Which candidate will do the most for the glbt cause?

[Pookie]

Does Bob Jones "University" have a pol-sci "degree" program?

Students at even Bob Jones know more than this ignorant ass. This guy never finished high school.


The post from this thread pretty much sums up this guy's level of intelligence ....

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=195807&perpage=25&pagenumber=3

"Oh, I know, you are going to claim that the First Amendment applies only to acts of Congress, as if that crackpot notion hasn't been dismissed by settled law for two centuries now."

- As I have stated numerous times before, laws are only legitimate if they agree with the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear in the 1st Amendment, only Congress in prohibited from passing laws regarding religion. And keep in mind that there was a time that the Supreme Court upheld slavery, and stripped blacks of their rights.....just because it is law does not mean it is moral or it is right.

"The separation is implied in the wording of the 1st Amendment.."

- Implied? How the hell do you figure that? I can imply just about anything I want from various parts of the Constitution, that does not make it right. The 1st Amendment is VERY explicit and clear about religion. And quoting personal letters means nothing...they are not legal documents. The Constitution is, and it is clear. Who cares what Jefferson may have written in personal letters later in life? Should we look though all of the founding father's personal letters and use them as legal documents to help interperet the Constitution?

As for tax exempt status, non-religious charities are tax exempt, and any church that is involved in the community with various programs deserves the same benefit. I also think that churches that aren't involved in their communties, and use their money to build multi-million dollar buildings, should lose their tax exempt status.

"The Constitution is old as the hills and to be relevant had to be interpreted as America has progressed along the path of freedom and equality that began in 1776."

- So why don't we liberally interperet the whole Constitution? We, as a country, have gone through great lengths to protect free speech because it is very clearly protected in the Constitution. We have not felt that maybe we need to interperet that part of the 1st Amendment. You have to be consistent in your application. If any part of the Constitution is able to be changed, then all parts of it are.

"Incidentally, I'd like to see anything in the Constitution that says schools can require one religion's ceremonies (prayer, for example) to be part of the school's curriculum or other standard practice."

- Do you think the Constitution is the source of our rights in this country? According to our founders, the Constitution was written to protect our natural rights, given to us by God. Unles the Constitution expressly prohibits it, the decision is left to the states. So the question becomes...does your state constitution or laws address the issue of prayer in schools? The framers intended issues like this to be decided by local communities, by the people in those communities. That is exactly what the school board is! It is a group of people from the local community that set standards for the local school district. The whole problem with education in this country is that we have let the federal beauracracy get involved and ruin it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it even mention education as a function as the federal government! If a local community wants to allow prayed at the commencement ceremony, why do you care?

This country would be so much better off if the Confederacy had won the War of Northern Aggression.

Sensual, you really are a dumbass fuck.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Well, you can tell this sort of "thinking" apart from actual thinking, you know? It is memorizing catch-phases and talking points, instead of understanding reality. It is clinging to a 230+ year old document as teh final say on law, and a 2000 year old book of fables as teh ultimate moral authority. It eliminates the need to actually think about anything, once you have memorized all the handy 'agruments' from the radical right-wing.

 

[SensualMan]

Business as usual?

Like I said, when you can't defend your ideas, you resort to name calling. When will you learn that all of the swearing and name calling does not get to me? I don't post here seeking your approval, so your condemnation does not bother me. Please try to stick to the issue and stop trying to make the argument about me or my education. Like I have said all along though, I suspect you can't make any sort of logical argument, and that is why you haven't yet.

I will be waiting for you to do it though....it will be interesing to read.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Business as usual?

Like I said, when you can't defend your ideas, you resort to name calling. When will you learn that all of the swearing and name calling does not get to me? I don't post here seeking your approval, so your condemnation does not bother me. Please try to stick to the issue and stop trying to make the argument about me or my education. Like I have said all along though, I suspect you can't make any sort of logical argument, and that is why you haven't yet.

I will be waiting for you to do it though....it will be interesing to read.

Why do you post here?

 

[SensualMan]

Posting

I post here because I can.....do I need more of a reason? I like to exercise my 1st Amendment right to free speech. Initially I thought it would be interesting to jump into the arena of political ideas here....but unfortunately much of what others post is all about trashing someone and not about issues. So now I just post because I know it pisses you guys off to have a conservative voice in your sheltered little world that you can't silence.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Posting

... So now I just post because I know it pisses you guys off to have a conservative voice in your sheltered little world that you can't silence.

So you finally admit to being a troll.

 

[SensualMan]

Take a look....

