Should Gays be a protected minority? Preacher says ....

Tell-tale sign of a flaming liberal .... believe they can read others' minds ... and then having believed they read others' minds they assign certain thought processes to them, since the flaming liberal "knows-it-all" and believes they are smarter than the others. That's why they want to gather up all the money and pass it out to the have-nots, because they want to be able to tell the have-nots how to spend the money they get passed out, because the flaming liberals believe they know better than the have-nots .... besides ..... they want a hand out as well.

! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Sounds like you just described what you do all the time.

Are you a flaming liberal LL?

LL is flaming, but not a liberal.

Sounds like you just described what you do all the time.

Are you a flaming liberal LL? Originally Posted by WTF

When have I posted what you are thinking? Ever? Here or on ASPD?

I'll answer that: Never. You're presumptuous in the content of your remarks. I'm not.

When I am addressing what you post, I am not addressing what you are thinking.

And just so you don't get twisted up and embarrassed, when I said "flaming" I was not calling attention to your interest in men. I use that term instead of ... "fucking" as a descriptor .... just to be socially and politically correct. As for the "liberal" part sometimes I am on certain topics and sometimes I'm not on other topics.... as those concepts seem to be important to some who want to put people in pidgeon holes.

From what you post it appears that labeling people is important to you so that you can then begin your criticism. My observation has to do with what appears to be the mental condition of persons who label themselves as liberal or align themselves with traditionally liberal causes and agendas. For some reason they are insecure about allowing people to make choices for themselves or they seem to believe people cannot make decisions for themselves. Otherwise why would they assume that burden?

Geez, WTF, you can go ahead and get married. You don't need the State to approve it .. just do a ceremony, exchange rings, and kiss each other! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I repeat.

I love how predictable and idiotic some of you are. I can drop nearly any innocuous phrase on a topic and you will all react as you did. You read stuff into it, you try to turn it to make your own point, you come up with a lie about what I said and then your off to the races. That was fun. Maybe we can reset the game and play again.

To recap, I haven't offered an opinion yet but you all have embarassed yourselves.

Now to the matter, I am curious that people such as yourselves have been against the idea of religion interfering with politics and here you celebrate an individual who starts out by clearly indentifying himself as a member of the clergy you detest.

On the surface he was very clever but that same argument has been used to support conservatives in places like Hollywood. For years I have written about substituting certain words to discover who is a bigot. (example Allison Janney speaking about having conservatives on the set of the West Wing to TV gude; on having blacks on the set or in the writing staff, "Aaron would never allow someone like that on his show." She was talking about conservatives but substitute black and you can see the bigotry.) What does this bill or regulation really do? Has anyone looked up the law being proposed? Apparently the point of the spear is gay marriage. Gay people are allowed to get married according to the understood definition of marriage. That can change and can be changed in people hearts and not on the law book. Every state that has had an opportunity to vote has voted to support traditional marriage by large margins. To change a law would be a form of oppression against the majority.

Now someone is spitting out their Yoo-Hoo throught their nose thinking this is their opening. Read on. The historical belief that race hatred was universal in the 1950s is a mistake. In isolated areas (yes, they were large areas) there was contempt and opposition to anything that smacked of equal rights but here is the difference; those rights were already enshrined in the Consitution in the form of the 13th,14th, and 15th amendments. The actions of the GOP president Eisenhower supported what already existed. Carving out a new right for gay people is adding something new. That is a major difference. Want to make a difference? Then propose a national referendum and abide by the result for a generation (20 years according to T. Jefferson).

I do notice that the ordinance was tabled.

When have I posted what you are thinking? Ever? Here or on ASPD?

I'll answer that: Never. You're presumptuous in the content of your remarks. I'm not.

When I am addressing what you post, I am not addressing what you are thinking.

And just so you don't get twisted up and embarrassed, when I said "flaming" I was not calling attention to your interest in men. ... ? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Let me get this straight. You have never posted what you think I think?

And in the very same post , you post that I have ''interest in men''. Which is what you think I think? Having a intrest in marriage equality is now equated to men?

You are not only a liar, you are a very bad liar.

You are the little kid that tries to convince the adults in the room that that isn't your hand in the Cookie jar. The hand attached to your arm that is attached to your body that has your head sitting on it with two lying lipps flapping in the breeze!

