Challenge Accepted, Sheetwise (What Democrats Believe)

[SheetWise]

Let's get over it. Liberals want to expand marriage to include any two people -- I, as a conservative, want to get government out of the marriage business.

Marriage is a deal between two people, their church, and their community. It always was this way until the introduction of the Federal Income Tax made the government an interested party.

[jaxmike]

ROFLMAO! No, not at all. He only responded to the things he wanted me to say. If you knew how to comprehend what you read, you would know this. He owned himself. His post was one of the most ignorant and misguided posts I have ever read, and thats saying something considering what I have read from the leftists on this site.

[SheetWise]

Your exchange reminded me of this .

And this.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's get over it. Liberals want to expand marriage to include any two people -- I, as a conservative, want to get government out of the marriage business.

Marriage is a deal between two people, their church, and their community. It always was this way until the introduction of the Federal Income Tax made the government an interested party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since civil unions would give the same benefits, that's actually not the issue at all. It's a moral issue, and the current administration believes it should be legislated.

[SheetWise]

Well Autocratic, that's why they call us conservatives. It's the damn liberals that keep introducing this new stuff and this crap never ends -- so we keep fighting it. The fact that you keep coming up with new crap, I will introduce as evidence that what you were asking for last time is not what you really wanted.

I doesn't matter what liberals ask for -- what they want is power. It's not freedom, it's power. It's not liberty, it's control. Social Security - CONTROL. Communication -CONTROL. Education - CONTROL. Earnings - CONTROL. Liberals are so afraid of freedom.

In the meantime, I'll fight.

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what? This has absolutely NOTHING to do with my argument. Yes, SS dollars are being spent by the government...it is part of how Bush paid for his war!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not HIS war, their war.

[ QUOTE ]
The original argument, though, that private accounts are a gift to Wall Street...it is money that is currently NOT in the stock market that under Bush's private account plan WOULD be spent in the stock market. What part of this do you not understand? I didn't think this was a difficult concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a big difference between spending and investing.
[ QUOTE ]
How Democratic congressmen made their money has absolutely NO bearing on the discussion at hand...it's just another diversionary, sound-byte tactic by you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are being VERY hypocritical. You claim I am using a sound byte tactic when YOU did so first by associating those on Wall Street with Republicans. I simply stated that there are Democrats that made money on Wall Street as well, and you chastize (sp) me for it. Do you NOT see the problem here? It is YOU doing the "sound byting", but you don't even realize it.

[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees us that there will be a clear separation between Church and State.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it imply's it SOMEWHAT. Here is what it says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That is the first part of the first amendment. Please tell me how this is a "clear seperation" between Church and State. ALL it says is that there will be no national religion in the United States.

[ QUOTE ]
When individual STATES try to violate that piece of the Constitution, it is not only the federal government's perview, it is their OBLIGATION to intercede.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is something that is debated by Constitutional scholars.

Here is the particular Amendment to the Constitution that imposes Bill of Rights protections on the State level. Again, I do not see how a school board choosing to have prayer in their classrooms is in ANY way in violation of the 1st or 14th Amendment. It is NOT being Legislated.

[ QUOTE ]
Having prayer in public schools which children are required by law to attend (if they don't have the money to attend private schools) is a violation of their civil rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? How?

[ QUOTE ]
As a proud athiest, I for one would sue the pants off any school district that subjected my child to prayer in a public school.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? You don't have the right to do that. Or shouldn't. If you don't like how your community runs its schools, move. That is the way it should be. The government should not be in the middle of teaching and raising your child. That's YOUR job.

[ QUOTE ]
And I'd be well within my Constitutional rights to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't believe you do.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't win this argument by claiming states' rights...states do NOT have a right to throw out the Constitution just because the majority in that particular state choose to hold the Bible in higher authority. And regardless of what you think, your position is never going to be the law. Allow reality to sink in...the courts have ruled time and again on this issue, and you HAVE, in FACT...lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how courts have ruled, and overruled. Look up the issue, and the history. You will see that it was NOT always the way it is now. The attack on religion by "your people" has only begun to succeed recently.

[ QUOTE ]
YOUR argument only works when you compare apples and oranges, ecstasy and crack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is worse? How are they really so different?

[ QUOTE ]
MY argument works when you compare different forms of the VERY SAME DRUG. And I'll notice that you're not willing to debate my, more parallel example...because it is patently racist and the only people trying to change the issue are Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not racist. There are mandatory minimums on Crack; so, they are mandatory minimums on Extacy. If you DON'T BREAK THE LAW, THERE IS NO PROBLEM! STOP MAKING EXCUSES AND REALIZE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE BREAKING THE LAW, NO MATTER WHAT COLOR THEY ARE.

