LOL
NASCAR decries Indiana Law! NASCAR! Fucking NASCAR!!! If the Right has lost NASCAR, then the culture war is over and WE WON!
Companies are actually Boycotting Indiana! COMPANIES! Not Liberal, LGBT advocacy groups but COMPANIES! JOB CREATORS! 1%'ers! How far gone are the Republicans that they are now alienating BUSINESSES?!
Here's the Facebook Page of Memories Pizza in Indiana, who now proudly discriminate against Gays. Why don't you drop on in and offer a "review?" I did. I recommend that everyone does. (Not to be confused with memoriespizza.com, which they apparently never thought to secure the rights to.)
12 Sign that the Republicans are actually insane
HERE'S a Pastor who knows what Jesus stood for!
I'll leave you with these images that I snagged off of Facebook:
.jpg)
 |
| Because everyone knows that Fox viewers ARE, in fact the most INFROMED of anyone! |
And, finally, because Zinnia Jones is so fucking awesome:
You really need to look that up. because that's funny as shit!
Not just NASCAR and businesses, but Wal-Mart also fired a shot against the Arkansas bill. It's beyond any reasonable doubt that anyone advocating for these laws is squarely out of the mainstream at this point. They've lost, they know it, they're panicking with absurd laws in an effort to strike back, and they're only making themselves look worse in the process.
ReplyDeleteThey can hold all of the bigoted views that they want, but they can't push it on the public very easily any longer. And that's the best that anyone can reasonably expect.
And the Trans- community is now squarely in their sights. The Right does pretty much KNOW they've lost the gay marriage (etc...) battle(s), so now making it as inconvenient and humiliating as possible for Trans- people to pee has jumped to the top of their priorities list. I guess that's... progress? *shakes head*
DeleteBecause you know... It's not like this country has any REAL problems that need addressing at the moment, right?
"America Is A Christian Nation"
ReplyDeleteAbout that picture, how many of those 4 were NOT 1%'rs? How many of those 4 were NOT part of the American slave trade? Yeah, good examples you brought to show why religion would get in THEIR way.
"Because you know... It's not like this country has any REAL problems that need addressing at the moment, right?"
What "real problems" need addressing now? I thought the great democrat take-over would have fixed all the problems by now. Hell, you've had nearly 8 years in power and nothing has changed. And, as lack as your insight seems to be .. a democrat is the one who started all this with the RFRA. I didn't here any of you whining about it then, why are you now?
"Here's the Facebook Page of Memories Pizza in Indiana, who now proudly discriminate against Gays."
Wow, talk about being completely misinformed and bigoted. You don't even know the story behind Memories Pizza, do you? I didn't think so, you just flew with what everyone else was flying with. NOT ONE CASE OF DISCRIMINATION BY THE PLACE and you rip them as if they had been doing it for years. Sheeple ... each of you.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/01/rfra-how-a-local-tv-station-ruined-a-business-and-threatened-a-familys-safety/
"Yeah, good examples you brought to show why religion would get in THEIR way."
DeleteAre you claiming that religious people never owned slaves, or what? Also, how would your cryptic comment address the point that the quotes provided contradict the notion of America as a "Christian nation".
"And, as lack as your insight seems to be .. a democrat is the one who started all this with the RFRA."
No, the Indiana bill is wildly different from the federal bill. The latter does not give for-profit businesses any right to discriminate. For the vast majority of these laws, the focus is on individual rights, such as that of Native Americans to use peyote without facing consequences.
"I didn't think so, you just flew with what everyone else was flying with. NOT ONE CASE OF DISCRIMINATION BY THE PLACE and you rip them as if they had been doing it for years."
If they say that they will discriminate against gay people, then Eddie's comment is accurate. Their comments in the original article make their views abundantly clear, so their bigotry is hardly being exaggerated.
"No, the Indiana bill is wildly different from the federal bill."
DeleteHow so? I don't see much of a difference between them.
"If they say that they will discriminate against gay people, then Eddie's comment is accurate."
And Eddie claimed he will hit people on the head with a brick, too. Does that make his threat real, now?
"How so?"
DeleteI already explained why the federal bill wasn't protested.
"And Eddie claimed he will hit people on the head with a brick, too. Does that make his threat real, now?"
