Gays blaming blacks for gay marriage ban in California

[Father Time]

Cecile you've only used the term elitist in one other post. But I'll keep my argument simple

Everyone, not just minorities should have certain rights that neither the government nor the majority should be allowed to take away.

Is that so hard to comprehend? If you disagree we're pretty much freaking deadlocked and I think that's the case.

On some unrelated notes
I stopped saying long ago you're only objections were religious ones or 'it's immoral' I was mostly talking about your sickening idea that rights exist only at the whims of the majorities.

And many suggested prohibition because they were under the mistaken impression that alcohol was the cause of most crime. The Root of all Evil (tm). Since crime shot up during prohibition it clearly didn't work.

and since when do supreme court justices set themselves up as anything. They're appointed by democratically elected presidents. Hell some people vote for presidents specifically on who they'll likely put in the supreme court,

As per the straw man you said that and I quote
"The fact that you are willing to accept majority rule when you happen to be part of that majority, and only consider it tyranny when they have the sheer gall to disagree with you"

I never said that nor anything like that. THAT'S why it's a damn straw man. You keep saying that I only want it when it's convenient for me and I don't. You keep saying you want to have a clear intelligent dialogue but I doubt you're capable of that. You miss my points so damn often.

Here's an example.
"I don't think I asked you to give me examples of where a bunch of judges SAID something was Unconstitutional in order to impose their own brand of tyranny onto people. I asked for an example of an occasion when the majority pressed for a law that was ACTUALLY Unconstitutional."

Sodomy laws were my damn example of a majority voted on law that was deemed unconstitutional. No idea how you missed that

But whatever because I'm sick of having a 'debate' that basically boils down to a shouting match, I must be a coward. Great way to think that you've won without actually convincing someone of anything. Goodbye, I'm sick of this argument. Truly sick of it.

 

[eots]

so we call it a flawless victory then...

 

[Father Time]

What do you mean we, you weren't even in it.
And victory is defined as convincing your opponent of your position or someone else who didn't all ready have the same position.

I'm not convinced and you all ready had the same damn position.

Victory is not, 'play til your opponent gets sick of it then leaves'.

 

[eots]

What do you mean we, you weren't even in it.
And victory is defined as convincing your opponent of your position or someone else who didn't all ready have the same position.

I'm not convinced and you all ready had the same damn position.

Victory is not, 'play til your opponent gets sick of it then leaves'.

spoken like a true loser...

 

[Father Time]

spoken like a true loser...

Spoken like a man with no arguments.

 

[eots]

Spoken like a man with no arguments.

HEY!.. I thought you threw in the toweL Mr I have to have the last word...

 

[Father Time]

Mr I have to have the last word...

Bad habit of mine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecile you've only used the term elitist in one other post. But I'll keep my argument simple.

I've called you an elitist repeatedly, but I'm not surprised to find out that you've only just now found out about it. I've also commented several times on the fact that you're not listening to anyone but yourself.

And I'm sure we're all deeply excited to hear that you are, once again, going to parrot your pigheaded talking points because OBVIOUSLY, the only reason everyone isn't gaping in awe at your wisdom is that they were JUST too complex and brilliant for us to get the first time.

Never mind the fact that you claimed you were done with this argument.

Everyone, not just minorities should have certain rights that neither the government nor the majority should be allowed to take away.

"Should not" was not before, is not now, and never will be the same as "cannot", therefore your babbling about your personal vision of utopia was before, is now, and always will be a waste of everyone's time and irrelevant to the discussion.

Is that so hard to comprehend? If you disagree we're pretty much freaking deadlocked and I think that's the case.

Is it so hard to comprehend that I have never disagreed with that, but only pointed out that you're wasting everyone's time prattling about it over and over? Yes, apparently it is. Whenever it's impossible to debate the issue on the facts, make it about your personal, superior vision of cosmic justice, regardless of how unrelated it is: important liberal debate technique.

On some unrelated notes

Wouldn't that essentially be everything you ever have to say?

I stopped saying long ago you're only objections were religious ones or 'it's immoral' I was mostly talking about your sickening idea that rights exist only at the whims of the majorities.

Two posts ago, and you never acknowledged how incredibly rude, hubristic, and WRONG you were to do so, nor did you apologize, nor did you hesitate to falsely accuse me of your own unrepented sin. So don't blame me if you get it thrown in your face every time you LIE about me.

