Nice rant, but I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm not a whining Liberal nor have I ever complained about "getting no respect" nor have I ever complained about the bogus "war against women's rights".

As do you! :D

I apologize, all LIBERALS look the same to me.

Just for the record, I am a Conservative. But, in your case all IDIOTS look the same to me!

OK PINHEADS. Lets make 6pm the cutoff time tonight for the spewing of venom to stop until tomorrow morning at 6am. You think you can do it like you did on Christmas. We were so proud of you then acting like the Good American's I'm sure you are.

Sure you are. That's why you use the extreme when referring to losing your freedom of speech when someone mentioned that if you didn't vote, you had no right to complain. Who are you attempting to fool? Yourself? Either that, or you don't know which comment your are replying to.

Isn't it funny how a liberal will deny being a liberal when he is called out on something he said?

I'll stand by what the other poster said IF YOU DIDN'T VOTE, you can't complain about the results. You can't complain about what that leadership is doing with our country. As a matter of fact, if you didn't fulfill your obligation to vote, then you can only comment on future politics, or else admit that you are part of the problem. One doesn't make any difference if he chooses not to vote out of spite. You hold your nose and vote for the least bad choice, if that is how you feel.

Funny how you Liberals feel that someone has the obligation to vote but has no obligation to serve in the military or pay taxes.

Just as I thought, you are replying to the wrong post again. Nice cover up, though. You might want to hold back on the consumption of alcohol a bit. It's still early in the day and New Years is hours away.

If anything in my posts suggest that I am a liberal to you, then you are a problem drinker. If you are playing, then you are a troll. Either way, you shouldn't be on here with the adults.

I read this whole thread twice and haven't found any adults yet(except me)

You do realize that you don't have read nor respond to my posts don't you?

Oh, by the way, I don't really care what you think about my "obligation" to vote, nor do I care what rights you think that I should enjoy when it comes to complaining about ANYTHING. Why would I? What makes you so special, that I should care?

Obviously, you do.....:icon_wink:

You must care, else you wouldn't still be here.

And where is it written or stated there is a difference in rights of those who voted VS those who did not vote?

Just another position to facilitate a statement to be made....now an opinion we can all handle that (most of us that is).....

we all hove our own and agree with some and disagree with others and still more we are close on.

There are some few who have a major problem acknowledging there are any valid opinions other than the ones they promote. And as we all know it ain't a learning process. Some things cannot be fixed.

CAREFUL. That might be construed by liberals to be a violation of HR 569 regarding hate speech. And for the record, we welcome your conversion over to our side.

Any so are you. Thanks for reading and responding to my posts.

Perhaps that poster that said one cannot complain if they did not vote, meant "in my opinion, one has no right to complain if one did not vote." Sometimes when a liberal is looking for a fight, you have to spell it out for them so they have no ammo. Of course, ammo is a bad choice of words, considering the anti-gun rhetoric it might start.

???? :wine::wine:

That was a typo, but you knew that didn't you? Then again maybe not. In any case, it should read "And' not "Any". I don't bother to proofread my post, because it really isn't worth my time nor effort.

:posting:..+..:wine:..=...:loco:

Your response to my post demonstrates than even idiots can be creative.

Definitely liberal speak. Why try to hide it? No big deal. I'm thick skinned, but you seem to be very sensitive. Perhaps you should give it a break until next year.

Perhaps you are right, I am a little thin skinned, and the term "idiot" was really uncalled for. I hope you accept my apology. The term "jerk" would have been more appropriate. Have a Happy New Year!

Actually, I was not offended by the term "idiot." I was sure that you meant that affectionately. I have also been called a "jerk" by friends, as well as other "terms" of affection, so no apology needed.

Have a Happy New Year, and remember.....don't drink and drive. And if you do, don't get caught. :beer3:

resolution
 

It's a shame we have to have resolutions like this, it's all because of bigots like you. I will bet you say, you are a christian.

I don't know the poster, but it does not seem reasonable to call him a bigot. He/she did not mention anything that fit the definition, but maybe you know him/her personally.

To call someone that you don't agree with a Christian, also because you don't agree with him/her suggests that you are not a Christian. That's too bad, and hopefully you will someday see the light.

A resolution like this seems to be redundant, just like the idea of hate crime laws. Limiting the first amendment is not the American way. However, manners should be encouraged, not mandated. This resolution has no substance since it is only a suggestion and not a law. It appears to be nothing much more than a ploy to gain Democrat support for more votes. On the other hand, it is divisive in nature and sure to cause more animosity toward the left from the right. It may even cause friction from moderate Democrats that may feel insulted that the gov wants to coddle a religious culture that seems intent to eradicate infidels, namely us. Their intent to gain support from the Islamic community may backfire on them, causing them to lose more votes than gain.

