"Moderates" are the problem

[ChrisL]

Extremism is the refuge of the under-informed. The more you learn about ALL the factors that contribute to the issues we face, the more you realize how absurd the most extreme positions are. ... .

I read with bated breath hoping to find an example to sustain that drivel and as I usually am in the wake of a Leftist assertion, I came away disappointed that you were unable to provide even ONE example which could on SOME level show where what you feel is an extreme position is demonstrably ill-informed.

So... I am here to ask you to please provide an example which demonstrates that what you feel is an extreme position, is demonstrably ill-informed.

When you fail to do so, which is a 100% certainty, that will be you conceding to me, an extremist... that your 'feelings' are the vacuous nonsense typical of the ill-informed, which is to say that you're an idiot.

So, what about the conservative stance on gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

Now that is not to say that the asexually abnormal can't marry... as such happens all the time. But for the sexually abnormal to marry, they must find a person of the distinct gender, with which to institutionalize themselves.

That 'stance' is in keeping with the natural design of the human species. So unless you can show how the design of the species represents 'extreme', your 'stance' is the one which is demonstrably LUDICROUS... therefore given the definition of such, its you that are holding down the position OKA: EXTREME!

A bogus cop-out, trying to justify your religious tyranny. We are supposed to be a free country and people should be able to marry whomever they wish, as long as both parties consent and are of age to consent. It's really NOT your business.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Extremism is the refuge of the under-informed. The more you learn about ALL the factors that contribute to the issues we face, the more you realize how absurd the most extreme positions are. ... .

I read with bated breath hoping to find an example to sustain that drivel and as I usually am in the wake of a Leftist assertion, I came away disappointed that you were unable to provide even ONE example which could on SOME level show where what you feel is an extreme position is demonstrably ill-informed.

So... I am here to ask you to please provide an example which demonstrates that what you feel is an extreme position, is demonstrably ill-informed.

When you fail to do so, which is a 100% certainty, that will be you conceding to me, an extremist... that your 'feelings' are the vacuous nonsense typical of the ill-informed, which is to say that you're an idiot.

So, what about the conservative stance on gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

Now that is not to say that the asexually abnormal can't marry... as such happens all the time. But for the sexually abnormal to marry, they must find a person of the distinct gender, with which to institutionalize themselves.

That 'stance' is in keeping with the natural design of the human species. So unless you can show how the design of the species represents 'extreme', your 'stance' is the one which is demonstrably LUDICROUS... therefore given the definition of such, its you that are holding down the position OKA: EXTREME!

Great now Mr Conservative small government, show me where the government is empowered to define marriage

I'll wait.

Nature defines marriage. And it did so when it designed the human species. All government is empowered to do is RECOGNIZE THAT OTHERWISE OBVIOUS FACT!

 

[peach174]

Extremism is the refuge of the under-informed. The more you learn about ALL the factors that contribute to the issues we face, the more you realize how absurd the most extreme positions are. ... .

I read with bated breath hoping to find an example to sustain that drivel and as I usually am in the wake of a Leftist assertion, I came away disappointed that you were unable to provide even ONE example which could on SOME level show where what you feel is an extreme position is demonstrably ill-informed.

So... I am here to ask you to please provide an example which demonstrates that what you feel is an extreme position, is demonstrably ill-informed.

When you fail to do so, which is a 100% certainty, that will be you conceding to me, an extremist... that your 'feelings' are the vacuous nonsense typical of the ill-informed, which is to say that you're an idiot.

So, what about the conservative stance on gay marriage? That is an extremist stance. It is against the liberty of a portion of our citizens based on religious views. Extremism.

The majority are for gay marriage.
Most Conservatives want legal civil unions not forced church marriage. But the polls don't ask that question.
In U.S. 52 Back Law to Legalize Gay Marriage in 50 States

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Extremism is the refuge of the under-informed. The more you learn about ALL the factors that contribute to the issues we face, the more you realize how absurd the most extreme positions are. ... .

I read with bated breath hoping to find an example to sustain that drivel and as I usually am in the wake of a Leftist assertion, I came away disappointed that you were unable to provide even ONE example which could on SOME level show where what you feel is an extreme position is demonstrably ill-informed.

So... I am here to ask you to please provide an example which demonstrates that what you feel is an extreme position, is demonstrably ill-informed.