There was no threat, because that was hyperbole. You would probably respond to a comparison between hyperbole and a statement of fact as "apples and oranges". Besides that, you could say that about anything that Eddie says; obviously no such comment has any retroactive power over the meaning of previous comments.
For example, Eddie could say that water is wet, you could dispute it, and then any evidence to support him would prompt you to respond: "Does that make his threat real, now?" One situation obviously has nothing to do with the other.
Anything else? This looks like a quick thread based on the quality of your initial response.
" One situation obviously has nothing to do with the other."
DeleteParaphrasing, Eddie says he will hit someone on the head with a brick if they do a certain thing. Memories Pizza says they will not hold a wedding reception if they do a certain thing. NO DIFFERENCE. Your "hyperbole" theory is strictly your opinion. As Eddie wrote it, his threat is as real as Memories Pizza's. Didn't take long for you to dig your hole.
"I already explained why the federal bill wasn't protested."
I didn't ask why it wasn't protested. I said there are few differences. And you explained none of the differences.
"Paraphrasing, Eddie says he will hit someone on the head with a brick if they do a certain thing. Memories Pizza says they will not hold a wedding reception if they do a certain thing. NO DIFFERENCE."
DeleteEddie's comment wasn't about a general policy, it was hyperbole about conservatives making hypocritical statements.
"Your "hyperbole" theory is strictly your opinion."
That would mean that your "threat" theory is strictly your opinion, so it doesn't mean anything. My conclusion that it's hyperbole is the only reasonable one in the discussion, considering you never justified your accusations of a "threat". It's simply not realistic to conclude that someone is going to walk around with a brick waiting for conservatives to make a specific comment. Nobody could be expected to take that as a sincere statement of intent, so it can't be considered an actual threat.
"As Eddie wrote it, his threat is as real as Memories Pizza's."
There's no reason to believe that the owners weren't serious, since there would be no rhetorical purpose to asserting a policy position that they didn't actually hold. Contrast that to a comment which conveys aggravation with hypocrisy, and the difference in rhetorical purpose is abundantly clear.
"I didn't ask why it wasn't protested."
I didn't say that you asked why it wasn't protested.
You: "And, as lack as your insight seems to be .. a democrat is the one who started all this with the RFRA. I didn't here any of you whining about it then, why are you now?"
So, I explained why the federal bill wasn't protested, and how the Indiana bill is different, since you did ask why people are protesting now.
"I said there are few differences. And you explained none of the differences."
Me: "The latter does not give for-profit businesses any right to discriminate. For the vast majority of these laws, the focus is on individual rights, such as that of Native Americans to use peyote without facing consequences."
If you saw some language in the federal bill which allowed businesses to discriminate against anyone, provide that evidence. Otherwise, the difference has been explained to you, and it accounts for the disparity in reaction.
"There's no reason to believe that the owners weren't serious, since there would be no rhetorical purpose to asserting a policy position that they didn't actually hold."
DeleteSure there was. They had not done it before. Saying they would do it doesn't equate to them actually doing it. See Eddie's brick threat.
"So, I explained why the federal bill wasn't protested, and how the Indiana bill is different, since you did ask why people are protesting now."
You haven't explained didly squat. You made some wild assertion and assume it is true. Ever think of proving what you say?
"Sure there was. They had not done it before. Saying they would do it doesn't equate to them actually doing it."
DeleteThey didn't have the opportunity to do it before, since they hadn't been asked to do any such catering. They still admitted that they would discriminate by refusing to cater for a gay couple, which makes Eddie's comment accurate. And, obviously, you didn't say anything that addressed whether they were serious or not. They could be sincere whether they've "actually" done anything or not.
"See Eddie's brick threat."
I've seen it. It's clearly hyperbole, while you've failed to explain how or why the comment about discrimination would not be genuine. Besides that, your insistence that Eddie made some threat would suggest that the discrimination statement should be taken seriously as well. How does that help you?
"You haven't explained didly squat. You made some wild assertion and assume it is true."
You asked how they were different, and I told you. If you aren't informed about the situation, then you could have asked for evidence. You didn't do that. So, are you disputing that the Indiana bill allowed discrimination, or what? That's the basis for the controversy, so you should already be aware of that much. If you're asking me to prove that the federal bill doesn't do the same thing, then you're expecting me to somehow prove a negative; it would obviously be your job to show that the federal bill does allow businesses to discriminate.
