Wow! You must be an American born r****t against Hispanics, just like Obama!

Oh? They are forcing Christian bakers to provide Wedding cakes for gay marriages, and Christian Photographers to photograph gay weddings, and they force Christians who own certain venues to host gay weddings, so you're wrong! Additionally they are forcing states to recognize gay marriages when most people in the state oppose it.

And hypocrisy of hypocrisies, they sued California when it already had Domestic partnerships and Massachusetts when they had civil unions. So like I said earlier, it's not about "equal rights", it's about gay privilege, and more about trashing Christians by demonizing them.

Oh? They are forcing Christian bakers to provide Wedding cakes for gay marriages, and Christian Photographers to photograph gay weddings, and they force Christians who own certain venues to host gay weddings, so you're wrong! Additionally they are forcing states to recognize gay marriages when most people in the state oppose it.

And hypocrisy of hypocrisies, they sued California when it already had Domestic partnerships and Massachusetts when they had civil unions. So like I said earlier, it's not about "equal rights", it's about gay privilege, and more about trashing Christians by demonizing them.

Exactly! A homosexual is called to repent, just as an adulterer or fornicator is. And for that matter anyone guilty of any sin.

As for the first remark, were homosexuals born gay and the religion of evolution true, gays would become extinct.

That is significant because "gayness" is being promoted as a reaction to prejudice. There is no indicator that makes someone gay, anymore than someone is different because they are a criminal. What I am saying basically is that gays don't want e******y they want preference. There is obviously a component of homosexuality that involves a mental pathology for most gays, not all. The council of Psycologists who determine such diagnosis were bullied into declaring homosexuality normal years ago.

And that strategy has been largely successful, the next target is any religion, except Islam, that considers homosexuality a sin.

I get so tired of this h**x. The problem basically for the Warmies is that an accurate assessment of what will occur in even the next 20 years, cannot be made from the data collected over the past 20 years. That's what is science! There are record weather conditions set someplace nearly every year.

What do we really know about the climate even 100 years ago? In statistics there is a tool called "the standard deviation" which indicates the degree of expected accuracy from the particular survey or data set.

L*****ts use statistics with high standard deviations all the time to fool others into thinking that their particular statistic is accurate, when it's not. A classic example involved the s**m associated with the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban. The "claim" was that the AWB reduced crime associated with the use of "assault weapons" by 50%. But this was a s**m. First, the use of these weapons in crime, specifically those weapons as defined by the law, had never been tracked before. Second, every such weapon that was grandfathered by the law remained in existence, and there was a massive surge in sales of weapons similar in function, but exempt from the law. Third, the reported use of these weapons in crime was so small in number, the 50% reduction was statistically insignificant.

With "C*****e C****e", the number of years where there has been accurate climate recording is insignificant with regards to the time period which is said to be important. Any consideration of climate more than 50 years ago is going to be estimated.

But what is most telling is the outright fraud associated with C*****e C****e. The infamous "hockey stick" graph is a fraud, which is why the Copenhagen Summit collapsed. The E-mails were clear regarding the fraud. Meanwhile, the IPCC report was also a fraud. The man running the IPCC wasn't even a climate scientist, and most of the studies cited in that report were not scientific studies, they were journalistic pieces or had never been "peer-reviewed".

If that isn't bad enough we have "Republicans" jumping on the Warmie s**m. Right at this minute, only Ted Cruz has said he would get rid of the Ethanol Subsidy, which is based upon the standard Warmie lie. Ethanol production doesn't save energy, it uses more, it costs more which is why it is subsidized, and it's not "green", but the modern definition. It just ruins your engine and keeps your fuel costs high. The same thing with "G***n e****y" production. It raises costs through the roof. There is a study conducted by a Spanish University regarding the G***n e****y program that Spain has been involved with in the past decade or so. That program costs Spain 2.5 jobs for every g***n e****y job that was created, and like other g***n e****y programs in other European countries it makes their electricity the most expensive in the world.

Good Riddance! The ATF should be done away with, as
they have become an instrument of oppression. Even before Fats and Furious, the ATF and elements of the Justice Department were sent to the Houston area to tackle the "problem" of US guns being smuggled into Mexico. Naturally, they wouldn't secure the border which would prevent the few guns actually going into Mexico, because it would also prevent new i******s from coming into the US.

