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.
Everybody who wants to hear joeb talk about kids, raise you hand.
Ok joe, we voted. Now return to the abortion threads where your comments about "medical waste" aka "full term babies" doesn't make everybody puke on the spot.
As a person of the baby killing brigade, your statements about what constitutes acceptable child rearing will be dismissed by all...so really, why waste your breath, and the earth's resources, by voicing your views on this topic at all?
A state appeals court ruled in 2010 that the children were put at risk of abuse and neglect based on a history of domestic violence in the home, ABC News reported. Deborah Campbell once slipped a note under a neighbor's door saying she was terrified of her husband because he had threatened to kill her, according to court documents. Adolf Hitler Campbell also frequently threatened to kill people, ABC News added.
The 49-page ruling shed light on the bleak life inside the Campbell home in Holland Township, where windows were nailed shut and "unusual decorative features" included skulls and knives. DYFS first became involved in the case in December 2008 after receiving complaints that the children were being strapped into their booster seats for unusually long periods of time amid ongoing domestic violence.
A neighbor turned over a handwritten note signed by Deborah Campbell, who dropped out of the 10th grade, that accused her husband of trying to kill her and expressed fear for her children's safety. The note, replete with spelling errors, said, "Hes thrend to have me killed or kill me himself hes alread tried it a few times. Im scare to leave b/c I will be killed. Im afread that he might hurt my children if they are keeped in his care... He's already stabed me with a screwdriver in the hand... He teaches my son how to kill someone at the age of 3."
Asked about the letter during court custody proceedings, Deborah Campbell admitted that she wrote it but testified it was all a lie. She described her husband as "a perfect guy."
Funny how you never posted them.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Uhh, that's not was I was referring to. She said "cases" so what others were there?
Secondly, lets say you own a business. Your money funds it. Should you be told how to operate your own business? According to the FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENT no, you should not.
Uhh, that's not was I was referring to. She said "cases" so what others were there?
Secondly, lets say you own a business. Your money funds it. Should you be told how to operate your own business? According to the FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENT no, you should not.
So if your business is a restaurant, you think you have the right to refuse public health and safety inspections, and/or the right to refuse to fix any violations cited, without penalty?
Good luck with that.
Uhh, that's not was I was referring to. She said "cases" so what others were there?
Secondly, lets say you own a business. Your money funds it. Should you be told how to operate your own business? According to the FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENT no, you should not.
So if your business is a restaurant, you think you have the right to refuse public health and safety inspections, and/or the right to refuse to fix any violations cited, without penalty?
Good luck with that.
Moving the goalposts. I would comply with health regulations, not with being forced to serve someone I don't want to.
Sexual orientation is not race. Of course if someone is renting out a room in their home for instance they should be allowed to discriminate on grounds of race. Or any other grounds they wish.
Uhh, that's not was I was referring to. She said "cases" so what others were there?
Secondly, lets say you own a business. Your money funds it. Should you be told how to operate your own business? According to the FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENT no, you should not.
And I provided them within the link.
What link?
Of course not, and when these cases get to the courts they will not be enforced. Congress cannot pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion and forcing people to participate in any way shape or form in this perversion that is now considered marriage, if it goes against their religious beliefs, is
un-Constitutional because it prohibits them from exercising their religion.
Sexual orientation is not race. Of course if someone is renting out a room in their home for instance they should be allowed to discriminate on grounds of race. Or any other grounds they wish.
Of course not, and when these cases get to the courts they will not be enforced. Congress cannot pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion and forcing people to participate in any way shape or form in this perversion that is now considered marriage, if it goes against their religious beliefs, is
un-Constitutional because it prohibits them from exercising their religion.
Uhh, that's not was I was referring to. She said "cases" so what others were there?
Secondly, lets say you own a business. Your money funds it. Should you be told how to operate your own business? According to the FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENT no, you should not.
So if your business is a restaurant, you think you have the right to refuse public health and safety inspections, and/or the right to refuse to fix any violations cited, without penalty?
Good luck with that.
Moving the goalposts. I would comply with health regulations, not with being forced to serve someone I don't want to.
So if your business is a restaurant, you think you have the right to refuse public health and safety inspections, and/or the right to refuse to fix any violations cited, without penalty?
Good luck with that.
Moving the goalposts. I would comply with health regulations, not with being forced to serve someone I don't want to.
So why aren't you railing against public accommodation laws instead of civil marriage?
“Was he (Obama) a bigot 14 months ago?” Reed asked Maddow regarding Obama’s previous views, implying how difficult it would be for her to characterize other Democratic DOMA supporters such as Joe Biden and Harry Reid as “intolerant and motivated by an animus and a hatred for gays.”
RALPH REED: …this suggestion that because somebody wants to affirm the institution of marriage that they’re ipso facto intolerant? By that argument, Barack Obama was intolerant 14 months ago. By that argument, 342 members of the House, 85 members of the Senate, including, by the way, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, who all voted for this law, and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, were intolerant and motivated by an animus and a hatred for gays.
RACHEL MADDOW: They’ve all changed their mind on it. All of them.
RALPH REED: But…Obama was 14 months ago. Was he a bigot 14 months ago?
RACHEL MADDOW: Nobody’s calling anybody a bigot.
Moving the goalposts. I would comply with health regulations, not with being forced to serve someone I don't want to.
So why aren't you railing against public accommodation laws instead of civil marriage?