And just so you don't get twisted up and embarrassed, when I said "flaming" I was not calling attention to your interest in men. ... ? Originally Posted by LexusLover

And in the very same post , you post that I have ''interest in men''. Which is what you think I think? Having a intrest in marriage equality is now equated to men?

You are not only a liar, you are a very bad liar.
Originally Posted by WTF

Are you suggesting that I am lying about your interest in men? ... or ....

.... are you suggesting that I am lying about saying you have an interest in men?

Perhaps I miss understood your insistence on "gay marriage" ... and you are really concerned that two women ought to be able to marry each other, rather than two men ought to be able to marry each other.

Forgive me and for getting your concerns confused I do apologize. Are you championing the cause for same sex marriages with both sexes .. or just men? If it's the former then I admire your desire for "equality," but if the later then you ought to be ashamed of your insensitivity to equality.

As for the decision for the State to approve marriages, I want the State to make that decision, rather than Congress or the United States Supreme Court.

As for what you think about it, I usually don't pay much attention to rich, intelligencia that attempt to brow beat people with their heavy handed bullshit into either refraining from speaking their opinions or leaving "the house" so to speak. I am more interested in equality than that. And just because someone is more intelligent and richer than others doesn't mean they know more about people and what people are thinking.

Now, see, I know you think you are richer and more intelligent than others, because you said it. So don't go saying I was saying I could read your mind. I can't. I don't presume that I can, little rich, smart boy.

When I am addressing what you post, I am not addressing what you are thinking. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Here little rich, smart boy .... is the part of what I wrote that you left out!

See how rich and intelligent people are .. cutting and pasting champions.

Oh, since you mentioned how rich and intelligent you are .. I was wondering .... who you felt about a 40% tax bracket to help out with the food stamp program and some health care premiums for the poor?

Actually 40% would really be greedy of you. How about 50%? 60%?

As for the decision for the State to approve marriages, I want the State to make that decision, rather than Congress or the United States Supreme Court.



. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I want the individual to make that decision.

.



Now, see, I know you think you are richer and more intelligent than others, because you said it. . Originally Posted by LexusLover

HatingKayla said she felt sorry for our families, I said mine was rich. I addressed her concern. Politically , from her posting in this forum, I know I know more about politics. Rainman knows more about politics than she.

.



. So don't go saying I was saying I could read your mind. I can't. I don't presume that I can, little rich, smart boy. Originally Posted by LexusLover

If you do not want me to say it, then quit saying things assuming that you can. And I did not say I was rich, nor did I say I was a boy. You sure make up allot of shit.

Here little rich, smart boy .... is the part of what I wrote that you left out! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Are you addressing me? I already told you that I am not rich, nor a boy.

Oh, since you mentioned how rich and intelligent you are .. I was wondering .... who you felt about a 40% tax bracket to help out with the food stamp program and some health care premiums for the poor?

Actually 40% would really be greedy of you. How about 50%? 60%? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I said I was smarter than HatingKayla in politics.I did not say I was rich , for the third time.

Well since you asked, I think we should cut wasteful military spending. It has doubled in the last ten years. Military spending that is.

I think the poor need to get off their ass and go get a J O B.

Actually, when someone posts as many homophobic "insults" as WTF, it's apparent he is insecure about his sexuality, and may actually be attracted to men. You may not be far off, LL.

You may not be far off, LL. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I was thinking that myself ...

He has some company on here,....

..... but it is at least academically interesting that a self-proclaimed liberal (loves Obaminable) would use the label of someone being "gay" or the suggestion even that the someone is "gay" ... as an insult. Does seem a little inconsistent and strange.

My SO believes that guys who drive large, jacked up, 4x4's have small dicks. May be that is the same thing going on. I don't know, apparently she does!

Are you addressing me? I already told you that I am not rich, nor a boy. Originally Posted by WTF

Yes. So. I address you frequently in an effort to correct your misimpression.

You ignore. Don't you believe in equal treatment?

That's a problem with little rich kids.

They perceive themselves to be special.

Do you think you are special, WTF?

I love how predictable and idiotic some of you are. I can drop nearly any innocuous phrase on a topic and you will all react as you did. You read stuff into it, you try to turn it to make your own point, you come up with a lie about what I said and then your off to the races. That was fun. Maybe we can reset the game and play again.

To recap, I haven't offered an opinion yet but you all have embarassed yourselves. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Cute pretending your mistakes are misleading statements to trap the unwary ..