Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.And it does. If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion. I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.
There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.
I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
So you want churches to marry people but not tge government marrying people??It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.And it does. If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion. I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun
If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.
There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.
I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?
Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
cannot find where I answered it TWICE.
I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.
Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
since this is a simple NO.
That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone as the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights.
Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.And it does. If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion. I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.
There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.
I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
So you want churches to marry people but not tge government marrying people??It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.And it does. If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion. I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.
There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.
I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?
Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
cannot find where I answered it TWICE.
I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.
Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
since this is a simple NO.
That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone as the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights.
Dear Faun
A. we already AGREE that govt should manage the CIVIL contracts.
B. and no I don't agree AT ALL that govt needs to be
involved in the free practice and beliefs on marriage RITUALS in order to protect it
from other religious practices or beliefs, because that's like saying
Govt needs to regulate Buddhist or Islamic rituals in order
to prevent discrimination by Christians who don't follow that either!!!
You keep accusing me of "trying to deny people their rights"
WHY?
you misunderstand me completely
I am trying to defend YOUR beliefs and rights to exercise how YOU agre e to
EQUALLY
as the rights and beliefs of OTHERS who want the same thing
but don't agree with YOUR WAY!!!
* I'm trying to PROTECT YOU AND THE OTHERS EQUALLY
FROM INFRINGING ON EACH OTHER*
Why don't you get that???
Just because I defend your rights and beliefs
equally as theirs, that's a threat to you?
Why?
I said that's why the standard is consensus so you don't have to fear
anyone violating your consent, because that would violate consensus.
Do you not get what consensus means?
And you still think it means someone else can violate your consent?
No, that is NOT what I MEAN by consensus.
I mean you and others both have to respect each other's
consent in order to respect and protect beliefs equally on both sides.
Sorry this isn't clear.
Just because i defend rights to practice ISLAM doesn;t mean
A. I practice or believe in that practice myself
B. or doesn't mean I believe in ABUSING Islam to violate or deny rights of others.
I am merely defending beliefs of people equally
and reporting to you the HONEST TRUTH
that your way of EXCLUDING and INSULTING other people
based on assumptions you keep making that are false and unfair
are SKEWING THE PROCESS and causing bias and misrepresentation.
Just because other people reject equal rights for gay marriage
doesn't give you the right to wrongfully accuse and misjudge me for what others do!
I'm trying to resolve this, not create or impose more!
Sorry you don't even get that my position is different.
You keep assuming I believe in imposing the other view
when I am asking to prevent EITHER view from imposing on the other!
Emily, gays and atheists don't want civil contracts. They want marriage.So you want churches to marry people but not tge government marrying people??It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.And it does. If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion. I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.
There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.
I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?
Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
cannot find where I answered it TWICE.
I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.
Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
since this is a simple NO.
That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone as the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights.
Dear Faun
A. we already AGREE that govt should manage the CIVIL contracts.
B. and no I don't agree AT ALL that govt needs to be
involved in the free practice and beliefs on marriage RITUALS in order to protect it
from other religious practices or beliefs, because that's like saying
Govt needs to regulate Buddhist or Islamic rituals in order
to prevent discrimination by Christians who don't follow that either!!!
You keep accusing me of "trying to deny people their rights"
WHY?
you misunderstand me completely
I am trying to defend YOUR beliefs and rights to exercise how YOU agre e to
EQUALLY
as the rights and beliefs of OTHERS who want the same thing
but don't agree with YOUR WAY!!!
* I'm trying to PROTECT YOU AND THE OTHERS EQUALLY
FROM INFRINGING ON EACH OTHER*
Why don't you get that???
Just because I defend your rights and beliefs
equally as theirs, that's a threat to you?
Why?
I said that's why the standard is consensus so you don't have to fear
anyone violating your consent, because that would violate consensus.
Do you not get what consensus means?
And you still think it means someone else can violate your consent?
No, that is NOT what I MEAN by consensus.
I mean you and others both have to respect each other's
consent in order to respect and protect beliefs equally on both sides.
Sorry this isn't clear.
