Super Dave wrote:
Now, if your point is that liberal judges don't follow the constitution, you have a point.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
clarkwv wrote:
I do not care what party you belong to. I do no care if you are on the right or the left or in the middle, the only think you should be doing today is either v****g or helping some one to v**e, all else today is B S
Does "helping someone to v**e" include doing their mail in b****ts for them? Or does it include going to a nursing home and filling out the b****ts for the patients with senile dementia? When we lived in Illinois there were plenty of cases of each.
PaulPisces wrote:
Although I personally do not assign a g****r to any omnipotent god, I know a lot of conservative types think of God as "He".
So this sign, one of the funniest I've seen, seems to be a good retort to constraints on same-sex parenting. :)
One of "our boys" went to Houston not too long ago on a job interview. Sunday morning he went to the church next to the motel where he was staying unaware that it was a "Gay Affirming Church" They had a copy of the previous week's sermon so he sat down and read it. the sermon was about how God created t*********r people special because they were closer to God's image being of both sexes in one body. Needless to say he did not stay for the sermon. Maybe that's just an improvement on same sex parenting, sort of like two-two-two mints in one? Guess that's what happens in today's modern church.
Armageddun wrote:
B****sheep, may I humbly ask why you don't take this type attitude with those who are against your beliefs? Such as samesex marriage, child abusers, those who oppose everything such as Brian, retired 669, Glucon et al? Npp is involded in a pursuit that you endorse.
Baseball players talk about baseball--- jokesters tell jokes--- etc. Npp talks about what makes His and SWMBO life fill worthwhile.
I commend you many times at least in my thoughts the way you tackle subjects head on with no beating around the bush..
I think their work is very valuable and most if not all of his posts are informative and helpful. Perhaps he and his wife my give hints and clue to others who may run into situations that they could benefit from their knowledge.
I am not trying to be a busy body into your thoughts or conversation, I just respect them and the work they do. I feel if they were bragging, they would be more vocal and defensive. Just a thought.
B****sheep, may I humbly ask why you don't take th... (
show quote)
Gee, I guess at this point I should assume that even new people to OPP know us and our frame of reference so no short explanation of where I am coming from is necessary. Somehow I think THAT would be the height of arrogance, but b****sheep thinks otherwise, or perhaps he just thinks that it does not matter whether the person presenting the idea has any information worth imparting to anyone. I'll try it his way for while and see what happens...maybe.
dabende wrote:
I'm a New User, and I'm interesting in learning, sharing, and debating thought in support of our society and our Constitution. I am very pleased to be a participant.
A big welcome to you, hope you enjoy it here. There are a great many good and friendly people on OPP
Nickolai wrote:
The bill of rights was created by the founders to protect
minorities from being beaten up by majorities. to deny Homosexuals the right to enjoy the benefits of marriage violates their fundamental constitutional rights
There is no constitutional right for marriage. The constitution protects God given rights. If marriage were protected by the constitution the everyone would have the right to get married to any number of people they wanted to marry at the same time, or what ever age and sex they chose to marry. The "rights" that are protected cannot be limited or they cease to be constitutionally protected "rights". To redefine marriage to include all variety of human sexual desires is extraconstitutional , not included in the rights granted by nature and nature's God that the Constitution protects.
ldsuttonjr wrote:
November 06, 2014
V**ers to GOP: Don't Falter at the Alter
Republican v**ers dont just support natural marriage -- they expect their candidates to! That was abundantly clear Tuesday, when local exit polls starting streaming in. For conservatives, the data was a gold mine on social issues that will help debunk the Lefts tall tales about the popularity of same-sex marriage. In state after state, v**ers refused to give an inch on marriage -- and instead exposed how exaggerated the cultural shift has been.
Despite what the media would have you believe, the public opinion battle has been a bigger one than the Left bargained for -- with most Americans views barely budging on an institution the courts are so anxious to redefine. A month after a Pew poll showed support for same-sex marriage dipping, the issue was front and center in a few key Senate races -- including North Carolina, Iowa, and Arkansas.