So, now what?
"They didn't have the opportunity to do it before, since they hadn't been asked to do any such catering."
DeleteI don't know of any opportunities that Eddie has had to hit people over the head with a brick, but he still admitted he would do it.
"Besides that, your insistence that Eddie made some threat would suggest that the discrimination statement should be taken seriously as well."
Which, I believe, I have said already.
"You asked how they were different, and I told you."
Yeah, you told me the only difference is that the federal law wasn't protested. If that is the only difference then you have nothing.
"I don't know of any opportunities that Eddie has had to hit people over the head with a brick, but he still admitted he would do it."
DeleteThat nonsense isn't relevant to the point that was being discussed. You claimed that there was some reason to believe that the discrimination comment wasn't serious, simply because they hadn't "actually" discriminated before. I was pointing out that the lack of any "actual" behavior didn't make their statement of intent any less genuine.
"Which, I believe, I have said already."
Which would mean that you would owe him an apology for claiming that he was "misinformed and bigoted". Yet, you haven't mustered up the courage for that, for some strange reason.
"Yeah, you told me the only difference is that the federal law wasn't protested."
That's a lie. I specified the difference which explained why the federal law wasn't protested. It's inconvenient for your prejudicial argument, so you're simply pretending that it didn't happen.
"That nonsense isn't relevant to the point that was being discussed. "
DeleteYou think that because it shoots down your argument.
"Which would mean that you would owe him an apology for claiming that he was "misinformed and bigoted". "
I owe nobody an apology for the way they are.
"That's a lie. "
It is? That sure looks like what you said here: "I already explained why the federal bill wasn't protested." after I said: How so? I don't see much of a difference between them. And you still haven't substantiated what you said the differences are. For all I know you just made that up. Like lots of your statements of fact. So, I could hardly take those examples as real based on your statements alone.
Besides, none of that changes the fact that I COULD run a hotel and refuse service to anyone I think may have a deadly communicable disease. THAT would NOT be discrimination. It would be protecting the safety of others at my hotel. Which you still have not been able to counter in any way.
"You think that because it shoots down your argument."
DeleteNo, I said that for the reason that I mentioned.
"I owe nobody an apology for the way they are."
Since the restaurant did assert that they would discriminate, his comment was accurate. You were wrong.
"It is? That sure looks like what you said here: "I already explained why the federal bill wasn't protested.""
You: "Yeah, you told me the only difference is that the federal law wasn't protested."
Obviously, your quote confirms exactly what I said; that I explained why the federal bill wasn't protested. That isn't telling you that "the only difference is that the federal law wasn't protested." You lied.
"And you still haven't substantiated what you said the differences are."
If you can find something in the federal bill which allows businesses to discriminate, then you can prove me wrong. It's up to you, not me.
"For all I know you just made that up."
Made what up, specifically? I asked you what you were disputing, and you didn't answer. So, I'm inclined to think that you're just throwing a tantrum.
"Besides, none of that changes the fact that I COULD run a hotel and refuse service to anyone I think may have a deadly communicable disease. THAT would NOT be discrimination."
You're posting that on the wrong thread, as if it was meaningful anywhere.
"Since the restaurant did assert that they would discriminate, his comment was accurate. You were wrong."
DeleteTell you what. Since Eddie DID threaten to hit people on the head with a brick, when you apologize to me for being accurate, then I'll apologize to him. After all, you are wrong, too.
"You're posting that on the wrong thread, as if it was meaningful anywhere."
No, I'm not. You're just not able to dispute that. Which frustrates you to no ends, huh?
BTW, I'm still waiting for proof of what you said were the differences between the federal and state laws. I have noticed, however, that you expect me to do the work for you ... in typical liberal fashion. Wow it took me nearly 10 comments to bring the failures of liberals into the discussion again. I'll try to do better next time.
"Tell you what. Since Eddie DID threaten to hit people on the head with a brick, when you apologize to me for being accurate, then I'll apologize to him."
DeleteNo, that's just your opinion. There's nothing "accurate" about it.
"No, I'm not. You're just not able to dispute that."
I disputed it on the other thread, where you previously brought it up.
"BTW, I'm still waiting for proof of what you said were the differences between the federal and state laws."
