Quote:Why do people insist on using violence and destruction as a way to get their point across? I want a serious answer to this, and not from the conservatives who are going to talk smack. I want a liberal to explain to all of us why this is considered acceptable behavior. Maybe I'm getting old or something but this is not how civilized people settle [BAD WORD REMOVED].
It's not acceptable and you would have to ask the people doing it.
I don't think anyone on this board has been physically violent so you most likely won't get answers. The only people who can answer your question are the people actually doing it.
Quote:So "gay rights" is progress? The fact that a union between two people of the same sex is referred to by some people as "marriage" is progress? Is that what government is supposed to do? In the 8 years that a liberal has been in the White House that's supposedly "progress" or an accomplishment?
You said "Antifa is an actual name of a group". Honestly, I've never heard of it but from the quick look that I did it's just another name for far left liberals. You probably have a membership card, or are they too cheap to even produce membership cards?
You get annoyed when I put words in quotation marks, but you don't really understand. Much of that is because of my programming background when trying to isolate a string of text. Some of it though is to express certain things in the written word. It's no "gimmick" it's the way that I express myself. I thought that you liberals would understand that or were "tolerant" of that. You automatically assume that I do so because it "makes me look witty". It's just another judgment on your part without knowing the facts, but that's typical of liberals. They typically just judge people and must put them all into categories
The written word has been replaced with hashtags, emoticons and abbreviations.
No it's not. You do it to get a rise out people and or annoy them. Same with your use of strike outs. There is really no need to lie about your intentions since they are so blatantly transparent.
Quote:You bet your butt being able to marry someone you love regardless of their gender is progress. It may not mean a thing to you and perhaps you disagree, so progress would never be the word you'd use. I'ts tremendous progress for those of us who never had that right previously.
I plan on exercising that right this April, as a matter of fact, and can't wait! My son, our son, that we adopted 11 years ago is beyond excited!
The only "progress" that you are about to enjoy is to enter into a "civil union" and call it a "marriage". The "progress" is that you will be able to legally call it a marriage. It doesn't matter to you or other leftists that the term "marriage" has deeper meaning to a far more majority of the population.
Here's a couple of questions for you. Why is it so important to gays to call a legal process a "marriage"? I thought that religion and legal stuff was supposed to be separated. Legally it's a union between two people which essentially is a contract. A heterosexual couple getting "married" has to sign the same document that a gay couple has to sign. That document is basically a legal contract. Regardless if it's a gay union or a heterosexual union, that's the legal part of it that involves government. Should that document be called a "marriage license" or should it be more generic and called a "civil union license" regardless of the genders of the people signing it?
The term "marriage" is used by many religions and often includes some kind of ritual that means a union between two members of that religion, often and usually a male and a female have joined together. Why is it that gays seem to think that they can hijack and use that term as their own? This leaves the realm of law and enters the realm of religion.
For the record and I really do mean this. I am happy for you and I wish you the best of luck. If you happen to have a couple of invitations to the event, my wife and I surely would attend. If not, I do understand. We may not agree politically, but you and I are both long time posters on this board and I do respect you.
Quote:The only "progress" that you are about to enjoy is to enter into a "civil union" and call it a "marriage". The "progress" is that you will be able to legally call it a marriage. It doesn't matter to you or other leftists that the term "marriage" has deeper meaning to a far more majority of the population.
Here's a couple of questions for you. Why is it so important to gays to call a legal process a "marriage"? I thought that religion and legal stuff was supposed to be separated. Legally it's a union between two people which essentially is a contract. A heterosexual couple getting "married" has to sign the same document that a gay couple has to sign. That document is basically a legal contract. Regardless if it's a gay union or a heterosexual union, that's the legal part of it that involves government. Should that document be called a "marriage license" or should it be more generic and called a "civil union license" regardless of the genders of the people signing it?
The term "marriage" is used by many religions and often includes some kind of ritual that means a union between two members of that religion, often and usually a male and a female have joined together. Why is it that gays seem to think that they can hijack and use that term as their own? This leaves the realm of law and enters the realm of religion.
For the record and I really do mean this. I am happy for you and I wish you the best of luck. If you happen to have a couple of invitations to the event, my wife and I surely would attend. If not, I do understand. We may not agree politically, but you and I are both long time posters on this board and I do respect you.
Why does it bother you what other people want to do?
You're very triggered by this. Or should I say "you're" "very" "triggered" "by" "this".
Quote:I'll explain it to you, when you explain why what Dylan Roof did is considered acceptable behavior. Or Robert Dear. Or Jim Adkisson.
OK smart [BLEEP] name one person on this board that condoned Dylan Roof! Did anyone here even defend this? In fact many here condemned this, yet here you are trying to paint every conservative as a racist. Let me clue you in, this right here is why Trump is in the White House today.
Quote:The only "progress" that you are about to enjoy is to enter into a "civil union" and call it a "marriage". The "progress" is that you will be able to legally call it a marriage. It doesn't matter to you or other leftists that the term "marriage" has deeper meaning to a far more majority of the population.
