"Moderates" are the problem

[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.

And people have to ASK why I think both main parties are nutty extremists? Here you go.

 

[ChrisL]

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Repealed Obamacare....Nope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.

NATURE has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a MAN MADE concept.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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!

As you SHOULD realize, we agree on the topic of gay marriage. the government certainly isn't empowered to make gay marriage illegal.

Although, I argue that under the actual intent of our COTUS, states would be free to define marriage as a religious contract and disallow gays from being married, but would have to recognize civil unions.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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 ... .

No one here is talking about private behavior. We're talking about destructive public policy which overtly rejects natural law.

THAT is harmful because it defies the laws of nature, promotes perverse human reasoning and tears at the fabric of civilization itself.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The far right has already lost the issue of gay rights. You tried to ignore the changing tide and got swamped
The question is, do you acknowledge the obvious or do you bring down the GOP with you?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

The far right has already lost the issue of gay rights. You tried to ignore the changing tide and got swamped
The question is, do you acknowledge the obvious or do you bring down the GOP with you?

The GOP will simply ignore him

 

[peach174]

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!

Jay Carney way back in Sept. of 2011.
Carney Americans Are Sick And Tired Of The Bickering RealClearPolitics
It has been all over the internet for the last three years from all kinds of web sites off and on.

 

[ChrisL]

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!

As you SHOULD realize, we agree on the topic of gay marriage. the government certainly isn't empowered to make gay marriage illegal.

Although, I argue that under the actual intent of our COTUS, states would be free to define marriage as a religious contract and disallow gays from being married, but would have to recognize civil unions.

The only reason I can see that anyone would be against gay marriage is because of their own personal religious beliefs. Otherwise, nobody would care. It's just people trying to force their views of what they think is right and wrong upon other people, and those people are kind of ignorant IMO. They MUST realize that not everyone believes the same as they do. If they cannot realize this, then they are dysfunctional and really not much different from those in the Middle East who impose their views upon people using force too. The only difference is their tactics.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

the government certainly isn't empowered to make gay marriage illegal.

The government is comprised of the people, who are entitled to establish the standard by which all individuals are reasonably expected to adhere. Respecting the laws of nature is certainly a reasonable expectation of all citizens.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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 ... .

No one here is talking about private behavior. We're talking about destructive public policy which overtly rejects natural law.

THAT is harmful because it defies the laws of nature, promotes perverse human reasoning and tears at the fabric of civilization itself.

Again mr conservative, show me where the government is empowered to legislate based on "natural laws"

Wait, first tell me where you came up with the opinion that male/female marriage is a natural law.

 

[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 ... .

No one here is talking about private behavior. We're talking about destructive public policy which overtly rejects natural law.

THAT is harmful because it defies the laws of nature, promotes perverse human reasoning and tears at the fabric of civilization itself.

That is stupid. Allowing gay people to marry is not going to encourage straight people to "turn gay." Ridiculous!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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!

Jay Carney way back in Sept. of 2011.
Carney Americans Are Sick And Tired Of The Bickering RealClearPolitics
It has been all over the internet for the last three years from all kinds of web sites off and on.

Jay Carney is perhaps the most discredited thing on earth, at best it ties with the its boss, Peasantpimp on the Union States

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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!

As you SHOULD realize, we agree on the topic of gay marriage. the government certainly isn't empowered to make gay marriage illegal.

Although, I argue that under the actual intent of our COTUS, states would be free to define marriage as a religious contract and disallow gays from being married, but would have to recognize civil unions.

The only reason I can see that anyone would be against gay marriage is because of their own personal religious beliefs. Otherwise, nobody would care. It's just people trying to force their views of what they think is right and wrong upon other people, and those people are kind of ignorant IMO. They MUST realize that not everyone believes the same as they do. If they cannot realize this, then they are dysfunctional and really not much different from those in the Middle East who impose their views upon people using force too. The only difference is their tactics.

You know what really cracks me u though. The gays, like SeaBytch , who argue that polygamy is somehow a different issue.

Just proves that some on both sides are stupid. Either the government can define marriage, or they can't. PERIOD

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Again...what have Republicans accomplished with their obstructionism?
NOTHING
Obamacare is the law of the land. They preferred obstruction and repeal over having meaningful input to the future of healthcare in this country

They FAILED

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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 ... .