Yet again, what are you disputing? You can't even answer a simple question, yet you're whining about me. If you know that the Indiana law allowed businesses to discriminate, then you have to show how the federal law is the same. Otherwise, you would be asking me to prove a negative, which would be absurd.
If you can actually address any of that, I'd be surprised.
William,
DeleteThe difference between Indiana's Law and the Federal law is that Indiana's Law applies to COMPANY'S instead of only PEOPLE, and can be invoked against a private citizen, instead of only the State. THAT'S the difference. And some 30+ Lawyers WARNED Gov. Pence about those very things leading the discrimination before he signed it.
As for me "hitting [someone] in the head with a brick?" I'll settle that straight away: It's hyperbole. Brabntio's right, and you're an idiot for needing that explained to you.
As for "losing their dreams?" It's not a "dream" it's a BUSINESS. And they forgot the first rule of business: THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT. (Hey: Maybe its true then that you can't serve two masters?) But no one has to patronize a business owned by bigots. What law says that people who don't stand for bigotry are required to give them our money? They chose to go on TV and declare that they're homophobes. Why was that necessary? Because they didn't want to "cater a wedding?" WTF? Have you EVER been to a wedding that served Pizza? Because I haven't. I've never even HEARD of such a thing.
My best guess? The place was losing money, and they did this as a latch ditch effort to play the Christian Martyr and either drum up some business with the local bigots, OR get run out of business by those mean, mean Gay people, and see if they could garner some donation from RW Christian Conservatives. (WHICH has worked out rather nicely for them,)
If you want to know who DIDN'T deserve the fate they got? Adam Smith. I'll do a video on his case and Memories Pizza next. So you'll have your chance to chime in on that issue on that one.
Finally? Unless I'm much mistaken, two of the four owned slaves. So? Abut half of those considered "founding fathers" did. Jefferson, despite owning slaves himself, tried to abolish the practice in the Constitution, but the Southern States (you know - where all the RW Conservatives live now?) Wouldn't have it. But none of that changes the fact that these WERE the founding fathers, the very mean YOUR SIDE keeps claiming wanted us to be a "Christian Nation," as idiotic as that is on it's face. As for them being 1%'ers? As you REALLY trying to apply 20th century economic labels to people from the 18th century? When only land owners could vote? When women couldn't hold jobs own own property? Before Corporations (as we know the term today) existed? When there was slave labor? When being a 1%er in AMERICA wouldn't have made you a 20%'er back in ENGLAND? And if they were, SO FUCKING WHAT?! They are still the FOUNDING FATHERS. And if you are suggesting that they were AGAINST being a Christian Nation for any of those reasons, then FINE...
I'm glad you'll actually admit that we are NOT, in fact, a Christian Nation. That makes you marginally more intelligent that most of your RW brethren who won't.
"As for me "hitting [someone] in the head with a brick?" I'll settle that straight away: It's hyperbole. Brabntio's right, and you're an idiot for needing that explained to you."
DeleteReading it as you wrote it there is no way of knowing that. It's about time you spoke up (what ... a year or two later?). Is it your usual process to make threats then claim innocence after called out on it?
"THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT."
That isn't true. In my line of work we charge higher than other places (because we do better work), but I will NOT listen to a customer who says we charge too much and lower the prices because they are "always right". Some customers are simply cheap people who want to get their car fixed for nothing and get mad when it isn't offered to them. The customer is NOT always right.
"But no one has to patronize a business owned by bigots."
And that's why we are busy all the time.
" They chose to go on TV and declare that they're homophobes."
But there are no actions to back your hypothetical theory up. When did that pizza place discriminate? Had they EVER? The answer is NO. Your preconceived fears are unfounded until it happens. Just like my preconceived fear of you hitting people with bricks on the head is unfounded until it happens. But, the statement is still out there. You can excuse it all you want, but it isn't written that way. It is written as a genuine threat of personal harm (a felony).
"Because they didn't want to "cater a wedding?" WTF?"
Who the fuck is going to cater a wedding from a PIZZA PARLOR? My God you people are so dense.
"Have you EVER been to a wedding that served Pizza? Because I haven't. I've never even HEARD of such a thing."
Then why the fuck do you even care what they say about it? They know it will never happen, you know it will never happen and I know it will never happen. You're a moron to think that they MIGHT discriminate when it has NEVER happened.