They DO only exist because the majority recognizes them, and the only thing that's sickening is your fraudulent insistence on dishonestly using the word "whim".

And many suggested prohibition because they were under the mistaken impression that alcohol was the cause of most crime. The Root of all Evil (tm). Since crime shot up during prohibition it clearly didn't work.

Well, I'm CERTAINLY going to believe it JUST because you helpfully insisted on reiterating that YOU know it to be a fact, since we all know how much YOUR word for something means, particularly coupled with the ability to scream it mindlessly over and over. As I keep saying, I didn't believe it when you blankly and with no evidence asserted it the FIRST three times, but now that you've done so a FOURTH, I realize that THAT must make it true.

and since when do supreme court justices set themselves up as anything.

ALL levels of judges set themselves up as unelected dictators when they illegally and Unconstitutionally take it upon themselves to create legislation from the bench, rather than leaving it up to the duly-elected legislatures and the people themselves to make the law. Go look up "judicial activism". Have you been living under a rock somewhere?

They're appointed by democratically elected presidents. Hell some people vote for presidents specifically on who they'll likely put in the supreme court,

Which certainly makes it okay for them to usurp the powers of the rest of government. But then, an elitist like you who so deeply fears the will of the people would approve of that, wouldn't you?

As per the straw man you said that and I quote
"The fact that you are willing to accept majority rule when you happen to be part of that majority, and only consider it tyranny when they have the sheer gall to disagree with you"

Don't blame ME if people correctly interpret your words and attitude. Maybe instead if shouting, "Straw man!" you ought to do a little self-examination.

And by the way, you should also look up "straw man", because as I suspected, you don't know what it actually means and have been misusing it all this time.

Here's an example.
"I don't think I asked you to give me examples of where a bunch of judges SAID something was Unconstitutional in order to impose their own brand of tyranny onto people. I asked for an example of an occasion when the majority pressed for a law that was ACTUALLY Unconstitutional."

Sodomy laws were my damn example of a majority voted on law that was deemed unconstitutional. No idea how you missed that

I didn't miss it. The problem here is that YOU missed - twice - the fact that I asked you to name me a law the majority pushed for that WAS Unconstitutional, not one that had some judge apply his own morality to strike down.

But of course, instead of reading the response, you just assumed that I didn't understand the wisdom and brilliance of what you said, and just needed it asserted to me again.

So take notes, dumbass: If I want to hear about some utterly inappropriate act of judicial activism and tyranny, I will specifically ask for it. When I ask to talk about ACTUAL law and the ACTUAL Constitution, and you say, "Well, the courts say . . ." you have just lost the argument, and proven yourself an elitist. Again.

But whatever because I'm sick of having a 'debate' that basically boils down to a shouting match, I must be a coward. Great way to think that you've won without actually convincing someone of anything. Goodbye, I'm sick of this argument. Truly sick of it.

Yeah, I can tell you're "truly sick of it". So sick that you just HAD to come back and write this whole long, rambling diatribe to reassert all your positions again, just so that maybe we could all FINALLY realize how frigging brilliant they really were if only we could JUST comprehend them.

How can we miss you if you won't ever frigging LEAVE, already?

 

[Cecilie1200]

so we call it a flawless victory then...

Well, I certainly do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What do you mean we, you weren't even in it.
And victory is defined as convincing your opponent of your position or someone else who didn't all ready have the same position.

I'm not convinced and you all ready had the same damn position.

Victory is not, 'play til your opponent gets sick of it then leaves'.

He means "we" because, in case you hadn't noticed, this is a public forum and people are actually reading what we write. I hope this news wasn't too shocking to you.

And no, victory is not defined as changing minds. In politics, it's often defined as demonstrating to your audience how utterly incapable of responding effectively your opponent is. That has been accomplished. Having your opponent run away like a scalded dog, however much he tries to pretend he's making a dignified, principled exit, is not actually necessary, but it's a nice extra.

I'm sorry, WHY are you still here yapping?

 

[Truthspeaker]

He is gone. He is probably trying to research for something else he will try to use to his disadvantage because the point is, deep down inside people think homosexuality is ok for them to indulge in with their friends. Everybody wants to be Socrates now, and explain their whole existence away, so they try anything and everything they can to try and get a grip on reality, experimenting with everything except prayer to God for the truth. Religion ain't such a bad thing.

 

[sky dancer]

Cecile you've only used the term elitist in one other post. But I'll keep my argument simple

Everyone, not just minorities should have certain rights that neither the government nor the majority should be allowed to take away.