Here's a couple of questions for you. Why is it so important to gays to call a legal process a "marriage"? I thought that religion and legal stuff was supposed to be separated. Legally it's a union between two people which essentially is a contract. A heterosexual couple getting "married" has to sign the same document that a gay couple has to sign. That document is basically a legal contract. Regardless if it's a gay union or a heterosexual union, that's the legal part of it that involves government. Should that document be called a "marriage license" or should it be more generic and called a "civil union license" regardless of the genders of the people signing it?
The term "marriage" is used by many religions and often includes some kind of ritual that means a union between two members of that religion, often and usually a male and a female have joined together. Why is it that gays seem to think that they can hijack and use that term as their own? This leaves the realm of law and enters the realm of religion.
For the record and I really do mean this. I am happy for you and I wish you the best of luck. If you happen to have a couple of invitations to the event, my wife and I surely would attend. If not, I do understand. We may not agree politically, but you and I are both long time posters on this board and I do respect you.
We've hashed this out before but I'll say this, if it really was such a religious experience and the word married was held in such high regard, why then do those who've enjoyed this privilege, wreck it by getting divorced, cheating, abuse, etc... and many straight couples who get married aren't even religious anyway!
You can't claim a word as you're own and cite this argument when it's been already removed so far from that original sentiment that you speak of to even make that kind of argument sound legitimate.
Quote:Please enlighten me.
Every conservative is a racist.
Every liberal is a snowflake.
The majority of conservatives on this board think all liberals are snowflakes with no jobs and protest all day. Which isn't true at all. And of course, not all conservatives are racist.
Quote:Every conservative is a racist.
Every liberal is a snowflake.
The majority of conservatives on this board think all liberals are snowflakes with no jobs and protest all day. Which isn't true at all. And of course, not all conservatives are racist.
And again what does this have to do with my original posted response?
Quote:OK smart [BAD WORD REMOVED] name one person on this board that condoned Dylan Roof! Did anyone here even defend this? In fact many here condemned this, yet here you are trying to paint every conservative as a racist. Let me clue you in, this right here is why Trump is in the White House today.
I'll do that as soon as you point to someone who defended these guys? I'll be waiting.
Quote:I'll do that as soon as you point to someone who defended these guys? I'll be waiting.
Not on this board but is it fair to say that they have received accolades and support from claimed liberals on social media?
You didn't see claimed conservatives supporting Dylan roof or the shooting in Canada, not even the notorious alt right as it's referred to. Maybe I just didn't see it?
But scan any news article about the riots at Berkeley and you'll find all kinds of support and bragging about owning the street.
That's the difference I see.
Quote:Not on this board but is it fair to say that they have received accolades and support from claimed liberals on social media?
You didn't see claimed conservatives supporting Dylan roof or the shooting in Canada, not even the notorious alt right as it's referred to. Maybe I just didn't see it?
But scan any news article about the riots at Berkeley and you'll find all kinds of support and bragging about owning the street.
That's the difference I see.
I definitely saw people, and even heard people defend the Orlando Shooter. Including people in my own family. And I saw them defending the planned parenthood shooter too. In fact I linked to a few articles back when it happened about a few people saying that it was 'righteous' what the Orlando Shooter did.
Also are those people defending the rioting (Which I denounced on this board, yet JIB still decides to lump me in with them for some reason... hmm wonder why)? Or are they defending the peaceful protesters who weren't involved in the rioting? I mean one thing I see conservatives LOVE to do is lump the left altogether as if we're a hivemind. I mean peaceful protesters get thrown in with the violent ones for no good reason. Which only furthest the cause of the violent protesters.
Also I see nowhere else this mention of the professor. Todd Starnes is known for making stuff up and exaggerating--I trust him as much as conservatives trust DailyKos.
Quote:I definitely saw people, and even heard people defend the Orlando Shooter. Including people in my own family. And I saw them defending the planned parenthood shooter too. In fact I linked to a few articles back when it happened about a few people saying that it was 'righteous' what the Orlando Shooter did.
Also are those people defending the rioting (Which I denounced on this board, yet JIB still decides to lump me in with them for some reason... hmm wonder why)? Or are they defending the peaceful protesters who weren't involved in the rioting? I mean one thing I see conservatives LOVE to do is lump the left altogether as if we're a hivemind. I mean peaceful protesters get thrown in with the violent ones for no good reason. Which only furthest the cause of the violent protesters.
The left tends to get lumped in with the leftist violent protesters because your leaders, while they denounce the violence, they do not denounce the rhetoric and ideology of these people. When Obama invited BLM leaders to the white house, we all collectively cringed.
Quote:The left tends to get lumped in with the leftist violent protesters because your leaders, while they denounce the violence, they do not denounce the rhetoric and ideology of these people. When Obama invited BLM leaders to the white house, we all collectively cringed.
And there you go again. Lumping all the BLM protesters in together. You lump everyone together, so I'm going to start doing the same. The right loves doing this stuff. If we're going to play that game, then we'll play the game.
Quote:And there you go again. Lumping all the BLM protesters in together. You lump everyone together, so I'm going to start doing the same. The right loves doing this stuff. If we're going to play that game, then we'll play the game.
BLM has leaders that speak for it, that go to the Whitehouse ect. If you don't agree with advocating for killing cops, why would you identify with BLM?
![[Image: Screen%20Shot%202017-02-02%20at%207.39.18%20AM.png]](https://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/uploaded/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-02%20at%207.39.18%20AM.png)