Thom Tillis, who, just weeks ago, was down in his race, starting picking up steam when he took a public stand to defend the Tarheels marriage amendment (which 57% still support). Thats consistent with the stories in Kansas with Senator Pat Roberts (R) and Iowa, where Joni Ernst never wavered on a topic too many moderates run from. As much as the Republican Establishment h**es to admit it, marriage was a key ingredient in the recipe to defeat Democrats.
The numbers bear that out in at least seven states where pollsters asked the question. Seven out of 10 v**ers in my home state of Louisiana said they opposed same-sex marriage, which is almost identical to their northern neighbors in Arkansas, where 69% rejected the idea. In Virginia, where candidate Ed Gillespie stood with marriage, 53% of Virginians stood with him and disagreed with the move to redefine marriage. South Carolina, home of newly-elected social conservative Senator Tim Scott (R), two-thirds of v**ers identified with him on marriage. Georgia (62%) and Ohio (a majority) echoed the pro-marriage refrain. Of the exit stats we could find, only Florida was competitive -- with the two sides dead even (48% to 48%) on the question.
Of course, this is all consistent with what Americans have said with their b****ts -- both for and against marriage amendments in their home states. For all the Lefts hype, only three states have actively v**ed to redefine marriage -- which barely adds up to about 5% of the population -- hardly the consensus liberals claim it is. Rasmussen, Fox News, and even Politico polling have all shown the debate holding steady despite -- or maybe because of -- the assault from the courts. As plenty of Tuesdays candidates will tell you, supporting marriage doesnt just put you on the right side of history -- but the right side of the win column too!
November 06, 2014 br br V**ers to GOP: Don't Falt... (
show quote)
Great post
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
nwtk2007 wrote:
What forcing? What homosexuals have you been feeding or giving baths to?
They gay's have been with us since the beginning, you just didn't know it.
Yes, there have been a few homosexuals in society for as long as people have been around. And what is your point? There have been babies with deformities since the beginning of the human race, as well as babies with brain damage and the "progressives" reject them all, believing they should be destroyed. But the unproven claim that God created homosexuals, t***sexuals, bisexuals and a large number of other d*****t sexual drives, with no influence what so ever from environmental factors, and therefore we should celebrate their behavior, is not allowed to be questioned. Why should two percent of the population be able to demand that the laws be changed to give them special privileges to redefine society for their use?
The Kumbaya Temptation
Pat Buchanan | Nov 07, 2014
Nov. 4 was a national v**e of no confidence in Barack Obama.
Had a British prime minister received a v**e like this, he would have resigned by now.
The one issue on which all Republicans agreed, and all ran, was the rejection of Obama. And by fleeing from him, some even refusing to admit they v**ed for him, Democrats, too, were conceding that this e******n was about Obama, and that they were not to blame for his failures.
Yet, though this was a referendum on Obama and his policies, and though both were repudiated, some pundits are claiming that America v**ed for an "end to gridlock" and a new era of compromise and conciliation.
How so? If the American people were truly saying that, why did they v**e to turn the Senate over to Mitch McConnell? Why did they v**e to send more Republicans to strengthen the hand of John Boehner and those in the House who had "shut down" the government?
Did America v**e for the GOP to go back to Washington and work with Obama? Or did America reward the GOP for promising to return and continue to oppose Obama's policies?
Is the answer not obvious?
What Republicans are hearing now is the siren song of a Beltway elite that just got its clock cleaned, an elite that revels in Republican defeats, but is ever at hand to give guidance and counsel to Republicans when they win.
And that counsel is always the same: Time to put the acrimony behind us. Time to reach out and take the extended hand of the defeated. Time come together to end gridlock and move forward. And invariably this means move in the same old direction, if a bit more slowly.
Consider several areas where the kumbaya temptation is strongest.
The first is the rising clamor from Corporate America for the newly empowered Republicans to grant Obama fast track authority and support his T***s-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
Fast track would be a unilateral surrender of Congressional authority, yielding all power to amend trade treaties to Obama, and leaving Congress with a yes or no v**e on wh**ever treaty he brings home.
This would be a Republican ratification of the policies of Bush I and II that produced $10 trillion in trade deficits, hollowed out our manufacturing base, and sent abroad the jobs of millions of Reagan Democrats.