Just because i defend rights to practice ISLAM doesn;t mean
A. I practice or believe in that practice myself
B. or doesn't mean I believe in ABUSING Islam to violate or deny rights of others.
I am merely defending beliefs of people equally
and reporting to you the HONEST TRUTH
that your way of EXCLUDING and INSULTING other people
based on assumptions you keep making that are false and unfair
are SKEWING THE PROCESS and causing bias and misrepresentation.
Just because other people reject equal rights for gay marriage
doesn't give you the right to wrongfully accuse and misjudge me for what others do!
I'm trying to resolve this, not create or impose more!
Sorry you don't even get that my position is different.
You keep assuming I believe in imposing the other view
when I am asking to prevent EITHER view from imposing on the other!
Emily, YOU are making the choice to post here. If it's too taxiing on you, I. suggest you post less and spend more time with your mother and on your two jobs.Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.
There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.
I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.
Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.And it does. If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion. I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.
If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?
Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.
There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.
I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
Emily, YOU are making the choice to post here. If it's too taxiing on you, I. suggest you post less and spend more time with your mother and on your two jobs.Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.
Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.
There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.
I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
Dear Faun
There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.
^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?
B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?
Emily, gays and atheists don't want civil contracts. They want marriage.So you want churches to marry people but not tge government marrying people??It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.
There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.
I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?
Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
cannot find where I answered it TWICE.
I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.
Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
since this is a simple NO.
That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?
That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?
Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.
A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone as the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)
In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.
The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights.
Dear Faun
A. we already AGREE that govt should manage the CIVIL contracts.
B. and no I don't agree AT ALL that govt needs to be
involved in the free practice and beliefs on marriage RITUALS in order to protect it
from other religious practices or beliefs, because that's like saying
Govt needs to regulate Buddhist or Islamic rituals in order
to prevent discrimination by Christians who don't follow that either!!!
You keep accusing me of "trying to deny people their rights"
WHY?
you misunderstand me completely
I am trying to defend YOUR beliefs and rights to exercise how YOU agre e to
EQUALLY
as the rights and beliefs of OTHERS who want the same thing
but don't agree with YOUR WAY!!!
* I'm trying to PROTECT YOU AND THE OTHERS EQUALLY
FROM INFRINGING ON EACH OTHER*
Why don't you get that???
Just because I defend your rights and beliefs
equally as theirs, that's a threat to you?
Why?
I said that's why the standard is consensus so you don't have to fear
anyone violating your consent, because that would violate consensus.
Do you not get what consensus means?
And you still think it means someone else can violate your consent?
No, that is NOT what I MEAN by consensus.
I mean you and others both have to respect each other's
consent in order to respect and protect beliefs equally on both sides.
Sorry this isn't clear.
Just because i defend rights to practice ISLAM doesn;t mean
A. I practice or believe in that practice myself
B. or doesn't mean I believe in ABUSING Islam to violate or deny rights of others.
I am merely defending beliefs of people equally
and reporting to you the HONEST TRUTH
that your way of EXCLUDING and INSULTING other people
based on assumptions you keep making that are false and unfair
are SKEWING THE PROCESS and causing bias and misrepresentation.
Just because other people reject equal rights for gay marriage
doesn't give you the right to wrongfully accuse and misjudge me for what others do!
I'm trying to resolve this, not create or impose more!
Sorry you don't even get that my position is different.
You keep assuming I believe in imposing the other view
when I am asking to prevent EITHER view from imposing on the other!
Marriage is a right and you have no place telling them they can't get married unless they get married in a church or marry someone who is not the person they love.
Marriage is here to stay and the government is going to continue issuing marriage licenses to protect the rights of religious folks who want others to lose the rights they enjoy.
Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies while not answering questions asked of you.Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.
There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.
I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
Dear Faun
There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.
^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?
B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?
Emily, YOU are making the choice to post here. If it's too taxiing on you, I. suggest you post less and spend more time with your mother and on your two jobs.Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.
Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies while not answering questions asked of you.Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
Dear Faun
There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.
^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?
B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?
Again... post less and spend more time with your mother. It will hopefully be more rewarding.