No one here is talking about private behavior. We're talking about destructive public policy which overtly rejects natural law.

THAT is harmful because it defies the laws of nature, promotes perverse human reasoning and tears at the fabric of civilization itself.

That is stupid. Allowing gay people to marry is not going to encourage straight people to "turn gay." Ridiculous!

Wait a minute now, we may have hit on something here.

Keys, are you afraid that if gay "marriage" becomes legal that you will give into your urges?

Do you have a special someone who wants to get married and so far you've been putting him off with "it's not legal?"

It's okay man. No one will judge you.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans chose to block gay rights in every case
Once again, they LOST

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The government is comprised of "the People", a people who are endowed by heir creator with inalienable rights... rights which are sustained through correlating responsibilities, not the least of which is the responsibility to not exercise one's rights to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights... respecting the laws of nature, thus the limits of reality is the FIRST order of business of ANY human authority and that in NO WAY excludes human government.

Are you daft boy? The laws of nature are not even remotely fucking debatable. They're there and they're obvious to everyone but the delusional.

Now if you're delusional, you need to be removed from the means to speak publicly.

If you're not then start speaking in terms which recognize REALITY!

 

[ChrisL]

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!

As you SHOULD realize, we agree on the topic of gay marriage. the government certainly isn't empowered to make gay marriage illegal.

Although, I argue that under the actual intent of our COTUS, states would be free to define marriage as a religious contract and disallow gays from being married, but would have to recognize civil unions.

The only reason I can see that anyone would be against gay marriage is because of their own personal religious beliefs. Otherwise, nobody would care. It's just people trying to force their views of what they think is right and wrong upon other people, and those people are kind of ignorant IMO. They MUST realize that not everyone believes the same as they do. If they cannot realize this, then they are dysfunctional and really not much different from those in the Middle East who impose their views upon people using force too. The only difference is their tactics.

You know what really cracks me u though. The gays, like SeaBytch , who argue that polygamy is somehow a different issue.

Just proves that some on both sides are stupid. Either the government can define marriage, or they can't. PERIOD

I honestly doubt that many people would be getting involved in polygamous relationships just because it's legal, and I wouldn't have a problem with it being legal either. I feel like it's really none of business. I might think those people are strange, but whatever. Not my business who people fall in love with or want to marry for whatever reasons.

 

[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 ... .

No one here is talking about private behavior. We're talking about destructive public policy which overtly rejects natural law.

THAT is harmful because it defies the laws of nature, promotes perverse human reasoning and tears at the fabric of civilization itself.

That is stupid. Allowing gay people to marry is not going to encourage straight people to "turn gay." Ridiculous!

Wait a minute now, we may have hit on something here.

Keys, are you afraid that if gay "marriage" becomes legal that you will give into your urges?

Do you have a special someone who wants to get married and so far you've been putting him off with "it's not legal?"

It's okay man. No one will judge you.

That's another possibility!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keys, are you afraid that if gay "marriage" becomes legal that you will give into your urges?

Well, it's official... SmarterThanTheAverageBear is a leftist pretending to be something akin to an American.

Anyone shocked by that?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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!

As you SHOULD realize, we agree on the topic of gay marriage. the government certainly isn't empowered to make gay marriage illegal.

Although, I argue that under the actual intent of our COTUS, states would be free to define marriage as a religious contract and disallow gays from being married, but would have to recognize civil unions.

The only reason I can see that anyone would be against gay marriage is because of their own personal religious beliefs. Otherwise, nobody would care. It's just people trying to force their views of what they think is right and wrong upon other people, and those people are kind of ignorant IMO. They MUST realize that not everyone believes the same as they do. If they cannot realize this, then they are dysfunctional and really not much different from those in the Middle East who impose their views upon people using force too. The only difference is their tactics.

You know what really cracks me u though. The gays, like SeaBytch , who argue that polygamy is somehow a different issue.

Just proves that some on both sides are stupid. Either the government can define marriage, or they can't. PERIOD

I honestly doubt that many people would be getting involved in polygamous relationships just because it's legal, and I wouldn't have a problem with it being legal either. I feel like it's really none of business. I might think those people are strange, but whatever. Not my business who people fall in love with or want to marry for whatever reasons.

Beyond the obvious porn aspect of it, I couldn't even fathom having TWO wives .