Globalization carpet-bombed Middle America and k**led the Nixon-Reagan coalition that used to give the GOP 49-state landslides.
Why would Republicans return to that Bush-Clinton-Obama policy that ended the economic independence of Eisenhower's America?
The party should re-embrace economic patriotism, stand up to Japanese protectionists and Chinese currency manipulators, and put American workers first, ahead of corporate outsourcers.
Immigration reform is a second area where the GOP is being urged, even by some of its own, to compromise. In return for Obama agreeing to improve border security, Republicans will be asked to go along with amnesty for millions here illegally.
But did any Republican run on amnesty? Is the nation demanding amnesty? If not, then who is?
Answer: Corporate America, Obama, La Raza and the editorial pages of newspapers that routinely brand Republicans as xenophobic bigots.
Republicans should pass a stand-alone border-security bill, and then dare Senate Democrats to filibuster it and dare the president to veto it.
If Obama declares an executive amnesty for five million i******s, as he threatens, he can credibly be charged will defying the manifest will of the nation and usurping Congressional power. The GOP would then be within its rights to declare all-out political warfare.
Let v**ers decide in 2016 whether invaders should be rewarded with paths to citizenship or whether presidents should be duty-bound to defend the border.
A third temptation will be Obama's request for Congress to formally authorize the war he has begun in Syria and Iraq. If the GOP signs on, the party will own that war going into 2016, as it owned the Iraq war going into 2006, when it lost both houses of Congress.
That the Islamic State is brutal, barbaric and anti-American is undeniable. But its occupation of northern Syria and western Iraq is the problem primarily of Syria and Iraq, and their neighbors in Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Kurdistan, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
This is, first and foremost, their war, not ours.
As Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno said last week, "The long-term war against [the Islamic State] needs to be fought by the indigenous capability there. It needs to be fought by Iraqis. It needs to be fought by Syrians. It needs to be fought by other Arabs, because it's their country and they need to win that back."
Before succumbing to the kumbaya temptation, Republicans should ask themselves not how to find common ground with Barack, but how to get America out of this Slough of Despond.
And anyone who thinks last Tuesday was a call to compromise with Obama has either an ax to grind or a serious hearing problem.
nwtk2007 wrote:
Wrong dude. All people everywhere have the right to PRETEND to be anything they want. Its simply not anyone else's right to say they can't. If they think its real and you think its pretend, who give a $hit? I, for one, are tired of the self righteous, holier than thou attitudes of the anti-gay crowd, as if they are better, which they are not. If you think homosexuality is a sin, then fine, don't practice it. Who gives a $hit about that either. And definitely lets not legislate sin, because as your good book says, all are sinners. I'm all for letting "God" be the judge, not man. And if God ain't going to intervene, then who gives a $hit about that either?
Wrong dude. All people everywhere have the right ... (
show quote)
you have the right to pretend you are a hippopotamus if you so desire, or pretend you are a taxi, but I am not obligated to feed you hay and give you a daily mud bath,nor am I required to hire you to drive me to work daily. The point however, is not what you pretend, but what you try to force 97.5% of the country to pretend.
America Only wrote:
Gay Rights....are Wrong Rights....period.
The logic (lack of it) behind the driving factors of all this Gay Rights junk is simple to view in it's true fashion and not the way the Media and Gay people wish for us to believe.
They as "people" like anyone else they already have all the "rights" and freedoms given. What they do not have is the right to secure some set of rules that justifies a Marriage between two people of the same sex. Such a rule is as ignorant as a Rapist that gets a large group of other Rapist and DEMANDS they should be allowed to do so because it is what THEY think is normal behavior. Such a rule is as ignorant as a Bank Robber that thinks he ands all other Bank Robbers should be allowed to rob a bank and have a set of rules to allow it to be so.
Being "GAY" is a******l behavior. They need to find their own fix for their a******l behavior so they can live life in a normal manner. That means no longer being "Gay". If they cannot do that, too frigging bad for them. They make the choices and it is on them, period.