"(you know - where all the RW Conservatives live now?)"
They live there now, but they did NOT then. Apples to oranges.
"As you REALLY trying to apply 20th century economic labels to people from the 18th century?"
You just did. Is that fact too inconvenient for you?
"I'm glad you'll actually admit that we are NOT, in fact, a Christian Nation."
Truthfully, how could we be a Christian nation after the genocide we did to the Indians (Redskins ... LOL) and other people of color?
" It's about time you spoke up (what ... a year or two later?)."
DeleteNot my fault it's taken you two years and you still couldn't figure that out. Who'd have thought I would have over-estimated you so?
"The customer is NOT always right."
Oh, that's true for sure. Absolutely. It's STILL the #1 rule though. (I'm one of those 'rules are meant to be broken' kind of people? Just not to the point that it would cost me my business.
"They live there now, but they did NOT then."
And with that? You lose all credibility. History fail. Politics fail. Geography fail. Life fail.
"How could we be a Christian nation after the genocide we did to..."
You admit then that we are not? Can you explain to me where your hang up about gay marriage comes from? Or about LGBT issues in general? You agree that the "separation of church and state" people are at least right when it comes to the Constitution and the foundling of our country? At the minimum can you promise that we are never going to have to listen to you argue from that perspective (or us being a Christian Nation) anymore?
"Who'd have thought I would have over-estimated you so?"
DeleteAre you kidding? I've been having so much fun with brabantio about this, how could I have stopped. But I appreciate you clarifying.
"And with that? You lose all credibility. History fail. Politics fail. Geography fail. Life fail."
I don't think so, Tim. Your southern racists were not RW conservatives back in the day. They were hard core leftists. The right wing conservatives were the ones living in the north who were fighting FOR slavery to be abolished. Not the other way around.
"Can you explain to me where your hang up about gay marriage comes from?"
I'm a Christian, Christianity does not approve of homosexuality as a lifestyle. Read your Bible. Of course the person is different, but the lifestyle is not approved. All sins are forgivable, well except unbelief. But, even that doesn't matter to those who don't believe. And why should they? There is no harm anticipated for them for not believing. I don't believe that, though. I believe there is a result from your actions. Whether you believe in God or not, I still believe He will make His judgement as He feels fit for your actions. And, many liberals have a hard time dealing with accountability for their actions. I also believe there are fewer conservative gays than there are liberal gays for that reason alone.
"You agree that the "separation of church and state" people are at least right when it comes to the Constitution and the foundling of our country? "
Yes, I agree to an extent. However, that letter is talking about a national instituted religion, not forbiding religious expression by individuals on public land.. BTW, there is no "separation of church and state" in the constitution. That is only garnered by a letter from one person to another. I may have failed history in HS, but I've learned a lot more since then. You should too.
"At the minimum can you promise that we are never going to have to listen to you argue from that perspective (or us being a Christian Nation) anymore?"
That's a hard promise to make. Do you mean "based" on Christian values or "being" a Christian nation? Big difference. Because, obviously, we are based on Christian values, we just didn't (don't) follow them.
"Your southern racists were not RW conservatives back in the day. They were hard core leftists. The right wing conservatives were the ones living in the north who were fighting FOR slavery to be abolished. Not the other way around."
DeleteSlavery = Status Quo. By DEFINITION Conservatives see to maintain the status quo, Liberals seek to change it. Abolishing slavery = Change, therefore abolitionists were liberal by definition. Also, in the modern context, "leftist liberals" are pro-labor. RW Conservatives are anti-labor, pro-ownership. Which one sound more like a plantation owner to YOU? Sorry, Will. You don't get to just call everything you don't like Liberal and everything you do like Conservative. It doesn't work that way. Also? The ideology of the Regions hasn't changed: The South remains racists, segregationist, bigoted and Conservative today, while the North is Liberal, Unionized, and more tolerant. I'm not saying that's the way things are because I'm Liberal. I'm Liberal becuase THAT'S THE WAY THINGS ARE.
"Because, obviously, we are based on Christian values, we just didn't (don't) follow them."
