|
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/10/2012 10:14 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/10/12 10:03 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:53:07 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 12/9/2012 6:53 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 12/9/12 1:06 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: 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. There are many reasons why you are a bigoted asshole. If John is a bigoted asshole, he is a taxing paying bigoted asshole. Don't want to tell anyone what to do but I got invited to a Gay Marriage back in the 90's. I was against it too, still am. I went to the ceremony though. I figure if two people think they love each other and want to spend their lives together, who the f am I? And as far as the moral dilema, I figure God can decide how to judge them later... I was good friends with the guy and explained it to him just like that, he knew I didn't agree with his lifestyle, but realized that I too am a sinner and a Christian like him, and he didn't judge my sins... Where is it written that marriage is between a man and a woman? Dictionary.com mar·riage [mar-ij] Show IPA noun 1.a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation. And, of course, you can probably find secondary and tertiary meanings that include gays, dogs, goats, etc. If you weren't such a small-minded, bigoted asshole, you'd realize there are dozens and dozens of definitions for the coupling of marriage, and that they are not necessarily secondary meanings. There are, for example, communal marriages, a system prevailing amongst some primitive peoples, by which within a small community all the men are regarded as married to all the women, and vice versa; sometimes called group marriage. There's Scotch marriage: a marriage according to the Scots law, effected by a mutual declaration before witnesses, without other formality; chiefly applied to the runaway marriages (formerly frequent) of couples who crossed from England into Scotland in order to escape the restrictions imposed by English law on the marriage of minors without the consent of their guardians. What definition of marriage does your union with Karen fit? |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article ,
says... On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:53:07 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 12/9/2012 6:53 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 12/9/12 1:06 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: 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. There are many reasons why you are a bigoted asshole. If John is a bigoted asshole, he is a taxing paying bigoted asshole. Don't want to tell anyone what to do but I got invited to a Gay Marriage back in the 90's. I was against it too, still am. I went to the ceremony though. I figure if two people think they love each other and want to spend their lives together, who the f am I? And as far as the moral dilema, I figure God can decide how to judge them later... I was good friends with the guy and explained it to him just like that, he knew I didn't agree with his lifestyle, but realized that I too am a sinner and a Christian like him, and he didn't judge my sins... Where is it written that marriage is between a man and a woman? Dictionary.com mar·riage [mar-ij] Show IPA noun 1.a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation. And, of course, you can probably find secondary and tertiary meanings that include gays, dogs, goats, etc. You are dishonest, you didn't give the whole definition. Not only are you a bigot, racist and intolerant, you are a liar. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article ,
says... On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:15:56 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/10/12 9:02 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 20:07:55 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/9/2012 6:53 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 12/9/12 1:06 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: 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. There are many reasons why you are a bigoted asshole. If John is a bigoted asshole, he is a taxing paying bigoted asshole. Don't want to tell anyone what to do but I got invited to a Gay Marriage back in the 90's. I was against it too, still am. I went to the ceremony though. I figure if two people think they love each other and want to spend their lives together, who the f am I? And as far as the moral dilema, I figure God can decide how to judge them later... I was good friends with the guy and explained it to him just like that, he knew I didn't agree with his lifestyle, but realized that I too am a sinner and a Christian like him, and he didn't judge my sins... Yup. Well, I love my niece, play golf with her, watched her graduate from the Naval Academy, cheered when she became a Naval Aviator, and have had her and her 'spouse' for dinner several times. But, I won't participate in a 'marriage' between gays. Just don't believe in it. Call it something else, and I might go. Maybe - 'unionage', 'conjugage', 'amalgation', or make up another word. I guess I'm just a 'bigoted asshole', along with being, according to H&K, a racist asshole. "Participate"? You mean, attend the ceremony? No one is asking you to marry a gay. You're a small-minded, bigoted, racist asshole. Yup. And I don't need to call you any names, 'cause everyone already knows. There's that Christian tolerance, eh Racist John? |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article m,
says... On 12/10/2012 9:15 AM, ESAD wrote: On 12/10/12 9:02 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 20:07:55 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/9/2012 6:53 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 12/9/12 1:06 PM, GuzzisRule wrote: 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. There are many reasons why you are a bigoted asshole. If John is a bigoted asshole, he is a taxing paying bigoted asshole. Don't want to tell anyone what to do but I got invited to a Gay Marriage back in the 90's. I was against it too, still am. I went to the ceremony though. I figure if two people think they love each other and want to spend their lives together, who the f am I? And as far as the moral dilema, I figure God can decide how to judge them later... I was good friends with the guy and explained it to him just like that, he knew I didn't agree with his lifestyle, but realized that I too am a sinner and a Christian like him, and he didn't judge my sins... Yup. Well, I love my niece, play golf with her, watched her graduate from the Naval Academy, cheered when she became a Naval Aviator, and have had her and her 'spouse' for dinner several times. But, I won't participate in a 'marriage' between gays. Just don't believe in it. Call it something else, and I might go. Maybe - 'unionage', 'conjugage', 'amalgation', or make up another word. I guess I'm just a 'bigoted asshole', along with being, according to H&K, a racist asshole. "Participate"? You mean, attend the ceremony? No one is asking you to marry a gay. You're a small-minded, bigoted, racist asshole. He may be a bit bigoted. We all are. But what makes him a small minded, racist asshole? What makes him small minded is his constant far right wing bull**** and his stance that everything right is good and everything left is bad. What makes him a racist is his racism. He's made disparaging remarks here about Mexicans in his neighborhood, he's repeated Mexican jokes here as well. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
"JustWait" wrote in message ...
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:) ------------------------ huh? I designed disk drive controllers for Digital Equipment Corp. computers. And Rockwell used a a VAX780 with my controller as the interface to a disk drive farm. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/10/2012 1:11 PM, Califbill wrote:
"JustWait" wrote in message ... 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:) ------------------------ huh? I designed disk drive controllers for Digital Equipment Corp. computers. And Rockwell used a a VAX780 with my controller as the interface to a disk drive farm. Great, not knocking your stuff, you got a lot further than I... But in my field, I was tops and could do a lot more than harry ever thought of doing... that's all I was saying. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/10/12 1:41 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/10/2012 1:11 PM, Califbill wrote: "JustWait" wrote in message ... 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:) ------------------------ huh? I designed disk drive controllers for Digital Equipment Corp. computers. And Rockwell used a a VAX780 with my controller as the interface to a disk drive farm. Great, not knocking your stuff, you got a lot further than I... But in my field, I was tops and could do a lot more than harry ever thought of doing... that's all I was saying. If you were a top of the line auto mechanic, you could have earned a six figure salary and you'd still be earning it. If you had half a brain, you could have been the service manager at a big dealership and been earning a lot more. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article , says...
On 12/10/2012 1:11 PM, Califbill wrote: "JustWait" wrote in message ... 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:) ------------------------ huh? I designed disk drive controllers for Digital Equipment Corp. computers. And Rockwell used a a VAX780 with my controller as the interface to a disk drive farm. Great, not knocking your stuff, you got a lot further than I... But in my field, I was tops and could do a lot more than harry ever thought of doing... that's all I was saying. So why are you unemployable now? |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
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. Seems to be both sides of the aisle are preaching hate and intolerance. You just like your intolerance. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com