On 12/9/2012 8:58 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:


I don't care who people marry or what color people are or their
country of origin.

Actually you always preach hate at people who come from a country or
state
you seem to dislike.



I have little tolerance for most of today's right-wing extremist
politicians and the people who elect them. Many of these right-wing
extremist politicians have shown they don't like women, they don't like
gays, they don't like blacks, they don't like latinos, they don't like
science and yet they are in positions of power and attempt to push their
backwards beliefs on the rest of us. I don't "hate" them, as you claim,
but I have no respect for these politicians or the people who elect
them. I'm glad to see Jim DeMint toddle himself out of the U.S. Senate,
though I suspect the governor of that state will name an interim U.S.
Senator who is just as much a backwards asshole as DeMint.

You must learn to practice tolerance of others, just as you expect
others to tolerate your intolerant ways. It's a two way street asshole.

Merry Christmas to you and your lovely wife.

On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 10:37:44 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:47:49 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a
lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with
Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will
probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


-----------------------------

It is supposed to be a free country. If you pay your taxes, do not force
your views on someone else, and the partners are not children and are in
agreement, then just let it be. Does not concern most of us, except maybe
in your views, but their views are allowable also.

I agree. They were both here for a 'Thanksgiving' dinner the week before Thanksgiving. No problem.
But, I won't attend their wedding - if and when it occurs.

You're just a bigoted asshole, Racist John.

If not believing in 'Gay Marriage' makes me a bigoted asshole, then I reckon you're right, Kevin.

"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/8/12 2:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/8/12 8:39 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...


GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it,
but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious
there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And
marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple
spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens,
but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives.
Not a lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto
with Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They
will probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


Obviously you will be a hate-filled asshole until the day you die, and
probably thereafter. Is skipping that wedding something Jesus would want
you to do?


-----------------------------------

You seem to be the hate filled asshole. Herring has his views, and as
long as he does not force them on others, that is OK. If you do not
like the idea of a gay partnership, then it is ok to pass on the
ceremony. Same as passing on most others ideas that are abhorrent to
oneself.



I don't care who people marry or what color people are or their country
of origin.



Au Contraire, your statements here show different.

"ESAD" wrote in message ...

On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:


I don't care who people marry or what color people are or their country
of origin.

Actually you always preach hate at people who come from a country or state
you seem to dislike.



I have little tolerance for most of today's right-wing extremist
politicians and the people who elect them. Many of these right-wing
extremist politicians have shown they don't like women, they don't like
gays, they don't like blacks, they don't like latinos, they don't like
science and yet they are in positions of power and attempt to push their
backwards beliefs on the rest of us. I don't "hate" them, as you claim,
but I have no respect for these politicians or the people who elect
them. I'm glad to see Jim DeMint toddle himself out of the U.S. Senate,
though I suspect the governor of that state will name an interim U.S.
Senator who is just as much a backwards asshole as DeMint.


---------------------------

I have little tolerance for bigoted buttheads as your are. You lump the
whole flyover region into uneducated, racist, people.

"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/8/12 4:03 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/8/2012 2:56 PM, Califbill wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1278725896376618279.354367bmckeenospam-
, says...

ESAD wrote:
On 12/7/12 5:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1635163131376547539.158933bmckeenospam-
, says...

thumper wrote:
On 12/6/2012 1:30 PM, Califbill wrote:

Atheists are using the court to enforce their beliefs. The
door to
door
missionary is at least honest about their views, and you can just
close the
door in their face.

They are using the courts to enforce the constitution.

Debatable. The constitution does not say there will not be
religion.
Basically it states there will not be "state religion" ala Church of
England. God is even referenced in the Declaration of Independence.
Religious people also have a right to use public property. It is
also
owned by them. This a government of, by, and for the people. Even
atheists can have a display on public property.

Ever hear of separation of church and state?


----------------------------
yup. Where does it state that in the Constitution?


In the first amendment and in interpretations by the supreme court,
neither of which you've probably read for comprehension.

The supremes have made conflicting interpretations over the years. The
first states there will not be State Religion. Even congress has
priests.

Do you really think it would be a good thing to have The Church run our
country without checks and balances? That's stupid.


------------------------

Where did I say that? The constitution states that the government will
be hands off religion. Not that there will be no religion.


You never did say that. But because he is an atheist with no moral core,
he will keep saying it. Doesn't matter to him what is right and wrong,
as long as he gets his govt check...


You two are really rocket scientists. Really. Ka-boom.


-----------------------

In a way I am. Designed and supplied equipment for Rockwell and the Space
Shuttle.

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 610427301376509105.183778bmckeenospam-
, says...

ESAD wrote:
On 12/6/12 7:46 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write
it,
but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and
probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes
reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More
importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on
others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious
there.
I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had
some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists
imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.


Funny post, really, and it shows how disconnected you are.