When you fail to do so, which is a 100% certainty, that will be you conceding to me, an extremist... that your 'feelings' are the vacuous nonsense typical of the ill-informed, which is to say that you're an idiot.

So, what about the conservative stance on gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

Now that is not to say that the asexually abnormal can't marry... as such happens all the time. But for the sexually abnormal to marry, they must find a person of the distinct gender, with which to institutionalize themselves.

That 'stance' is in keeping with the natural design of the human species. So unless you can show how the design of the species represents 'extreme', your 'stance' is the one which is demonstrably LUDICROUS... therefore given the definition of such, its you that are holding down the position OKA: EXTREME!

Great now Mr Conservative small government, show me where the government is empowered to define marriage

I'll wait.

it isn't but it should be now that liberals have killed the church and morality. Don't forget, our Founders assumed a foundation of religious behavior that no longer exists. Today we have hip hop culture.

 

[ChrisL]

Extremism is the refuge of the under-informed. The more you learn about ALL the factors that contribute to the issues we face, the more you realize how absurd the most extreme positions are. ... .

I read with bated breath hoping to find an example to sustain that drivel and as I usually am in the wake of a Leftist assertion, I came away disappointed that you were unable to provide even ONE example which could on SOME level show where what you feel is an extreme position is demonstrably ill-informed.

So... I am here to ask you to please provide an example which demonstrates that what you feel is an extreme position, is demonstrably ill-informed.

When you fail to do so, which is a 100% certainty, that will be you conceding to me, an extremist... that your 'feelings' are the vacuous nonsense typical of the ill-informed, which is to say that you're an idiot.

So, what about the conservative stance on gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

Now that is not to say that the asexually abnormal can't marry... as such happens all the time. But for the sexually abnormal to marry, they must find a person of the distinct gender, with which to institutionalize themselves.

That 'stance' is in keeping with the natural design of the human species. So unless you can show how the design of the species represents 'extreme', your 'stance' is the one which is demonstrably LUDICROUS... therefore given the definition of such, its you that are holding down the position OKA: EXTREME!

Great now Mr Conservative small government, show me where the government is empowered to define marriage

I'll wait.

Nature defines marriage. And it did so when it designed the human species. All government is empowered to do is RECOGNIZE THAT OTHERWISE OBVIOUS FACT!

Look, there you go on an extremist nutty rant. What/whom does it hurt to allow gay people to get married? Answer that question.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Extremism is the refuge of the under-informed. The more you learn about ALL the factors that contribute to the issues we face, the more you realize how absurd the most extreme positions are. ... .

I read with bated breath hoping to find an example to sustain that drivel and as I usually am in the wake of a Leftist assertion, I came away disappointed that you were unable to provide even ONE example which could on SOME level show where what you feel is an extreme position is demonstrably ill-informed.

So... I am here to ask you to please provide an example which demonstrates that what you feel is an extreme position, is demonstrably ill-informed.

When you fail to do so, which is a 100% certainty, that will be you conceding to me, an extremist... that your 'feelings' are the vacuous nonsense typical of the ill-informed, which is to say that you're an idiot.

So, what about the conservative stance on gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

Now that is not to say that the asexually abnormal can't marry... as such happens all the time. But for the sexually abnormal to marry, they must find a person of the distinct gender, with which to institutionalize themselves.

That 'stance' is in keeping with the natural design of the human species. So unless you can show how the design of the species represents 'extreme', your 'stance' is the one which is demonstrably LUDICROUS... therefore given the definition of such, its you that are holding down the position OKA: EXTREME!

Great now Mr Conservative small government, show me where the government is empowered to define marriage

I'll wait.

Nature defines marriage. And it did so when it designed the human species. All government is empowered to do is RECOGNIZE THAT OTHERWISE OBVIOUS FACT!

Wrong answer

The COTUS CLEARLY and ABSOLUTELY limits the federal government to certain enumerated powers. Any of those enumerated powers have to do "natural marriage?"

 

[boilermaker55]

Right! When the right wing spenders see no problem with tacking on a rider that allows the large conglomerate banking industry to tell them what to do so we can bail them out again!
Seriously?

Cromnibus a winter festival of unrestrained spending Human Events


The new spending bill just passed by Congress is an example that moderates appear to be the problem. Here we have a bill with unrestrained spending, thus upsetting conservatives, and a bill that favors the corporate banking industry, thus inciting the left.