Is that so hard to comprehend? If you disagree we're pretty much freaking deadlocked and I think that's the case.

On some unrelated notes
I stopped saying long ago you're only objections were religious ones or 'it's immoral' I was mostly talking about your sickening idea that rights exist only at the whims of the majorities.

And many suggested prohibition because they were under the mistaken impression that alcohol was the cause of most crime. The Root of all Evil (tm). Since crime shot up during prohibition it clearly didn't work.

and since when do supreme court justices set themselves up as anything. They're appointed by democratically elected presidents. Hell some people vote for presidents specifically on who they'll likely put in the supreme court,

As per the straw man you said that and I quote
"The fact that you are willing to accept majority rule when you happen to be part of that majority, and only consider it tyranny when they have the sheer gall to disagree with you"

I never said that nor anything like that. THAT'S why it's a damn straw man. You keep saying that I only want it when it's convenient for me and I don't. You keep saying you want to have a clear intelligent dialogue but I doubt you're capable of that. You miss my points so damn often.

Here's an example.
"I don't think I asked you to give me examples of where a bunch of judges SAID something was Unconstitutional in order to impose their own brand of tyranny onto people. I asked for an example of an occasion when the majority pressed for a law that was ACTUALLY Unconstitutional."

Sodomy laws were my damn example of a majority voted on law that was deemed unconstitutional. No idea how you missed that

But whatever because I'm sick of having a 'debate' that basically boils down to a shouting match, I must be a coward. Great way to think that you've won without actually convincing someone of anything. Goodbye, I'm sick of this argument. Truly sick of it.

Debate is debate. We don't live in a time when debate is appreciated. Turn on the TV and watch shouting matches called 'debates'.

If someone is incapable of debate--ignore them--move on. You've made some good points here.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Debate is debate. We don't live in a time when debate is appreciated. Turn on the TV and watch shouting matches called 'debates'.

If someone is incapable of debate--ignore them--move on. You've made some good points here.

You are not capable of debate. If we could hear you, our ears would go deaf.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are not capable of debate. If we could hear you, our ears would go deaf.

You didn't find it amusing that someone who just laid low and contributed nothing whatsoever to the debate popped up after his/her champion got his ass waxed to snipe about how I can't debate? I did. Apparently, the secret to being "capable of debate" is to allow someone ELSE to do the fighting, and then hurl impotent insults at the winner.

 

[sky dancer]

You are not capable of debate. If we could hear you, our ears would go deaf.

Debate is the presentation of points of view with justification and argument. Back up your assertion with a reference to a specific post and we may be back into debate again.

Or if you'd rather just swap insults, we can do that too. Poo poo face.

 

[KittenKoder]

He is gone. He is probably trying to research for something else he will try to use to his disadvantage because the point is, deep down inside people think homosexuality is ok for them to indulge in with their friends. Everybody wants to be Socrates now, and explain their whole existence away, so they try anything and everything they can to try and get a grip on reality, experimenting with everything except prayer to God for the truth. Religion ain't such a bad thing.

Translation To Reality:
They choose to live instead of act as brainwashed sheep following what someone claims to be right an wrong.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Translation To Reality:
They choose to live instead of act as brainwashed sheep following what someone claims to be right an wrong.

Whatever you say.

 

[KittenKoder]

Whatever you say.

Admitting the truth is the first step. Of course Mormons these days seem to want women to be slaves now, so men would love that religion, the women are just trapped because of marriage or brainwashing.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Admitting the truth is the first step. Of course Mormons these days seem to want women to be slaves now, so men would love that religion, the women are just trapped because of marriage or brainwashing.

Hello Kitty is

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's somehow news to you that there are actual, openly-avowed Communists in the United States, and that there are many more who advocate trends and policies that lead in that direction? Did you just fly in from another solar system?

cpusa.orgCPUSA Online - CPUSA Online -

as a matter of fact I know a few of those open communists and they have absolutely nothing in common with any liberals I know. A few have things in common with some progressives and then there is the issue of the anarchists.


what the communists I know have in common with righties and christians is their intolerance for others and the idea that they think they own the truth. also, they have no problem demonizing and hurting others over ideas.


did I forget to mention there are so few commies it is laughable to even consider them a threat? now the right wing christians, that's another story. burn books? bomb gay bars and health centers and abortion clinics?