell today.

 

[protectionist]

Oh General, Pew poll: 61% of Republicans under age 30 support legalizing gay marriage « Hot Air

Pew Poll (2044) - 61% of Republicans age 50 - 60 oppose legalizing queer marriage.

 

[protectionist]

I was talking to you. I wrote a great rebuttal ... to a point you didn't make. I thought you called him a neo-conservative, you called him a non-conservative. Yes, I do have reading glasses, no, I wasn't wearing them. I'm not sure I agree with your view, but I do understand your confusion. Damn, one letter is one letter off, and yet such a different meaning. I need to be punished...

Bad kaz, read better, bad kaz! Twenty lashes for you...

No harm done. We all mistakes. At least you're not makin them on every post, like all the design-of-nature refuters on this board.

As for Reagan's non-Conservatism, well, first one must have a distinct perception of what REAL Conservatism is. This might vary from person to person, but the biggest distinction is a generational one. In general, I've found that people under 40, who call themselves Conservatives, are what I call Psuedo-Conservatives (or Reaganists). They are too young to remember the days before Reagan lowered the marginal individual tax (top bracket) down to 28%, and it's never risen above 39.6% since. Before Reagan though, that tax varied from 70-94%. Reagan singlehandedly changed the definition of Conservative from it's true definition (CONSERVING America's values, principles and culture, and providing a strong National Defense and infrastructure), to one of simply protecting the fortunes of the super rich from taxation, thereby supporting a small, weak govt, with low taxes and low spending. Quite amazing how one greedy guy with one of the highest employee incomes in America, could change an entire national political philosophy, just to pad his own pocket.

Maybe the best way to show the distinction between Reagan's non-Conservatism and REAL Conservatism is to compare him to a REAL conservative and observe the stark difference. For the REAL Conservative, I'll choose the guy in my avatar > Dwight D. Eisenhower.

1. For his whole 8 years of presidency, the top bracket tax was never less than 91%. This supported the FBI, the CIA, INS, DEA, all the military, etc. Reagan lowered this tax to 28%.

2. Eisenhower created the US interstate highway system, while under Reagan's admin, infrastructure was largely ignored.

3. Eisenhower chased huge numbers of illegal aliens back to Mexico, with his Operation Wetback in 1954. 32 years later, Reagan gave them amnesty.

4. Eisenhower did and said nothing to support homosexuals. Reagan condemned the Briggs initiative in California, helping to prevent the law which would have kept queers out of schools.

5. Lastly, while Ike, as Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War II, was grinding his way across Germany, and on his way to victory in Berlin, in 1945, Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it.

That's some serious I Like Ike. He wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell today.

In doing what ?

 

[protectionist]

Hey, call me stupid. I admit I am far educated beyond my intelligence.
I have been beat up, shot at and left for dead. Played a lot of ball against the best.
So I am stupid.

No, but even if I was at least I have common sense to treat fellow humans with decency and respect.

You are a fake, a fraud on this issue. You hide behind your ignorance and bigotry attempting to portray yourself as something other than what you are.

When you advocate homosexuality and lend dignity to it, you are treating fellow humans with INdecency and DISrespect.

I've met many, with more dignity than you General.

By your perverted definition of "dignity", which can only establish a compliment. Thanks, man!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh General, Pew poll: 61% of Republicans under age 30 support legalizing gay marriage « Hot Air

Pew Poll (2044) - 61% of Republicans age 50 - 60 oppose legalizing queer marriage.

The future lies not in those soon to die General.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No harm done. We all mistakes. At least you're not makin them on every post, like all the design-of-nature refuters on this board.

As for Reagan's non-Conservatism, well, first one must have a distinct perception of what REAL Conservatism is. This might vary from person to person, but the biggest distinction is a generational one. In general, I've found that people under 40, who call themselves Conservatives, are what I call Psuedo-Conservatives (or Reaganists). They are too young to remember the days before Reagan lowered the marginal individual tax (top bracket) down to 28%, and it's never risen above 39.6% since. Before Reagan though, that tax varied from 70-94%. Reagan singlehandedly changed the definition of Conservative from it's true definition (CONSERVING America's values, principles and culture, and providing a strong National Defense and infrastructure), to one of simply protecting the fortunes of the super rich from taxation, thereby supporting a small, weak govt, with low taxes and low spending. Quite amazing how one greedy guy with one of the highest employee incomes in America, could change an entire national political philosophy, just to pad his own pocket.