Idiot.... no one said there was a question why.Aren't you the one who said...Holyfuckingshit!by what you posed Faun I would agree
if that if the Republicans don't agree to a law because they say it's unconstitutional because it violates
their beliefs, then it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that law should NOT be enforced but changed.
if the Democrats don't agree to a law because they argue it's unconstitutional because it violates
their beliefs, same thing, it should be struck down or changed until both sides AGREE it is constitutional!
the problem Faun is we have DEMOCRATS insisting ACA and health care laws are constitutional
because THEY BELIEVE govt should be the central default for managing health care "as a right"
while REPUBLICANS insist it ISN'T constitutional and needs to be revised.
So I agree with you, since there is only one law, then if people don't agree because of their beliefs,
that law CANNOT be enforced as "law for all people"
We SHOULD use that standard of satisfying ALL parties and people's beliefs
before claiming to establish a law that touches on those beliefs.
Then we WOULDN'T have one group saying it's the law
and the other saying it violates law. We've got that going on now
because we don't finish the process of resolving conflicts to AGREE on one law!
No, Emily, laws are not unconstitutional because either party believes they are. Even worse for your nonsense, laws are not deemed constitutional because both parties agree to that.
What country do you live in that you believe that nonsense.
At the state and federal level, both parties pass laws. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not. Constitutionality of laws passed is not even in question. ALL laws are considered constitutional when passed and remain so until challenged within the judicial branch of our government. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, that judgement is rendered by the presiding judge(s), not the political parties, as you asininely believe.
I believe Sneekin claims to be an attorney. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.
This post of yours fully explains why you're so wrong in your arguments and why you have failed miserably to convince anyone to accept your position -- you have no fucking clue what you're spouting. Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork, I don't even know where you come up with this shit.
Wait a secondI'm not afraid of be an idiot, but where did I discussed WHY some Jews don't eat pork?
"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "
One minute...
It's a discussion about "which pork they eating" or "do they eating pork or no".... Where is the question "WHY"? :-\
So? Did you post this or not...?
"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "
This is proof that you're an idiot. I didn't deny I used the word, "why." I didn't use it in the form of a question. I'll say it again....Idiot.... no one said there was a question why.Aren't you the one who said...Holyfuckingshit!
No, Emily, laws are not unconstitutional because either party believes they are. Even worse for your nonsense, laws are not deemed constitutional because both parties agree to that.
What country do you live in that you believe that nonsense.
At the state and federal level, both parties pass laws. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not. Constitutionality of laws passed is not even in question. ALL laws are considered constitutional when passed and remain so until challenged within the judicial branch of our government. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, that judgement is rendered by the presiding judge(s), not the political parties, as you asininely believe.
I believe Sneekin claims to be an attorney. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.
This post of yours fully explains why you're so wrong in your arguments and why you have failed miserably to convince anyone to accept your position -- you have no fucking clue what you're spouting. Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork, I don't even know where you come up with this shit.
Wait a second
"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "
One minute...
It's a discussion about "which pork they eating" or "do they eating pork or no".... Where is the question "WHY"? :-\
So? Did you post this or not...?
"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "
"Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork"
If I, idiot, could simply re-read citations in this message - why don't you do it?
This is proof that you're an idiot. I didn't deny I used the word, "why." I didn't use it in the form of a question. I'll say it again....Idiot.... no one said there was a question why.Aren't you the one who said...Wait a second
"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "
One minute...
It's a discussion about "which pork they eating" or "do they eating pork or no".... Where is the question "WHY"? :-\
So? Did you post this or not...?
"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "
"Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork"
If I, idiot, could simply re-read citations in this message - why don't you do it?
Idiot.... no one said there was a question why.
Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquiesEmily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.
There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.
I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
Dear Faun
There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.
^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?
B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?
Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with "yes" or "no."Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.
There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.
I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.
Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
Emily, I'm going to help you with your work/politics/life balance...Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts
Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.
There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.
They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!
I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.
So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.
It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.
I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
Dear Faun
There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.
^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?
B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?
Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquiesEmily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
Dear Faun
There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.
Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.
^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?
If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?
B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.
Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?
WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?
????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?
Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with "yes" or "no."Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.
Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.
No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?
I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.
I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.
Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????
Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.
Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???
1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?
2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?
Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?
I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.
Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?
Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?
WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???