Really it is the best of both worlds. It is a continued path to insolvency, as well as easing corporate restrictions that caused the credit crisis to occur only a few years ago.

I'm tired of these so called "moderates'. Just the mere term makes me nauseated. They should just be renamed the "rapists" of society and maybe send Bill Cosby to the Oval Office in 2016.

For me, moderates have become the most radical extremists of all, since they appear to be sowing the seeds for our ultimate destruction.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Extremism is the refuge of the under-informed. The more you learn about ALL the factors that contribute to the issues we face, the more you realize how absurd the most extreme positions are. ... .

I read with bated breath hoping to find an example to sustain that drivel and as I usually am in the wake of a Leftist assertion, I came away disappointed that you were unable to provide even ONE example which could on SOME level show where what you feel is an extreme position is demonstrably ill-informed.

So... I am here to ask you to please provide an example which demonstrates that what you feel is an extreme position, is demonstrably ill-informed.

When you fail to do so, which is a 100% certainty, that will be you conceding to me, an extremist... that your 'feelings' are the vacuous nonsense typical of the ill-informed, which is to say that you're an idiot.

So, what about the conservative stance on gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

Now that is not to say that the asexually abnormal can't marry... as such happens all the time. But for the sexually abnormal to marry, they must find a person of the distinct gender, with which to institutionalize themselves.

That 'stance' is in keeping with the natural design of the human species. So unless you can show how the design of the species represents 'extreme', your 'stance' is the one which is demonstrably LUDICROUS... therefore given the definition of such, its you that are holding down the position OKA: EXTREME!

A bogus cop-out.

It's an incontrovertible FACT. That you need to rationalize around an otherwise OBVIOUS fact, is not soemthing I am going to be able to help ya with.

But I will say, calling the recognition of an irrefutable fact, a "cop out", is extreme beyond all reason.

 

[ChrisL]

Extremism is the refuge of the under-informed. The more you learn about ALL the factors that contribute to the issues we face, the more you realize how absurd the most extreme positions are. ... .

I read with bated breath hoping to find an example to sustain that drivel and as I usually am in the wake of a Leftist assertion, I came away disappointed that you were unable to provide even ONE example which could on SOME level show where what you feel is an extreme position is demonstrably ill-informed.

So... I am here to ask you to please provide an example which demonstrates that what you feel is an extreme position, is demonstrably ill-informed.

When you fail to do so, which is a 100% certainty, that will be you conceding to me, an extremist... that your 'feelings' are the vacuous nonsense typical of the ill-informed, which is to say that you're an idiot.

So, what about the conservative stance on gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

Now that is not to say that the asexually abnormal can't marry... as such happens all the time. But for the sexually abnormal to marry, they must find a person of the distinct gender, with which to institutionalize themselves.

That 'stance' is in keeping with the natural design of the human species. So unless you can show how the design of the species represents 'extreme', your 'stance' is the one which is demonstrably LUDICROUS... therefore given the definition of such, its you that are holding down the position OKA: EXTREME!

Great now Mr Conservative small government, show me where the government is empowered to define marriage

I'll wait.

it isn't but it should be now that liberals have killed the church and morality. Don't forget, our Founders assumed a foundation of religious behavior that no longer exists. Today we have hip hop culture.

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion. They were running from religious tyrants, so you are wrong. Our constitution guarantees people of the United States the right to pursue happiness! If getting married makes gay people happy, then you don't have the right to deny them their happiness, tyrant!

 

[ChrisL]

Extremism is the refuge of the under-informed. The more you learn about ALL the factors that contribute to the issues we face, the more you realize how absurd the most extreme positions are. ... .

I read with bated breath hoping to find an example to sustain that drivel and as I usually am in the wake of a Leftist assertion, I came away disappointed that you were unable to provide even ONE example which could on SOME level show where what you feel is an extreme position is demonstrably ill-informed.

So... I am here to ask you to please provide an example which demonstrates that what you feel is an extreme position, is demonstrably ill-informed.

When you fail to do so, which is a 100% certainty, that will be you conceding to me, an extremist... that your 'feelings' are the vacuous nonsense typical of the ill-informed, which is to say that you're an idiot.

So, what about the conservative stance on gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

Now that is not to say that the asexually abnormal can't marry... as such happens all the time. But for the sexually abnormal to marry, they must find a person of the distinct gender, with which to institutionalize themselves.

