Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

ESAD wrote:
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.
....or if they choose to not pay their tax bill.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

On 12/8/12 9:19 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/8/2012 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 3:00 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
...

On 12/7/12 5:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/6/2012 4:30 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.


Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up
nasty
posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at
Nativities
and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds
poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown
Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing
else...


That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone.
You
want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your
church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public
park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the
public schools.

Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses
teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't
favoring
one religion over another.

It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools
or onto public facilities.

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

Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the
Atheists.


Actually, they belong to the people, and the Establishment Clause in
the
Constitution and Supreme Court rulings since say you cannot use the
public schools or facilities to push religious beliefs.


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

The
Establishment Clause in the Constitution says there will not be a state
religion. Nothing about not using public facilities.



Please. Save your interpretations for Herring, Snotty, and the rest of
the charlatan believers.

Better than you and your KKK brothers....

What? You're off your meds again, eh?

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

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.

Does Calvert County know about the modifications and additions you have
made to your house. Meaning, did you get permits pulled so that you
taxes can be raised for the perceived increase in value to your
landlord's property? I wouldn't want you to be in a conspiracy to commit
tax fraud.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 3:00 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
...

On 12/7/12 5:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/6/2012 4:30 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.


Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up nasty
posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at Nativities
and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds
poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown
Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing else...


That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone. You
want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your
church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public
park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the
public schools.

Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses
teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't favoring
one religion over another.

It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools
or onto public facilities.

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

Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the
Atheists.


Actually, they belong to the people, and the Establishment Clause in the
Constitution and Supreme Court rulings since say you cannot use the
public schools or facilities to push religious beliefs.


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

The
Establishment Clause in the Constitution says there will not be a state
religion. Nothing about not using public facilities.



Please. Save your interpretations for Herring, Snotty, and the rest of
the charlatan believers.

Non Christian's also use public facilities.


The objection is to using public facilities for religious purposes or to
promote religion.

I guess the schools should be shutdown, the courts should be shutdown
and the civil government should be shut down too. There is an awful lot
of praying going on.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

On 12/8/12 9:19 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/8/2012 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 3:00 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
...

On 12/7/12 5:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/6/2012 4:30 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.


Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up
nasty
posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at
Nativities
and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds
poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown
Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing
else...


That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone.
You
want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your
church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public
park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the
public schools.

Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses
teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't
favoring
one religion over another.

It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools
or onto public facilities.

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

Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the
Atheists.


Actually, they belong to the people, and the Establishment Clause in
the
Constitution and Supreme Court rulings since say you cannot use the
public schools or facilities to push religious beliefs.


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

The
Establishment Clause in the Constitution says there will not be a state
religion. Nothing about not using public facilities.



Please. Save your interpretations for Herring, Snotty, and the rest of
the charlatan believers.

Better than you and your KKK brothers....

What? You're off your meds again, eh?

You see colors, we see people.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 3:49 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/8/2012 3:04 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/7/12 11:24 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/7/2012 10:24 PM, thumper wrote:
On 12/7/2012 2:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote
On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote:

Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up
nasty
posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at
Nativities
and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds
poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown
Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing
else...


That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone.
You
want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your
church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public
park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the
public schools.

Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses
teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't
favoring
one religion over another.

It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools
or onto public facilities.

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

Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the
Atheists.

And that doesn't entitle either to state sponsorship. Do it on your
own.


So what does putting up a Christmas Tree, or Playing A Charlie Brown
Christmas have to do with State Sponsorship? Nothing, nothing at all...


It does if the tree is put up on public property, idiot.


----------------------
Only if put up by the government and paid for by the government. And
only one religious viewpoint allowed.


They couldn't show where the Constitution said "freedom from religion",
so now they are on to the next red herring. Fact is, they hate anybody
who doesn't devolve to their own selfish lifestyle, and are willing to
do anything to avoid facing the fact that they just selfish haters...


Neither of you have any understanding of the Constitution. Not a whit of understanding.

Actually you seem to have little sense of anything meaningful.


It is meaningful to keep church and state separate.

Why is it meaningful?

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

On 12/8/2012 11:52 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 3:00 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
...

On 12/7/12 5:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/6/2012 4:30 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.


Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up nasty
posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at Nativities
and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds
poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown
Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing else...


That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone. You
want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your
church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public
park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the
public schools.

Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses
teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't favoring
one religion over another.

It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools
or onto public facilities.

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

Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the
Atheists.


Actually, they belong to the people, and the Establishment Clause in the
Constitution and Supreme Court rulings since say you cannot use the
public schools or facilities to push religious beliefs.


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

The
Establishment Clause in the Constitution says there will not be a state
religion. Nothing about not using public facilities.



Please. Save your interpretations for Herring, Snotty, and the rest of
the charlatan believers.

Non Christian's also use public facilities.


The objection is to using public facilities for religious purposes or to
promote religion.

I guess the schools should be shutdown, the courts should be shutdown
and the civil government should be shut down too. There is an awful lot
of praying going on.


Prayers concerning Barry's well being?

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article 431024116376700616.988642bmckeenospam-
, says...

ESAD wrote:
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.

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

Very true.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article , says...

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...

Moral core? You don't pay your bills, you don't work, you call people
nasty names like "****" etc., yet you think you have a "moral core"
because you claim to be a Christian? If the way you live is Christian
like, leave me out of it. Have fun in Golob!

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

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.

Does Calvert County know about the modifications and additions you have
made to your house. Meaning, did you get permits pulled so that you
taxes can be raised for the perceived increase in value to your
landlord's property? I wouldn't want you to be in a conspiracy to commit
tax fraud.

What difference does it make, he doesn't pay his taxes anyway!!

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article , says...

On 12/8/2012 3:04 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/7/12 11:24 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/7/2012 10:24 PM, thumper wrote:
On 12/7/2012 2:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote
On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote:

Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up
nasty
posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at
Nativities
and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds
poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown
Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing
else...


That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone. You
want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your
church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public
park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the
public schools.

Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses
teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't
favoring
one religion over another.

It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools
or onto public facilities.

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

Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the
Atheists.

And that doesn't entitle either to state sponsorship. Do it on your
own.


So what does putting up a Christmas Tree, or Playing A Charlie Brown
Christmas have to do with State Sponsorship? Nothing, nothing at all...


It does if the tree is put up on public property, idiot.


----------------------
Only if put up by the government and paid for by the government. And
only one religious viewpoint allowed.


They couldn't show where the Constitution said "freedom from religion",
so now they are on to the next red herring. Fact is, they hate anybody
who doesn't devolve to their own selfish lifestyle, and are willing to
do anything to avoid facing the fact that they just selfish haters...

I'm selfish because I know that Christianity is a hateful religion?

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 3:49 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/8/2012 3:04 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/7/12 11:24 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/7/2012 10:24 PM, thumper wrote:
On 12/7/2012 2:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote
On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote:

Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up
nasty
posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at
Nativities
and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds
poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown
Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing
else...


That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone.
You
want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your
church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public
park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the
public schools.

Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses
teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't
favoring
one religion over another.

It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools
or onto public facilities.

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

Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the
Atheists.

And that doesn't entitle either to state sponsorship. Do it on your
own.


So what does putting up a Christmas Tree, or Playing A Charlie Brown
Christmas have to do with State Sponsorship? Nothing, nothing at all...


It does if the tree is put up on public property, idiot.


----------------------
Only if put up by the government and paid for by the government. And
only one religious viewpoint allowed.


They couldn't show where the Constitution said "freedom from religion",
so now they are on to the next red herring. Fact is, they hate anybody
who doesn't devolve to their own selfish lifestyle, and are willing to
do anything to avoid facing the fact that they just selfish haters...


Neither of you have any understanding of the Constitution. Not a whit of understanding.

Actually you seem to have little sense of anything meaningful.


It is meaningful to keep church and state separate.

Why is it meaningful?

Do you want to be ruled by a theocracy?

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article , says...

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.

Maybe if your weren't a tax cheat and deadbeat your words would be worth
something. You, Harry, have proved time and again that you are
duplicitous and a liar.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article , says...

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 ANY extremist politicians, left or right.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

"thumper" wrote in message ...

On 12/7/2012 2:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote
On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote:

Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up nasty
posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at Nativities
and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds
poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown
Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing else...


That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone. You
want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your
church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public
park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the
public schools.

Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses
teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't favoring
one religion over another.

It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools
or onto public facilities.

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

Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the
Atheists.