Gay Rights....are Wrong Rights....period. br br T... (
show quote)
Often, it is impossible to change, although some people are successful. The best compromises are to increase the opposite sex attraction to greater than the same sex attraction and
and act on only the opposite sex attraction. the second best choice is
is to be celibate We have the ability to control our desires, hopefully.
Ricktloml wrote:
The goals of the radical homosexual agenda have never been to advance anything, but to destroy. David Kupelian's book The Marketing of Evil explains it very well
Both of his books on evil should be mandatory reading for everyone, straight or "gay" and part of any adult religious discussion group. they are readily available from amazon, ABE books, and WND among others.
MrEd wrote:
It's not so much my wanting our rights to govern you, but your rights governing me. I think there are a lot more straight people in this country then gay, so if a state wants to not have gay marriage, then that is what the majority want. But you on the other hand want a small minority to govern the rest of the country with your life style. You are telling me that if 99.8% of the people in a state want nothing to do with gay marriage, then you are going to force it on them because you have as much right to marriage as they do. Well, you do, as long as it is a man and a woman marriage and not gay marriage.
Where do you get off telling the rest of the country that your rights override ours and that you can force your agenda on us and into our lives, schools, churches, and families. You are interested it shoving it on our faces and make us learn your life style when in fact we have no desire to know anything about how you live. I don't want gay for a day in my schools or having you shove it in my face while in the military and a lot of other things you just love to do. You aren't happy with just marriage, you want everything and you want it shoved in my face. Until you get to shove it in my face, you aren't really happy.
Every time to gay community gets what they want, it goes overboard and to an extreme. You aren't really happy until you are cramming it down our throats. Well, personally, I am s**k of it. I am s**k of people like you telling me what to do and how I have to act and who I am allowed to do it with. I never wanted to know about your life style and really could care less what you did in your bedroom, but now you are forcing it in my face and I don't like it one bit. I left you alone and let you do pretty much anything you wanted to do, but you still were not happy. Well, tough s**t. That doesn't give you the right to come into my life and I really don't like it. If you keep this up, you will get a lot more then just a rebuff from the straight community and I will tell you right now that you will NOT like it.
It's not so much my wanting our rights to govern y... (
show quote)
Excellent comments. they express the thoughts of most heterosexuals that I know.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
ginnyt wrote:
I guess the same could be asked of the left leaners. Why do you think that you can insist that everyone bend to your wills and notions. I think that government should stay out of people's bedrooms and start managing the nation. I think that each state should manage the issuance of marriage licenses.
Who do I think I am.... gee, I am a person. I am a US citizen. I have the same rights as you do. My rights do not trump yours and yours does not trump mine. Keep your bedroom activities to yourself and I will not have any complaints. That is pretty simple. I will not tell you about my heterosexual activities and please do not tell me about your homosexual, Apotemnophilia, Ursusagalmatophilia, Klismaphilia , Coprophilia , Dacryphilia , Formicophilia , Harpaxophilia , Mysophilia, Paraphilic infantilism, Furries, Beastiality , Necrophilia , poney play, Autoerotic asphyxiation , or Vorarephilia and any other activities you are a participant.
To be sure, most that are not like you, do not want to know about your bedroom....unless you have a new decorator and want to show off their work. But, really how would anyone know you are gay unless you announce it? And why would or how would that even come up in conversation? Dinner party over the shrimp... "Aren't these the cuties, oh and by the way I am a homosexual that plays the dominate male role????" I just could not imagine such a conversation in my social circle. Oh well. Now you know!
I guess the same could be asked of the left leaner... (
show quote)
I will bet that not many people knew there were that many parafilias, and that is not the whole list. Years ago we encountered a man who said that what really turned him on was to masturbate with the placenta of a sheep. Go figure that one. Too bad he didn't stick with that instead of including boys in his sexual activities.
lindajoy wrote:
why would you ever wish to remove the beauty, magic and love of such a creature...They watch over and take care of us~~~
But I will gladly take him, as I love them
And yet leave you with a bit of wonder and magic anyway~`
Remember, I am the one that "simply believes".......
I love your unicorns. do you have any extras you could send our way?
SWMBO