Maybe the best way to show the distinction between Reagan's non-Conservatism and REAL Conservatism is to compare him to a REAL conservative and observe the stark difference. For the REAL Conservative, I'll choose the guy in my avatar > Dwight D. Eisenhower.

1. For his whole 8 years of presidency, the top bracket tax was never less than 91%. This supported the FBI, the CIA, INS, DEA, all the military, etc. Reagan lowered this tax to 28%.

2. Eisenhower created the US interstate highway system, while under Reagan's admin, infrastructure was largely ignored.

3. Eisenhower chased huge numbers of illegal aliens back to Mexico, with his Operation Wetback in 1954. 32 years later, Reagan gave them amnesty.

4. Eisenhower did and said nothing to support homosexuals. Reagan condemned the Briggs initiative in California, helping to prevent the law which would have kept queers out of schools.

5. Lastly, while Ike, as Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War II, was grinding his way across Germany, and on his way to victory in Berlin, in 1945, Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it.

That's some serious I Like Ike. He wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell today.

In doing what ?

Anything...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When you advocate homosexuality and lend dignity to it, you are treating fellow humans with INdecency and DISrespect.

I've met many, with more dignity than you General.

By your perverted definition of "dignity", which can only establish a compliment. Thanks, man!

Perverted? Not in the slightest. I admire men, which leaves you on the sidelines watching.

 

[protectionist]

We have people here that "want to be left alone" as if gays here and there have somehow infringed on their rights and "religious freedom".

Bogus claim as NOT ONE person was found in the entire state of AZ that was denied their religious freedom.
They are bull shitting us. They do not like homosexuals out of the closet, can not have that and must fight that yet put a HAPPY FACE on that argument and package it as what it isn't because there is NO evidence to support it.

I package my fight against homosexuality as just what you said. I don't like homosexuals out of the closet. No HAPPY FACE. Just simple stop homosexuality, because it's a mental disorder, it is a major disturbance, a sexually, perverted subversion of normal American culture, and a great danger to children.

The AMA, APA, and the majority of the American people disagree with you. Now what? Will you die upon your soapbox General? So be it...

EARTH TO PMH: Anyone who would be so ridiculous to refer to such laughingstocks as the AMA and the APA, could only be considered to be...well...a laughingstock.
As for who disagrees with me ? Apparently not 68% of the states in America which currently ban same sex marriage as well as these states >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a.html

 

[elektra]

First of all Mr. Stretch, the Loving vs. Virginia case is about race, not sexual orientation, and whatever naturalness or unnaturalness is mentioned there, it pertains to races, not sexes. What is true for apples, is not necessarily true for oranges.

Secondly, this is your strike 3, wherin you had a prime chance to present the words of the SCOTUS mentioning "unnatural", which you again have failed to do. I said before, I wasn't saying yet that you had lost. We're not going to hopscotch this all day. You lost.

Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.

I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.

You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."

So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.

Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.

In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>

So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>

The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.

Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.

And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual.

The answer was given to me when my daughter was 10, in school, when her Homosexual teacher told the whole class that he was breaking up with his "life partner".

What right do Homosexuals have to tell 10 year old children that are not theirs about Homosexuality?

Well, this is the beginning of a terrible story that I will end here.

anyone who does not have the intelligence to control their sexual proclivities has not the intelligence to be around children.

 

[protectionist]

The Courts are finding no Compelling State Interest, which means, you and your kind are screwed. Damn shame, those fags getting rights eh? I know, it was more fun when you used to be able to shove their heads in a toilet. Ah, the Good Old Days.

Ah the Good Old 2014 > 68% of the states ban SAM.

It was 100% not long ago. I am unconcerned but I'm betting you don't feel the same?

I feel just FINE >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a.html

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I package my fight against homosexuality as just what you said. I don't like homosexuals out of the closet. No HAPPY FACE. Just simple stop homosexuality, because it's a mental disorder, it is a major disturbance, a sexually, perverted subversion of normal American culture, and a great danger to children.

The AMA, APA, and the majority of the American people disagree with you. Now what? Will you die upon your soapbox General? So be it...

