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. To recap, I haven't offered an opinion yet but you all have embarassed yourselves. Originally Posted by JD BarleycornYour spelling is enough for me to wonder why you are allowed to teach.
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.
To change a law would be a form of oppression against the majority.
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. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
Your spelling, grammatical clumsiness and your stupidity should disqualify you from teaching anyone. ("To change a law would be a form of oppression against the majority.") Would it really? DOMA laws are on their way to being defeated, repealed or ruled unconstitutional in the courts, stupid. That is, unless the Teapublicans can elect Romney and get him to appoint more cretins like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito. Hell, we may have polygamy legalized if that happens.
The mark of an inability to make a point, the gay slur. Originally Posted by JD BarleycornOverall, your posts are examples of great sentence construction and word use, Barleybrains.