That 'stance' is in keeping with the natural design of the human species. So unless you can show how the design of the species represents 'extreme', your 'stance' is the one which is demonstrably LUDICROUS... therefore given the definition of such, its you that are holding down the position OKA: EXTREME!

A bogus cop-out.

It's an incontrovertible FACT. That you need to rationalize around an otherwise OBVIOUS fact, is not soemthing I am going to be able to help ya with.

But I will say, calling the recognition of an irrefutable fact, a "cop out", is extreme beyond all reason.

I see, all you have is drivel. Not surprising because your convictions are based on your religious beliefs and nothing more and you are trying to force others to live by YOUR personal religious beliefs.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The COTUS CLEARLY and ABSOLUTELY limits the federal government to certain enumerated powers. Any of those enumerated powers have to do "natural marriage?"

The constitution has no power within nature. Therefore, it has no means to alter human physiology... thus cannot rationalize adequately to change the fact that male human being are designed to compliment the female human being and in such, marriage is define.

So... while I appreciate the humor of a 'moderate' trying to school an American, you may purchase your intellectual ass back with a simple apology for getting your place.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion.

ROFLMNAO! Sweet Mother... that is a brand of pathetic that doesn't get air out enough in public discourse.

LOL! Good lord woman, I am embarrassed for ya. Perhaps you should post less and read more, at least for a while... .

 

[rightwinger]

For 3 years the people have said they are sick of gridlock and wanted compromise.
Now they have compromised the left are still screaming.

Who in the hell has sad THAT?

For 6 years Americans have called for their representative to do everything that is possible to SHUTDOWN the obama cult. To stop them from passing socialist policy... and since 2010, that is pretty much what they've done.

Could they have done better? Of course... but those who sought to compromise with obama and who were up for re-election... north fo 90% of those, are GONE!

What have they accomplished?

Repealed Obamacare....Nope
Stopped gay marriage.....Nope
Protected the Bush tax cuts.....Nope
Balanced the budget......Nope

If Republicans were willing to compromise and work to a common goal, they could have gotten some of their agenda......instead they got NOTHING

Thank the TeaTards

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion. !

wrong, our founders assumed a base of civilized religious behavior? Now that liberals have killed that base we need a substitute. I'm sure if they saw the liberal attack on the American family they would act.

 

[ChrisL]

The COTUS CLEARLY and ABSOLUTELY limits the federal government to certain enumerated powers. Any of those enumerated powers have to do "natural marriage?"

The constitution has no power within nature. Therefore, it has no means to alter human physiology... thus cannot rationalize adequately to change the fact that male human being are designed to compliment the female human being and in such, marriage is define.

So... while I appreciate the humor of a 'moderate' trying to school an American, you may purchase your intellectual ass back with a simple apology for getting your place.

Your post does not even make sense. Homosexuals have been around since ancient times, genius. Now what?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I read with bated breath hoping to find an example to sustain that drivel and as I usually am in the wake of a Leftist assertion, I came away disappointed that you were unable to provide even ONE example which could on SOME level show where what you feel is an extreme position is demonstrably ill-informed.

So... I am here to ask you to please provide an example which demonstrates that what you feel is an extreme position, is demonstrably ill-informed.

When you fail to do so, which is a 100% certainty, that will be you conceding to me, an extremist... that your 'feelings' are the vacuous nonsense typical of the ill-informed, which is to say that you're an idiot.

So, what about the conservative stance on gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

Now that is not to say that the asexually abnormal can't marry... as such happens all the time. But for the sexually abnormal to marry, they must find a person of the distinct gender, with which to institutionalize themselves.

That 'stance' is in keeping with the natural design of the human species. So unless you can show how the design of the species represents 'extreme', your 'stance' is the one which is demonstrably LUDICROUS... therefore given the definition of such, its you that are holding down the position OKA: EXTREME!

Great now Mr Conservative small government, show me where the government is empowered to define marriage

I'll wait.

it isn't but it should be now that liberals have killed the church and morality. Don't forget, our Founders assumed a foundation of religious behavior that no longer exists. Today we have hip hop culture.

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion. They were running from religious tyrants, so you are wrong. Our constitution guarantees people of the United States the right to pursue happiness! If getting married makes gay people happy, then you don't have the right to deny them their happiness, tyrant!