EARTH TO PMH: Anyone who would be so ridiculous to refer to such laughingstocks as the AMA and the APA, could only be considered to be...well...a laughingstock.
As for who disagrees with me ? Apparently not 68% of the states in America which currently ban same sex marriage as well as these states >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a.html

Ah, the General believes the earth to be flat because all the neighbors say so? So be it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ah the Good Old 2014 > 68% of the states ban SAM.

It was 100% not long ago. I am unconcerned but I'm betting you don't feel the same?

I feel just FINE >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a.html

Ah, it didn't get signed into the law, and the others dropped theirs. Just the death rattle of the soon to be departed, like us both General.

 

[protectionist]

That's some serious I Like Ike. He wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell today.

In doing what ?

Anything...

If Ike were in charge today, he'd rally the whole country behind him. He'd have illegal immigration stopped cold, by lining up US warships off both Mexican coasts and doing Operation Wetback allover again, combined with enforcement of IRCA. He'd put the top tax back to 92%, build the military back up, along with ICE, FBI, CIA, DEA, etc fix serious infrastructure catastrophes waiting to happen, like the Wolf Creek Dam in KY, the delta levees in California, and the whole nation electric power grid. He'd clean the rat's nest of Muslim Brotherhood operatives out of the govt. Hell, he might even have banned voicemail. YAY!!

 

[protectionist]

Oh General, Pew poll: 61% of Republicans under age 30 support legalizing gay marriage « Hot Air

Pew Poll (2044) - 61% of Republicans age 50 - 60 oppose legalizing queer marriage.

The future lies not in those soon to die General.

Another example of a post being refuted by the post it quoted.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In doing what ?

Anything...

If Ike were in charge today, he'd rally the whole country behind him. He'd have illegal immigration stopped cold, by lining up US warships off both Mexican coasts and doing Operation Wetback allover again, combined with enforcement of IRCA. He'd put the top tax back to 92%, build the military back up, along with ICE, FBI, CIA, DEA, etc fix serious infrastructure catastrophes waiting to happen, like the Wolf Creek Dam in KY, the delta levees in California, and the whole nation electric power grid. He'd clean the rat's nest of Muslim Brotherhood operatives out of the govt. Hell, he might even have banned voicemail. YAY!!

Dreams of Glory, the daydreams of an old man, of a time long gone by. So be it General, so be it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Pew Poll (2044) - 61% of Republicans age 50 - 60 oppose legalizing queer marriage.

The future lies not in those soon to die General.

Another example of a post being refuted by the post it quoted.

Did you forget that the future is not ours my old friend? It belongs to the young, who care not for your opinion, or mine. That much you should have learned by now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

And not only a right to be left alone, but a basic assurance. Homosexuality is not apparent. It isn't a trait or an attribute, it is not visible to the eye nor audible. It is a behavior. Unless someone engages in the behavior in front of you, you have no way of knowing that they engage in it.

Dawg is arguing from a position of stupidity - but this level of stupidity has successfully bullied people, so he figures he can get away with it.

Hey, call me stupid. I admit I am far educated beyond my intelligence.

You got through 3rd grade? I am impressed.

 

[protectionist]

"And 34 US states have declared that to be so with bans on queer marriage."

SCOTUS will rule that the states', while having the power to regulate marriage, cannot deny civil rights per the 14th.

Yeah ? And after 50 years of NOT RULING THAT, what gives you the notion that suddenly they will ?

Actually that is the gist of the Loving decision in 1967. That states can regulate Civil Marriage until such time as they violate rights.

EARTH TO JS: The SCOTUS has already ruled that they CAN discriminate. Are you reading the thread ? Try to keep up.

Which case was that?

BTW - It wasn't in Windsor v. United States, that decision was about federal law and not whether states could discriminate against homosexuals in terms of Same-sex Civil Marriage. Would you believe the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court when he says the Windsor decision did settle whether States could discriminate?

Are you saying that states can't discriminate based on sexual orientation ?

 

[protectionist]

The future lies not in those soon to die General.

Another example of a post being refuted by the post it quoted.

Did you forget that the future is not ours my old friend? It belongs to the young, who care not for your opinion, or mine. That much you should have learned by now.

Some people have to have things repeated.

Pew Poll (2044) - 61% of Republicans age 50 - 60 oppose legalizing queer marriage.

In the "future", the young will not be the young. Get it ?