Please explain how liberals have made marriage a sham and while you
are
at it, tell how atheists are "imposing" their beliefs. Atheists
don't
give a damn about your religious beliefs so long as you don't try to
impose them on others. Atheists aren't imposing their beliefs on
anyone...there are no door to door atheist.

Atheists are using the court to enforce their beliefs. The door to
door
missionary is at least honest about their views, and you can just
close
the
door in their face.

Cite?


-----------------

Can not help since you are intellectually lazy.

As expected, you have NOTHING.


---------------------------------

Nope, probably a better degree than you. I do not need to do your work.
You need to do a little work to defend your thesis.

Yeah, sure. You can't back up your claim and you, now everyone here,
knows it.


---------------------

You are intellectually lazy.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 10:37:44 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:47:49 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a
lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with
Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will
probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


-----------------------------

It is supposed to be a free country. If you pay your taxes, do not force
your views on someone else, and the partners are not children and are in
agreement, then just let it be. Does not concern most of us, except maybe
in your views, but their views are allowable also.

I agree. They were both here for a 'Thanksgiving' dinner the week before Thanksgiving. No problem.
But, I won't attend their wedding - if and when it occurs.

You're just a bigoted asshole, Racist John.

If not believing in 'Gay Marriage' makes me a bigoted asshole, then I reckon you're right, Kevin.

Yes, it does make you a bigot.

In article ,
says...

"ESAD" wrote in message ...

On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:


I don't care who people marry or what color people are or their country
of origin.

Actually you always preach hate at people who come from a country or state
you seem to dislike.



I have little tolerance for most of today's right-wing extremist
politicians and the people who elect them. Many of these right-wing
extremist politicians have shown they don't like women, they don't like
gays, they don't like blacks, they don't like latinos, they don't like
science and yet they are in positions of power and attempt to push their
backwards beliefs on the rest of us. I don't "hate" them, as you claim,
but I have no respect for these politicians or the people who elect
them. I'm glad to see Jim DeMint toddle himself out of the U.S. Senate,
though I suspect the governor of that state will name an interim U.S.
Senator who is just as much a backwards asshole as DeMint.


---------------------------

I have little tolerance for bigoted buttheads as your are. You lump the
whole flyover region into uneducated, racist, people.

Yes, he does.

On 12/9/2012 1:27 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/8/12 4:03 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/8/2012 2:56 PM, Califbill wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1278725896376618279.354367bmckeenospam-
, says...

ESAD wrote:
On 12/7/12 5:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1635163131376547539.158933bmckeenospam-
,
says...

thumper wrote:
On 12/6/2012 1:30 PM, Califbill wrote:

Atheists are using the court to enforce their beliefs. The
door to
door
missionary is at least honest about their views, and you can just
close the
door in their face.

They are using the courts to enforce the constitution.

Debatable. The constitution does not say there will not be
religion.
Basically it states there will not be "state religion" ala
Church of
England. God is even referenced in the Declaration of
Independence.
Religious people also have a right to use public property. It is
also
owned by them. This a government of, by, and for the people. Even
atheists can have a display on public property.

Ever hear of separation of church and state?


----------------------------
yup. Where does it state that in the Constitution?


In the first amendment and in interpretations by the supreme court,
neither of which you've probably read for comprehension.

The supremes have made conflicting interpretations over the years. The
first states there will not be State Religion. Even congress has
priests.

Do you really think it would be a good thing to have The Church run our
country without checks and balances? That's stupid.


------------------------

Where did I say that? The constitution states that the government will
be hands off religion. Not that there will be no religion.


You never did say that. But because he is an atheist with no moral core,
he will keep saying it. Doesn't matter to him what is right and wrong,
as long as he gets his govt check...


You two are really rocket scientists. Really. Ka-boom.


-----------------------

In a way I am. Designed and supplied equipment for Rockwell and the
Space Shuttle.


And I was "King Tut" when it came to Chevy PFinjection electrical
diagnostics

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 610427301376509105.183778bmckeenospam-
, says...

ESAD wrote:
On 12/6/12 7:46 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write
it,
but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and
probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes
reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More
importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on
others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious
there.
I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had
some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists
imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.


Funny post, really, and it shows how disconnected you are.

Please explain how liberals have made marriage a sham and while you
are
at it, tell how atheists are "imposing" their beliefs. Atheists
don't
give a damn about your religious beliefs so long as you don't try to
impose them on others. Atheists aren't imposing their beliefs on
anyone...there are no door to door atheist.

Atheists are using the court to enforce their beliefs. The door to
door
missionary is at least honest about their views, and you can just
close
the
door in their face.

Cite?


-----------------

Can not help since you are intellectually lazy.

As expected, you have NOTHING.


---------------------------------

Nope, probably a better degree than you. I do not need to do your work.
You need to do a little work to defend your thesis.

Yeah, sure. You can't back up your claim and you, now everyone here,
knows it.


---------------------

You are intellectually lazy.

And you're not? If not, show me.