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.