And that doesn't entitle either to state sponsorship. Do it on your own.

--------------------
If the government only allowed one religion or only atheists to use the
facilities, then that would be sponsorship. Allow all to use them. Around
here the are small churches that rent rooms at the local schools for church
services. The people / Government get revenue, and no state sponsorship of
a religious view.

Harry "The Tax Cheat" Krause and Kevin "Booger" Noble would put a stop
to that.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

"thumper" wrote in message ...

On 12/7/2012 2:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote
On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote:

Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up nasty
posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at Nativities
and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds
poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown
Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing else...


That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone. You
want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your
church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public
park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the
public schools.

Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses
teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't favoring
one religion over another.

It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools
or onto public facilities.

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

Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the
Atheists.

And that doesn't entitle either to state sponsorship. Do it on your own.

--------------------
If the government only allowed one religion or only atheists to use the
facilities, then that would be sponsorship. Allow all to use them. Around
here the are small churches that rent rooms at the local schools for church
services. The people / Government get revenue, and no state sponsorship of
a religious view.

Harry "The Tax Cheat" Krause and Kevin "Booger" Noble would put a stop
to that.

Everybody's Kevin..... Everybody's Harry..... BOO!

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

"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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

"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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

"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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

"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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

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:)

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

On 12/9/12 1:37 PM, JustWait wrote:
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:)


You were 19, suffered from curvature of the spine and were the product
of an incestuous relationship? I can believe that.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

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.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 3:49 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/8/2012 3:04 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/7/12 11:24 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/7/2012 10:24 PM, thumper wrote:
On 12/7/2012 2:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote
On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote:

Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up
nasty
posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at
Nativities
and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds
poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown
Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing
else...


That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone.
You
want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your
church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public
park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the
public schools.

Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses
teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't
favoring
one religion over another.

It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools
or onto public facilities.

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

Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the
Atheists.

And that doesn't entitle either to state sponsorship. Do it on your
own.


So what does putting up a Christmas Tree, or Playing A Charlie Brown
Christmas have to do with State Sponsorship? Nothing, nothing at all...


It does if the tree is put up on public property, idiot.


----------------------
Only if put up by the government and paid for by the government. And
only one religious viewpoint allowed.


They couldn't show where the Constitution said "freedom from religion",
so now they are on to the next red herring. Fact is, they hate anybody
who doesn't devolve to their own selfish lifestyle, and are willing to
do anything to avoid facing the fact that they just selfish haters...


Neither of you have any understanding of the Constitution. Not a whit of understanding.

Actually you seem to have little sense of anything meaningful.


It is meaningful to keep church and state separate.

Why is it meaningful?

Actually he is correct. But using public facilities for religion is not
combining state and religion. Until the state gives preference to one
group over another their is separation. There are churches that use school
facilities for Sunday service. They rent those facilities, just like any
other group that uses those facilities.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 18:53:56 -0500, 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.

That's a true statement.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

On 12/9/12 7:33 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 18:53:56 -0500, 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.

That's a true statement.


You're probably only taxing to your family and a bigoted asshole to
everyone else. Drag any Latinos in chains behind your truck yet?

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

On 12/9/12 7:33 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 18:53:56 -0500, 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.

That's a true statement.


You're probably only taxing to your family and a bigoted asshole to
everyone else. Drag any Latinos in chains behind your truck yet?

The IRS didn't have to come to his door with an $80K+ tax bill.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

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...

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

On 12/8/2012 1:16 PM, JustWait wrote:

Yes there are... they go from the door of one town hall, town to town,
looking for Christians to attack...

In the long history of religious persecution, both against and from
Christians, these trivially remedied lawsuits against municipalities or
school districts for illegally favoring one particular religion are
insignificant. Keep playing the poor pitiful victim however, you're
good at it, it's funny, and you look ridiculous.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

On 12/9/12 8:19 PM, thumper wrote:
On 12/8/2012 1:16 PM, JustWait wrote:

Yes there are... they go from the door of one town hall, town to town,
looking for Christians to attack...

In the long history of religious persecution, both against and from
Christians, these trivially remedied lawsuits against municipalities or
school districts for illegally favoring one particular religion are
insignificant. Keep playing the poor pitiful victim however, you're
good at it, it's funny, and you look ridiculous.



Do these atheists traveling from town to town do so on a tour bus?