Why aren't you railing against Obama for being against gay marriage both times he ran, only to change his mind again? When I mean public accommodation, I mean anyone I find that I would rather not serve, that includes homosexuals. But back to the question. Why aren't you saying anything about Obama's changing stances on gay marriage? I love how you keep calling us bigoted and intolerant. This guy calls your bluff:
“Was he (Obama) a bigot 14 months ago?” Reed asked Maddow regarding Obama’s previous views, implying how difficult it would be for her to characterize other Democratic DOMA supporters such as Joe Biden and Harry Reid as “intolerant and motivated by an animus and a hatred for gays.”
RALPH REED: …this suggestion that because somebody wants to affirm the institution of marriage that they’re ipso facto intolerant? By that argument, Barack Obama was intolerant 14 months ago. By that argument, 342 members of the House, 85 members of the Senate, including, by the way, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, who all voted for this law, and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, were intolerant and motivated by an animus and a hatred for gays.
RACHEL MADDOW: They’ve all changed their mind on it. All of them.
RALPH REED: But…Obama was 14 months ago. Was he a bigot 14 months ago?
RACHEL MADDOW: Nobody’s calling anybody a bigot.
Was Obama a ?Bigot 14 Months Ago??: Ralph Reed Confronts Rachel Maddow, Rips Liberal Hypocrisy Over Who Is Labeled Anti-Gay | Video | TheBlaze.com
So why aren't you railing against public accommodation laws instead of civil marriage?
Why aren't you railing against Obama for being against gay marriage both times he ran, only to change his mind again? When I mean public accommodation, I mean anyone I find that I would rather not serve, that includes homosexuals. But back to the question. Why aren't you saying anything about Obama's changing stances on gay marriage? I love how you keep calling us bigoted and intolerant. This guy calls your bluff:
“Was he (Obama) a bigot 14 months ago?” Reed asked Maddow regarding Obama’s previous views, implying how difficult it would be for her to characterize other Democratic DOMA supporters such as Joe Biden and Harry Reid as “intolerant and motivated by an animus and a hatred for gays.”
RALPH REED: …this suggestion that because somebody wants to affirm the institution of marriage that they’re ipso facto intolerant? By that argument, Barack Obama was intolerant 14 months ago. By that argument, 342 members of the House, 85 members of the Senate, including, by the way, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, who all voted for this law, and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, were intolerant and motivated by an animus and a hatred for gays.
RACHEL MADDOW: They’ve all changed their mind on it. All of them.
RALPH REED: But…Obama was 14 months ago. Was he a bigot 14 months ago?
RACHEL MADDOW: Nobody’s calling anybody a bigot.
Was Obama a ?Bigot 14 Months Ago??: Ralph Reed Confronts Rachel Maddow, Rips Liberal Hypocrisy Over Who Is Labeled Anti-Gay | Video | TheBlaze.com
He wasn't a bigot in 1996, when he was for gay marriage.
Then in 1998, he was undecided so he wasn't only a bigot, but a coward.
Then in 2004 he was against gay marriage for political reasons, so not just a bigot and a coward but a cravenly political animal.
Then in 2006 he was against it because of his faith. So he was a religious bigot.
But when Joe Biden put him on the spot in 2012 and his base were starting to seem a little less than enthusiastic he was suddenly not a bigot anymore. Hallelujah. The One be praised.
Of course not, and when these cases get to the courts they will not be enforced. Congress cannot pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion and forcing people to participate in any way shape or form in this perversion that is now considered marriage, if it goes against their religious beliefs, is
un-Constitutional because it prohibits them from exercising their religion.
Wrong. You can't be discriminated against for your religion, but neither can you use it as a basis to discriminate...unless you're a church.
Of course not, and when these cases get to the courts they will not be enforced. Congress cannot pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion and forcing people to participate in any way shape or form in this perversion that is now considered marriage, if it goes against their religious beliefs, is
un-Constitutional because it prohibits them from exercising their religion.
Wrong. You can't be discriminated against for your religion, but neither can you use it as a basis to discriminate...unless you're a church.
We'll see what happens when the law suits start going through the courts. You have to face the facts that any law that prohibits the free exercise of a person's religion, and forcing people of faith to participate in a gay weddings or marriages certainly does that, is un-Constitutional. Saying you can't discriminate against some cross dressing freak or flaming homo is one thing, saying people of faith MUST participate in ceremonies that are directly forbidden by their faith is another story all together. Seems like the court cases going through now just regarding the aborticants and obamacare seems to be leaning towards it being un-Constitutional to force people of faith to act in a way that is contrary to their faith, we'll see.
Wrong. You can't be discriminated against for your religion, but neither can you use it as a basis to discriminate...unless you're a church.
We'll see what happens when the law suits start going through the courts. You have to face the facts that any law that prohibits the free exercise of a person's religion, and forcing people of faith to participate in a gay weddings or marriages certainly does that, is un-Constitutional. Saying you can't discriminate against some cross dressing freak or flaming homo is one thing, saying people of faith MUST participate in ceremonies that are directly forbidden by their faith is another story all together. Seems like the court cases going through now just regarding the aborticants and obamacare seems to be leaning towards it being un-Constitutional to force people of faith to act in a way that is contrary to their faith, we'll see.
There was a case recently in which a Muslim man fronted court and refused to stand for the judge, who was female. He claimed his religion prevented him from showing her the respect she deserved.
I assume you would stick up for the rights of that Muslim man not to stand for the judge before him?
Everybody who wants to listen to joeb talk about kids raise your hand.
So you think it's appropriate for children to be raised by crazy white supremicists?
Please take the bait. Please take the bait.