You're a moderator, so I am sure you keep up with the threads.....what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names. I love how the left preaches tolerance, yet when it comes down to it, liberals of some of the most intolerant of free speech of any people you will find.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Take a look....

You're a moderator, so I am sure you keep up with the threads.....what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names. I love how the left preaches tolerance, yet when it comes down to it, liberals of some of the most intolerant of free speech of any people you will find.

Let's take a look at my posts, shall we?

My 1st request
My 2nd request
My 3rd request
My 4th request
My 5th request
My 6th request
My 7th request
My 8th request

You obviously don't have it. You began your assertion with nothing to back up the things you were claiming. Why do I have to ask you so many times for the thing you claimed to have on page 2 of this thread? I'll tell you why, you're nothing more than a troll, as you admitted yourself.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Take a look....

You're a moderator, so I am sure you keep up with the threads.....what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names. I love how the left preaches tolerance, yet when it comes down to it, liberals of some of the most intolerant of free speech of any people you will find.

Your first assertion to me was that my initial argument with Larz was as follows - "the whole third page of this thread has been a pointless argument over nothing more than a person's choice of words." I refuted your assertion with several posts where I clearly explained that Larz had indeed referred to the US Supreme Court in error. Here are several of the posts - 1st assertion refuted 1st time & 1st assertion refuted 2nd time. And what was your reply to my post? Nothing that addressed the specific issue in contention, except some ranting about having facts which you curiously couldn't provide at that point in the debate.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Take a look....

You're a moderator, so I am sure you keep up with the threads.....what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names. I love how the left preaches tolerance, yet when it comes down to it, liberals of some of the most intolerant of free speech of any people you will find.

Your second assertion to me was that "Larz is exactly right in how he laid down the sequence of events." I refuted your assertion with information directly from the US Supreme Court - 2nd assertion refuted. And what was your reply to my post? Nothing, except some ranting about having facts which you curiously couldn't provide to refute me.

 

[SensualMan]

Larz....

YOu showed the quote by Larz a number of times.....and every time it is the same....the word "US" does not appear in front of Supreme Court....so you didn't prove anything. All you proved was that you inferred something from what he said, and he told you that you were wrong to infer it. So please tell me again how you convince yourself you made some sort of point during that whole series of posts?

 

[Pookie]

Re: Take a look....

You're a moderator, so I am sure you keep up with the threads.....what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names. I love how the left preaches tolerance, yet when it comes down to it, liberals of some of the most intolerant of free speech of any people you will find.

Your third assertion to me was that Bush wasn't wrong - "Now why is Bush wrong for filing a suit when it was Gore that initiated the legal action?" I replied that I never asserted Bush was wrong - 1st misattribution refuted. This was your first time at misattributing something to me. It was one of the first times I also asserted that you had a reading disability. You really didn't specifically deny it, but continued to provide evidence of it's existence. Ironicly, it's one of the few things you actually provided hard evidence of.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Take a look....

You're a moderator, so I am sure you keep up with the threads.....what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names. I love how the left preaches tolerance, yet when it comes down to it, liberals of some of the most intolerant of free speech of any people you will find.

Your fourth assertion to me was - "And the US Supreme Court did not "appoint" or "select" Bush" I replied that I never asserted such a thing - 2nd misattribution refuted. This was your second time at misattributing something to me. And what was your reply? Nothing.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Larz....

YOu showed the quote by Larz a number of times.....and every time it is the same....the word "US" does not appear in front of Supreme Court....so you didn't prove anything. All you proved was that you inferred something from what he said, and he told you that you were wrong to infer it. So please tell me again how you convince yourself you made some sort of point during that whole series of posts?

And you continue to provide facts of your reading disability.

 

[SensualMan]

Posts...

Pookie - Like I explained before....I address a number of individuals and posts in each of mine. I don't have time to submit a serperate post for each argument or point I want to address. If you can't read through my posts and take out the parts that apply to you, I am sorry, but that is not my fault. Do be so arrogant to assume that everything I post is addressed or aimed at you. We already talked about this earlier, you must have forgotten, or just want to take another opportunity to argue over a nothing issue to avoid addressing real ones. There are also literary devices called rhetorical questions that are used to provoke thought. They are not questioned meant to be answered or addressed to any individual....I see that in the future I will have to keep my posts very simple for you to follow.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Posts...