Idiotic contradiction. You're sounding desperate here, Will. Maybe what you're trying to say is "YOU want used to reason based on Christian values?" Also? As for "letters" it is letters from one person to another that the "We are a Christian nation" people usually use as evidence. Look, it's Right there in Black and White: We are barred from recognizing an official State religion. The Separation of Church and State comes from more than just "one letter between two people." It's an important philosophical concept going back to the enlightenment. It's also the only way EVERYONE'S religious freedom can be protected. You folks seem to think that it's only suppose to apply to Christianity. And THAT is based on a deliberate misreading on the 1st Amendment, based on "letters" between individuals.
"Sorry, Will. You don't get to just call everything you don't like Liberal and everything you do like Conservative."
DeleteYes I do. And there is nothing to stop me from doing it. If the shoe fits ...
" It's also the only way EVERYONE'S religious freedom can be protected. "
You mean "restricted". If I have a freedom of religious expression then I can stand in any government park or school and pronounce it and share it with whoever I want. You see, your idea of "religious freedom" means I cannot express my religion on government property or that signifies that the government "sponsors" me. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're just being a bigot towards religion. Maybe you're scared of the consequences within religion because it flies against all that your liberal mind wants.
"You folks seem to think that it's only suppose to apply to Christianity. And THAT is based on a deliberate misreading on the 1st Amendment, based on "letters" between individuals."
Well, your ilk sure seems to support other religion's rights to express themselves (Budhist, Islam ... ect) but seem to find extra hatred of Christianity and forbid them from expressing themselves publically.
"Yes I do. And there is nothing to stop me from doing it."
ReplyDeleteWecolme ot life in ther bubble, where anything can be anything that anyone needs it to be. Yes, Will, you can SAY it, but it doesn't make you right, it revelas you to be an idiot.
"Well, your ilk sure seems to support other religion's rights to express themselves"
I sure as hell don't. Religious propaganda has no plpace in public schools. Your (or anyone else's) handing out of said materials violates my right (and yours) to raise your child in the faith of our choosing. Prosteltizing has no place in a institute of objective learning. And if religion IS to be presented, then it must be done in an atmosphere of critical thinking. Or do you seriously ahve no issue with your child being preached to by Muslin, Hindus, Buddists and Pagans in a public school?
What they hell is wrong with you that this stuff can't just be taken outside? How an *I* violating *your* freedom in this regard, when *you* are clearly not respecting *my* right to raise my child in the faith that I see fit? (even if that is none.) Why should your rights trump mine?
HOW ABOUT: In ares where our rigths are in conflict, we respect PARENTAL RIGHTS and FAMILY RIGHTS? I won't preach to your kid, you don't preach to mine.
WOuld you mind telling me what wrong with that? Would you mind explaining why *I'M* being "hostile" instead of you? When I'm the one leaving your kid and your beliefs alone, while you can't seem to abide my family's mere existence, and have to shove your religion into our faces, and at a place that my tax money pays for to give my child an OBJECTIVE eductation based on IMPERICAL, VERIFYIABLE information?
What the hell is wrong with you?
"I sure as hell don't. "
DeleteMaybe you're different, then. Because all the other liberals who post here seem to believe that. Just ask Barbie.
"Religious propaganda has no plpace in public schools."
How is wearing a cross (by a teacher) in ANY FUCKING WAY considered PROPAGANDA? Get over yourselves.
"When I'm the one leaving your kid and your beliefs alone, while you can't seem to abide my family's mere existence, and have to shove your religion into our faces, and at a place that my tax money pays for to give my child an OBJECTIVE eductation based on IMPERICAL, VERIFYIABLE information?"
What the fuck are you talking about? There is no "objective" eduction in public schools anymore. It's either NO RELIGION or YOUR RELIGION. You don't give us the choice anymore. You demand we stay out of your lives while you force your beliefs (sex ed, abortion) into ours. We don't need your shit, we can teach our own kids how that works. But, NOOOO, if we want our kids taught to live respectable, it is considered taboo. Good for you for thinking we are the ones causing these problems. In typical liberal form, you refuse to accept responsibility for your own actions.
"What the hell is wrong with you?"
Nothing.
"Maybe you're different, then. Because all the other liberals who post here seem to believe that. Just ask Barbie."
DeleteNo, I don't think that any religious instruction belongs in public schools, either. I'd love to know what you imagined that you were talking about.
You mean, "Yes, you don't think that any religious instruction belongs in public schools", not "no".