I'm sorry, is there something about stating FACTS that fits the definition of bigotry? And why would you choose to use "Christian" as a derogatory term?
The only thing posted that comes close to "bigotry" is terming liberalism a mental disorder, but after reading your comments, I've moved that statement into the FACT column as well.

:thumbup:

Do you think your minister would agree with your post and your idea that hate crime laws are against the First Amendment?

Ask her and tell us what she said.

?????? And the liberal has finally lost it altogether.

Ok, I'll bite. What minister? And why would a minister have anything to do with legislation restricting a Constitutional right? I said hate crime laws are redundant. Assault is Assault, whether it is upon a black, homosexual, or religious cult. Hate speech is not a crime. Bigoted speech is not a crime. If so, then the Black Lives Matter would have been arrested, as well as the Wall St cretins. Please respond as to why you feel that certain minority groups should get special treatment that the rest of us are not allowed.

The speaking with your minister would be regarding your hate against groups of people who are different from yourself (blacks, other religions, lbgt, etc) - not to get her opinion of free speech. But you knew that.

MAybe if the personal sniping at each other was set aside and a focus on the subject matter might turn into a discussion of issues.

:1rotfl::1rotfl:

That would be a first on the political forums

You seem to have a need for a minister more than I, but that's OK. You were probably responding to someone else's comment. It is amusing to see the tact that liberals use when someone doesn't agree with them. Of course that person must "hate" or be a "bigot." That is a pathetic loser way of desperation, because not everyone that disagrees with you has to be an extremist. And your attempt to charge another with labels like that is a sign that it is you that is the extremist.

I a pro-life = therefore I must be against women/war on women
I believe in marriage between man and woman, the Bible way = Therefore I must be a bigot.
I believe in secure borders and immigrant law enforcement = I must be a bigot

Sorry, but that doesn't win you any debates. That only proves desperation.

history
 

History does not show this. So you think there should not be laws. because " It is even more divisive than leaving people to their own conscience"

We....people....left to our own "devices" will usually do the right thing regardles of race, color or creed.

What gets must of us in an uproar in this day and age is the in your face-ness about some of these issues.

I for one am tired of hearing about the isloated cases that annoy somebody.
I am also tired of being told how to behave around certain folks.
I am especially tired of having the uninvolved sponsors, supporters and promoters of these folks telling us whay we should modify what we have done all our lives.

Take the :censored: spot light off the subject.....the microphone and camera off the isolated cases making them seem to be a very big deal when they are not.

Amazing. That's your interpretation of my post? I'd explain it, but I would have no idea where to begin, other than suggest you re-read it and then look up non sequitur in the dictionary. (That's the big book with lots of words but no pictures) And btw, history bears this out, just about every time one groups tries to force their views on other by making "laws", whether they be by a king, an emperor, a dictator or an elected body. We learn this behavior as kids when we a told we HAVE to eat our veggies or HAVE to go to bed at a certain time. We continue it as teenagers when we are told we HAVE to be home by a certain time or we CAN'T hang out with certain friends. As adults (?) we are no different, and as a mob of "adults" we are worse.

Another extreme opinion by the liberal. Yes, I am sure that the person you are responding to, meant that he did not want ANY LAWS. Geesh, like saying "you must hate conservatives because they don't want to pay for your contraception." Or the teenager that says her mother hates her because she won't let her go a party.

Did he/she say they didn't want ANY LAWS? He/she plainly said that there shouldn't be laws that legislate morality.

In my opinion, laws were meant to protect, not impose or direct a lifestyle. We do need a basic set of laws to protect us from others. Laws regarding a limit on free speech is a bit much.

In my opinion, we do not need any new hate crime laws. And assault is a violent crime and does not need to have the added caveat of the stipulation of bigotry on it. Motive is not necessary if it is obvious that an assault was perpetrated. Murder is murder and adding a bigotry tone to the motive does not make the crime any different. Taking a life is taking a life. If it is done with malice of any sort, it is still murder.

Hate speech is a Constitutional right, even if it is unmannerly. If you are going to impose laws against the use of hate speech upon Muslims, then you had better impose it equally against hate speech upon Christians. Otherwise, you are discriminating.

H. Res 569 is Un-constitutional. The Government cannot promote or single out a particular Religious Group for specific legislation.

Sounds like a valid point, to me. I doubt they would get the votes to pass it anyway.

No problem the commander in absentia will devise a way to do it....whether we like it or not!!