Pookie - Like I explained before....I address a number of individuals and posts in each of mine. I don't have time to submit a serperate post for each argument or point I want to address. If you can't read through my posts and take out the parts that apply to you, I am sorry, but that is not my fault. Do be so arrogant to assume that everything I post is addressed or aimed at you. We already talked about this earlier, you must have forgotten, or just want to take another opportunity to argue over a nothing issue to avoid addressing real ones. There are also literary devices called rhetorical questions that are used to provoke thought. They are not questioned meant to be answered or addressed to any individual....I see that in the future I will have to keep my posts very simple for you to follow.

And as I said to you before ... if you are not replying to me, you better indicate who you are replying to when you quote me in your replies. Otherwise, you are directing your statements at my quote.

 

[Pookie]

You're a moderator, so I am sure you keep up with the threads.....what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names. I love how the left preaches tolerance, yet when it comes down to it, liberals of some of the most intolerant of free speech of any people you will find.

Your fifth assertion to me was - "The US Supreme Court had the wisdom to see that after all of the handling and manipulating of ballots, getting an honest, accurate hand recount was nearly impossible." I refuted it in several replies by stating that no such thing was in the ruling - 5th assertion refuted. You never provided evidence that it was. Here was your first reply to me - "And if you took the time to read the decision, you would find that more than one time the handling of the ballots and the lack of a uniform standard for counting undervotes are cited as the reasons the Supreme Court stepped in!". That was nice, but it didn't reply to what I asked you. So, I specifically told you your original quote wasn't in the ruling, and challenged you to post it if it was. As a reply, you quoted a section of the ruling that applied to the recount standards used in several locations. No where in the quote you provided did the US Supreme Court say that there was anything not honest about any of the standards or how they were utilized. The really sad part about your reply is that it applied to the earlier recount, not the one the US Supreme Court halted. Also, you didn't seem to even know what the definition of honest was.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Take a look....

You're a moderator, so I am sure you keep up with the threads.....what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names. I love how the left preaches tolerance, yet when it comes down to it, liberals of some of the most intolerant of free speech of any people you will find.

Your sixth assertion to me was - "As for newsmax and other sites being extreme right and not recognized as reputable news sources, that is just a matter of opinion really". This was actually just another misattribution to me, as I never said anything about newsmax at that point in time. 3rd misattribution refuted. And again, I pointed out that your reading disability was becoming even more obvious.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Take a look....

You're a moderator, so I am sure you keep up with the threads.....what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names. I love how the left preaches tolerance, yet when it comes down to it, liberals of some of the most intolerant of free speech of any people you will find.

Your seventh assertion to me was - "But it is my recollection that more than a few major newspapers and networks had people involved in the recount, and a number of them felt that even with the recounts, Bush would have won.". I refuted that by presenting the ONLY full recount that was performed after the election was over. 7th assertion refuted. And what was your reply? Nothing.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Take a look....

You're a moderator, so I am sure you keep up with the threads.....what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names. I love how the left preaches tolerance, yet when it comes down to it, liberals of some of the most intolerant of free speech of any people you will find.

Your eight assertion to me was - "And just because a site publishes stories and articles opposed to the "gay cause" does not make them anti-gay as you claim.", which was again another misattribution to me. But I refuted it anyways - 8th assertion refuted by quoting extremely anti-gay and homophobic statements in an article on newsmax's main web page. And what was your reply? Nothing.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Pookie, I think I love you...
You are certainly my hero of the day!

 

[Pookie]

Re: Take a look....

You're a moderator, so I am sure you keep up with the threads.....what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names. I love how the left preaches tolerance, yet when it comes down to it, liberals of some of the most intolerant of free speech of any people you will find.

Your ninth assertion to me was - "Just because you say the Supreme Court has has to have ruled on a Presidential election before to establish precedent does not make it so. You are just spouting your opinion, which in this case is just wrong." I refuted it here - 9th assertion refuted - 1st time & 9th assertion refuted - 2nd time. I reference the US Constitution where it specifically gives Congress the power to resolve of a disputed Presidential election, and not the US Supreme Court. And what was your reply? That there was established precedent in prior rulings, yet you can't seem to quote anything that directly supports that for us. Why is that? Because you don't have it?

 

[Pookie]

Re: Take a look....

You're a moderator, so I am sure you keep up with the threads.....what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names. I love how the left preaches tolerance, yet when it comes down to it, liberals of some of the most intolerant of free speech of any people you will find.

You are a troll and a liar.

 

[Pookie]

Pookie, I think I love you...
You are certainly my hero of the day!

You would think this asshole would learn to do a little research before opening his mouth. I guess his stupidity runs too deep though.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

You would think this asshole would learn to do a little research before opening his mouth. I guess his stupidity runs too deep though.

Like I said, this guy shows a specialized form of non-thinking particular to the right-wing.