DeleteHowever, if you could read, you'd notice I didn't (and Eddie didn't) say INSTRUCTION. Good to see you haven't lost your ability to not comprehend what is being said. So, if you're done interrupting real conversations please go back to whining about something else, somewhere else. Did you understand THAT, barbie?
"You mean, "Yes, you don't think that any religious instruction belongs in public schools", not "no"."
DeleteWrong. I mean "no", because you asserted that my opinion differed from Eddie's on that matter.
"However, if you could read, you'd notice I didn't (and Eddie didn't) say INSTRUCTION."
I didn't say that either of you did. So what?
"So, if you're done interrupting real conversations please go back to whining about something else, somewhere else."
When you assert my viewpoint, then I have the right to correct you. You'll just have to deal with that.
"I didn't say that either of you did. So what?"
DeleteYou must be talking to yourself, then. I think ken's calling you back to bed, barbie. Run along, now
"You must be talking to yourself, then."
DeleteEddie said: "Your (or anyone else's) handing out of said materials violates my right (and yours) to raise your child in the faith of our choosing. Prosteltizing has no place in a institute of objective learning."
My use of the word "instruction" is consistent with that.
So, again, I was correcting your false assertion of my views. And I have every right to do so.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were replying to Eddie's comment. It looked like you were replying to mine.
Delete"So, again, I was correcting your false assertion of my views. And I have every right to do so."
You weren't correcting anything and no you do not. "Correcting" is not spelled W-H-I-N-I-N-G and that's what you are doing ... again. Time for you to go somewhere else, barbie.
"I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were replying to Eddie's comment. It looked like you were replying to mine."
DeleteObviously, I was replying to your comment.
"You weren't correcting anything and no you do not."
Yes, I was, and of course I do. You asserted that I disagreed with Eddie, and you were wrong. And you have no way of arguing that I can't point that out.
Also, when someone is punished for merely wearing a cross, I have a problem with that. So does the ACLU. If you want to "test" me, why don't you try asking questions instead of assuming answers? Also? Parents can opt their kids out of sex Ed. I don't agree with this decision, but I'll protect their right to make it. That said sex Ed should be comprehensive, accurately covering contaception, abortion, sexuality and of course abstinence.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that if you're going to just fly with your emotions I have nothing more to say to you.
"Also, when someone is punished for merely wearing a cross, I have a problem with that. So does the ACLU."
DeleteBarbie seems to think propaganda means instruct and he replies accordingly. Are you talking about instruct or propaganda?
"Parents can opt their kids out of sex Ed. I don't agree with this decision, but I'll protect their right to make it."
Well, if you put it that way, Eddie ... parents can "opt their kids out" of any religious propaganda too. Why is it religion is taboo, but sex is required? How about treating both the same ... either both are in or both are out. I'm sure nobody (in their right mind) thinks elementary kids need to learn how to protect themselves from sexual consequences or taught how to abort human lives while in public schools. Like religion, that should be the parents job.
"Beyond that if you're going to just fly with your emotions I have nothing more to say to you."
That's fine. Remember the old saying: When the going gets tough ... the liberal leaves.
Also, when someone is punished for merely wearing a cross, I have a problem with that. So does the ACLU. If you want to "test" me, why don't you try asking questions instead of assuming answers? Also? Parents can opt their kids out of sex Ed. I don't agree with this decision, but I'll protect their right to make it. That said sex Ed should be comprehensive, accurately covering contaception, abortion, sexuality and of course abstinence.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that if you're going to just fly with your emotions I have nothing more to say to you.
"Also, when someone is punished for merely wearing a cross, I have a problem with that. So does the ACLU."
DeleteBarbie seems to think propaganda means instruct and he replies accordingly. Are you talking about instruct or propaganda?
"Parents can opt their kids out of sex Ed. I don't agree with this decision, but I'll protect their right to make it."
Well, if you put it that way, Eddie ... parents can "opt their kids out" of any religious propaganda too. Why is it religion is taboo, but sex is required? How about treating both the same ... either both are in or both are out. I'm sure nobody (in their right mind) thinks elementary kids need to learn how to protect themselves from sexual consequences or taught how to abort human lives while in public schools. Like religion, that should be the parents job.
"Beyond that if you're going to just fly with your emotions I have nothing more to say to you."
That's fine. Remember the old saying: When the going gets tough ... the liberal leaves.