100,000 Americans murdered since 9/11 (and not by terr'ists)
-
Sentiments can't undermine. Sentiments are in line with criticism. This is a free country. We are allowed our sentiments. Direct actions are different. But a sentiment is an opinion. Not treasonous.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But a sentiment is an opinion. Not treasonous.
I'm sure Clement Vallandigham felt exactly the same way. Both of you put your sentiments before the good of the country which the commander in chief is obligated to defend. Clement learned a lesson that many today badly need be educated on as well. I think banishing a few of the leaders of our modern 'copperhead' party to Iran would just about do the trick. I just wish Bush had a little more Lincoln in him (now thats respectful criticism, just in case you're taking notes).
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
This is a free country
No thanks to sentiments, but rather to presidents who understood what their oath to the constitution really meant.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But a sentiment is an opinion. Not treasonous.
I'm sure Clement Vallandigham felt exactly the same way. Both of you put your sentiments before the good of the country which the commander in chief is obligated to defend. Clement learned a lesson that many today badly need be educated on as well. I think banishing a few of the leaders of our modern 'copperhead' party to Iran would just about do the trick. I just wish Bush had a little more Lincoln in him (now thats respectful criticism, just in case you're taking notes).
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
This is a free country
No thanks to sentiments, but rather to presidents who understood what their oath to the constitution really meant.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
I keep my sentiments to myself for the most part. I've only stated that he's abused his power here in this forum. That's not undermining him. That's voicing my view. And I have that right as a citizen and it can't be considered treason. That's going overboard.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No thanks to sentiments, but rather to presidents who understood what their oath to the constitution really meant.
And not in spite of sentiments either.
This statement was never false.
-
Call me some more names. You're exposing your wonderfully creative personality with these inane attempts. I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny. It appears that you have a stick up your butt. Attempting to look smart clever by insulting other people. Interesting.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny.
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny.
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
And why would I care about that, and why would I even be offended? You're not doing to well at this insult thing. Why insult people you disagree with? Is it inversely reflective of your ability to reason?
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny.
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
And why would I care about that, and why would I even be offended? You're not doing to well at this insult thing. Why insult people you disagree with? Is it inversely reflective of your ability to reason?
I forgot what we were even talking about, to be honest. Congrats, you've bored me to tears.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I thought it was funny. You spoke for the community. You don't have to be white for it to be funny.
A link to a wikipedia entry about a decade-old song sung by a terrible pop-punk band about a wanna-be rap fan? Don't quit your day job, Saturday Night Live isn't going to be asking for your advice any time soon.
Hahahahaha.... thanks. I needed to laugh.
This statement was never false.
-
Do you have any citations that prove your claim that Gay Marriage was a right under the law.. ever?
This statement was never false.
Geez dude, didn't I already explain this is rehash of the same old boring argument. We all have the right to "Life, Liberty (Freedom), and the pursuit of happiness". Since we "all" have those rights you obviously can't infringe on my rights or you are violating the spirit of freedom. So if you are not impinging on someone else's unalienable rights, or there isn't a "written" law you are violating then you are "free" to do what makes you happy. So do you have any written laws to quote or are you just going to trot out the same old boring illogical nonsense about how if they had the right they would have been doing it a long time ago. If you think that passes for logic I certainly hope you are not a software developer.
-
Geez dude, didn't I already explain this is rehash of the same old boring argument. We all have the right to "Life, Liberty (Freedom), and the pursuit of happiness". Since we "all" have those rights you obviously can't infringe on my rights or you are violating the spirit of freedom. So if you are not impinging on someone else's unalienable rights, or there isn't a "written" law you are violating then you are "free" to do what makes you happy. So do you have any written laws to quote or are you just going to trot out the same old boring illogical nonsense about how if they had the right they would have been doing it a long time ago. If you think that passes for logic I certainly hope you are not a software developer.
We're talking about a marriage recognized by the Federal branch for tax purposes. That's it. Has the government ever recognized Gay Marriage for tax purposes?
led mike wrote:
If you think that passes for logic I certainly hope you are not a software developer.
Now you've sunk to ad hominid attacks huh? Sounds like you're the one word smithing. And I hope you're not a software developer as your logic is suspect. You're too close to the problem.
This statement was never false.
-
We're talking about a marriage recognized by the Federal branch for tax purposes. That's it. Has the government ever recognized Gay Marriage for tax purposes?
led mike wrote:
If you think that passes for logic I certainly hope you are not a software developer.
Now you've sunk to ad hominid attacks huh? Sounds like you're the one word smithing. And I hope you're not a software developer as your logic is suspect. You're too close to the problem.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
for tax purposes?
When did "taxes" become a part of this question? Oh right, when you decided to go off topic thinking I wouldn't notice *rolleyes*
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Now you've sunk to ad hominid attacks huh?
My bad, sorry.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
your logic is suspect. You're too close to the problem.
You have still not provided any evidence that shows any original federal or natural law that prohibited same sex marriage. Unless you do your claim that they never had the right is unfounded. That logic is inescapable. If the evidence exists then it exists and that would be inescapable. So you either have it or you don't, it has nothing to do with taxes. The tax argument might be a good one in favor of an amendment that limits marriage to opposite sexes but has no bearing on whether or not they ever were limited by federal or natural law.
-
We're talking about a marriage recognized by the Federal branch for tax purposes. That's it. Has the government ever recognized Gay Marriage for tax purposes?
led mike wrote:
If you think that passes for logic I certainly hope you are not a software developer.
Now you've sunk to ad hominid attacks huh? Sounds like you're the one word smithing. And I hope you're not a software developer as your logic is suspect. You're too close to the problem.
This statement was never false.
led mike wrote:
when you decided to go off topic thinking I wouldn't notice *rolleyes*
Now you're pulling a Red speaking for another. Welcome to the led logic prism. The whole issue of legality centers around benefits received from being married. Which, the leading benefit is a tax break. Twist it some more. I can see that you and Red are indeed two sides of the same coin.
led mike wrote:
You have still not provided any evidence that shows any original federal or natural law that prohibited same sex marriage. Unless you do your claim that they never had the right is unfounded. That logic is inescapable. If the evidence exists then it exists and that would be inescapable. So you either have it or you don't, it has nothing to do with taxes. The tax argument might be a good one in favor of an amendment that limits marriage to opposite sexes but has no bearing on whether or not they ever were limited by federal or natural law.
And you still haven't shown that they ever had that right UNDER LAW. And you're avoiding the logic by putting a burden of proof on my statement. I'd have to display all laws, and then show that that law never existed. Quite the task really and isn't even possible with the amount of time I have. You only have to cite one law that says they had the right under law. My position is that a law never existed which gave the right. You contend the right is invisible with the others as, if it isn't stated then its a given. Yet, there isn't any recorded same sex marriages. It wasn't even socially acceptable. I'd accept the gains you've received and quit whining about splitting these hairs of legality. Like I said, you're too close to the problem. Hopefully the day comes when your marriage is recognized as equal and valid.
This statement was never false.