So the plan was to find and charge the mass numbers of gun smugglers. What they did was to go to all the gun stores go through the registration records, and look for Mexican names. Never mind those records can only legally be searched if there is a bonafide investigation, they were the Federal Government! After finding a Hispanic suspect whose crime was buying a gun legally, they would search the tax records of the "victim" on the internet. This would be followed up with a visit by agents demanding to see the gun! I don't think it was too successful, so Fast and Furious was a bit later. Since that became a fiasco, Obama wrote a regulation where the multiple handgun purchase report became the multiple "assault rifle" purchase report as well, but only for the States where most of the Nation's Hispanic citizens live. Then in April of 2012, the ATF registration form was revised to include ethnic group, but the only ethnic groups listed were "Hispanic or Latino" or "Not Hispanic or Latino". In this way Hispanics could be racially profiled when their name is called in for the background check.

And since every gun purchase except those with Concealed carry licenses in Texas require the passing of the Federal Government background check, the ATF is basically making a citizen a "suspect" for performing a legal act that is within their rights and being verified by the Federal government that they are legally entitled to own a gun. If that isn't both racially profiling and a clear infringement, then Obama isn't a raving Socialist!

Personally, I happen to believe that the ATF is illegally copying all the registration date and creating a covert National gun registry. Still, older registration data would be unreliable, or non-existent, but newer data would be important, were he planning a mass confiscation. If you remember the Smith & Wesson "deal", part of the "settlement" in which Clinton and the other plaintiffs agreed not to sue involved Smith & Wesson turning over the names of customers to an independent "panel" which I believe included George Soros! Like the IRS was turning over the names of Tea Party groups trying to get legal in the campaign finance law, Obamaites at the ATF could be turning over registration data to the same George Soros groups!

So, if I were considering a purchase of a handgun or a rifle that is popular, like an AR-15, I would buy one through a private sale, if legal in your state. The gun would be registered to the person who purchased it last through a FFL, but not registered to you. I am also leery when it comes to gun warranties. Information of who bought a particular gun would be easy to hack or get a l*****t federal judge to release to an anti-gun group. After all, I believe it was the Chicago Sun that got a judge to unseal the divorce records of the Republican opponent of Barack Hussein Obama when he was running for the Illinois Senate seat.

I don't know, Obama is trying to sign a peace treaty he won't call a treaty so he hopes to bypass Senate confirmation, so he might try, and if no one stops him, who knows?

Hello! "Straight up"! You're a bit mixed up here!

DimocRATs, including Kerry himself, have tried to undermine Foreign policy in the past, what is differnet here is that Obama is seeking to make the Iranian deal, an executive action, that is bypass the Constitutional treaty, and make a treaty without the consent of the Senate.

As much an affront that is to the Senate and the Constitution, it's an outrageous and dictatorial affront on the American people! The only real say we have is through our v**e and our representatives.

delete

delete

delete

delete

delete

Darwinism is as much a religion as any other, except that it is much more dishonest in presenting itself as "scientific" and it's followers presenting it as "fact". If it wasn't a religion, then its followers would see no need to attack other religions, nor to try and protect it so fiercely.

Genetics provides a means to compare and calculate the rhetoric of Evolution. DNA has a shelf life, i.e., there isn't DNA left from older fossils, so a comparison can only be made from surviving specie.

E.G. A chimp is said to be the closest relative of man. It is also stated that man and chimp DNA differ by only 1.86%. It's stated that way to make people "believe". the "1.86%", however represents over 6 million base changes, several structural differences, only counted as one, and the major difference in that the apes have more c********es than does man. That would seem to indicate that apes came from man not man from apes. The problem is the alleged genetic sequencing of 6 million+ base pairs out of a minimum of about 30 Billion.

Basically, DNA is resistant to change, a "mutation" is far more likely to be harmful than helpful. And since a single mutation in a population is likely to be wiped out simply because of the existing gene pool is far more numerous. Basically, the problem is with Darwinian Evolution is that it is far too slow to respond to any kind of environmental change. A mutation would already have to exist in order to gain a advantage in natural se******n from a trait difference, and if it already occurred then natural se******n had nothing to do with it.

The other problem is the idea of mutations. Mutations aren't random, those that aren't passed down are often the same mutation occurring spontaneously. We see this in many genetic diseases, as not all were passed down from a parent.

Mutations that aren't fatal tend to be cumulative, and may be fatal when "concentrated", i.e. when an identical c********e is on both corresponding c********es. This is why intermarrying among relatives will often result in a genetic crash, not mutated monsters, but common birth defects and genetic diseases, and usually, the loss of the ability to reproduce.

Evolving under these conditions is out of the question. It's enough that people manage even to survive.