No, you're wrong there. In the time of our founding there simply was no atheist movement, certainly not within our government.

When the founders spoke of freedom of religion, they were thinking of a situation like the Church of England specifically, where one branch of Christianity was enforced by the government. It's a complete misnomer to state that our country wasn't founded ON religion though, I mean our Declaration of Independence speaks of God. Our Congress has a clergyman, and opens EVERY session with prayer. Our national monuments are packed full of religious symbols.

In their time, an atheist was unthinkable. Remember, they thought the indians were savages because they didn't believe in the monotheistic God.

The freedom of religion has totally been misshapen by those with agendas. Heck, I'll go even further, at the time they signed the COTUS many of the colonies/soon to be states DID have official religions, and that is the way the founders intended. Each state could have religion as they chose, free from the FEDERAL government intervening. If one state had a religion you didn't like, you simply moved to another.

 

[ChrisL]

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion.

ROFLMNAO! Sweet Mother... that is a brand of pathetic that doesn't get air out enough in public discourse.

LOL! Good lord woman, I am embarrassed for ya. Perhaps you should post less and read more, at least for a while... .

I only feel sorry for you because you are an obviously uneducated person. The founders of this country did not want religion forced upon people. That is what they were running from in England. An overbearing intrusive government. What makes you think you have the right to dictate who another person marries?

 

[ChrisL]

So, what about the conservative stance on gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

Now that is not to say that the asexually abnormal can't marry... as such happens all the time. But for the sexually abnormal to marry, they must find a person of the distinct gender, with which to institutionalize themselves.

That 'stance' is in keeping with the natural design of the human species. So unless you can show how the design of the species represents 'extreme', your 'stance' is the one which is demonstrably LUDICROUS... therefore given the definition of such, its you that are holding down the position OKA: EXTREME!

Great now Mr Conservative small government, show me where the government is empowered to define marriage

I'll wait.

it isn't but it should be now that liberals have killed the church and morality. Don't forget, our Founders assumed a foundation of religious behavior that no longer exists. Today we have hip hop culture.

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion. They were running from religious tyrants, so you are wrong. Our constitution guarantees people of the United States the right to pursue happiness! If getting married makes gay people happy, then you don't have the right to deny them their happiness, tyrant!

No, you're wrong there. In the time of our founding there simply was no atheist movement, certainly not within our government.

When the founders spoke of freedom of religion, they were thinking of a situation like the Church of England specifically, where one branch of Christianity was enforced by the government. It's a complete misnomer to state that our country wasn't founded ON religion though, I mean our Declaration of Independence speaks of God. Our Congress has a clergyman, and opens EVERY session with prayer. Our national monuments are packed full of religious symbols.

In their time, an atheist was unthinkable. Remember, they thought the indians were savages because they didn't believe in the monotheistic God.

The freedom of religion has totally been misshapen by those with agendas. Heck, I'll go even further, at the time they signed the COTUS many of the colonies/soon to be states DID have official religions, and that is the way the founders intended. Each state could have religion as they chose, free from the FEDERAL government intervening. If one state had a religion you didn't like, you simply moved to another.

Choice being the key word here, and no the government has no right to be involved in people's personal lives and who they choose to marry!

 

[ChrisL]

Our founders wanted freedom to have religion or freedom to NOT have religion. !

wrong, our founders assumed a base of civilized religious behavior? Now that liberals have killed that base we need a substitute. I'm sure if they saw the liberal attack on the American family they would act.

Why would you care about what someone's behavior in their own home with their loved one is? It's none of your business. Mind YOUR business and stop sticking your nose into others.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What have they accomplished?

Repealed Obamacare....Nope

The House does not have the power to repeal anything.

Stopped gay marriage.....Nope

Nature stopped that. Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Protected the Bush tax cuts.....Nope

Who was protecting Bush tax cuts? Those cuts came with an exploration date.

Balanced the budget......Nope

You're not very bright are ya scamp? The House of Representatives are only one half of the Legislature, which is one third of the US Government. Meaning that the House which is NOT compromised entirely of Americans... thus does not enjoy the luxury of having unanimous agreement that a balanced budget is essential to a balanced economic plan... and even if it WERE it could not balance the budget by itself.

But your contribution DOES demonstrate why those known to be adherents to Left-think should never be allowed to VOTE. You're Ignorant fools.