[ QUOTE ]
but the fact remains that on the issue I'm actually speaking of (mandatory minimums on crack vs. powder cocaine), the only people attempting to right this wrong are Dems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see a wrong. I see criminals, I do NOT care what color they are.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you actually have anything to SAY on the issue...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think you are being ignorant. You can't seem to understand that its irrelevant. If the people didn't commit the crime, this wouldn't be an issue.
[ QUOTE ]
You are truly a sick, misguided, twisted, and possibly quite evil individual to compare homosexuality to incest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am saying that if you think people who are homosexual are being discriminated against, then you must also think that people who want to commit incest are being discriminated against. Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it less true.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard on the subject, yet sadly you're not the first Christian conservative from whom I've heard it. And for the record, if two consenting, brother-sister, brother-brother, sister-sister adults decide they want to get married...I still don't think it's any of the government's damn business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, because the government grants a marriage license, it is their business. If marriage is going to be a legal institution, it IS the governments business.

[ QUOTE ]
But there doesn't seem to be an outcry in the Incest community for the government to quit denying them that right...there IS in the homosexual community, and you are a total buffoon for making this comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think not, I just think that if the reason that you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry is because they are being discriminated against if they are not allowed means that you would have to feel the same way about those who want to commit incest, or you are a hypocrite.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I'm done responding to your horseshit, now and forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope so, you cannot win the debate.

[ QUOTE ]
You've accused me of rooting against our soldiers

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I said it is my opinion of you.

[ QUOTE ]
and now you've compared homosexuality to incest.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't. That is what YOU did. I simply said that the logical reason that you are using works equally well, and equally appropriately to both.

[ QUOTE ]
You can rot in your fictitious hell for all I care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice sentiment. Thanks, you are obviously a kind person.

[ QUOTE ]
But rguing with someone who believes the government should legislate religion but NOT take care of the needy if it means any taxes at all is a waste of my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not know where you got the ideas you state. I never said the government should legislate religion. I actually said they CAN'T.



Is it just me, or does this guy jump to a lot of conclusions about what I ACTUALLY said that are totally inaccurate and inappropriate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am DONE debating with you...not because I can't "win" the arguments...because many on this site believe I already have. It is because you are a bigoted piece of dog feces who compares homosexuality to incest and tells anyone against the war in Iraq that we hope the soliders LOSE there. You are the moral equivalent of urine, and I will not respond to all of your inane, totally irrelevant one-liners. If you wish to continue posting in response to my sentiments, I suggest you take a Southwest flight to Dallas and see me face to face. If not, SHUT THEFUCK UP.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
I am DONE debating with you...not because I can't "win" the arguments...because many on this site believe I already have. It is because you are a bigoted piece of dog feces who compares homosexuality to incest and tells anyone against the war in Iraq that we hope the soliders LOSE there. You are the moral equivalent of urine, and I will not respond to all of your inane, totally irrelevant one-liners. If you wish to continue posting in response to my sentiments, I suggest you take a Southwest flight to Dallas and see me face to face. If not, SHUT THEFUCK UP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiosity -- could the "many" reading this forum who believe SammyKid11 won his debate add their names to this thread.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Well Autocratic, that's why they call us conservatives. It's the damn liberals that keep introducing this new stuff and this crap never ends -- so we keep fighting it. The fact that you keep coming up with new crap, I will introduce as evidence that what you were asking for last time is not what you really wanted.

I doesn't matter what liberals ask for -- what they want is power. It's not freedom, it's power. It's not liberty, it's control. Social Security - CONTROL. Communication -CONTROL. Education - CONTROL. Earnings - CONTROL. Liberals are so afraid of freedom.

In the meantime, I'll fight.


[/ QUOTE ]

Keep on fighting, buddy. Don't let the liberals get you down. Someday, maybe someday...Republicans might just win an election or two and perhaps take control of this liberal government. Perhaps, if you keep on fighting the good fight, all your blood, sweat, and tears just might unseat these liberals from the seats of power - these same liberals who are so controlling that they steal our hard earned money and spend it on pork-filled legislation like the recent Energy and Transportation bills.

Fight on, brother...fight on. Don't stop until you get to the gates of power, torch in hand, and let those freedom-hating liberals running the show in Washington know who's really boss.

I think a few more articles on Tarsus Trust just might turn the tide. Never let anyone accuse you of shirking your responsibilities in this battle.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well Autocratic, that's why they call us conservatives. It's the damn liberals that keep introducing this new stuff and this crap never ends -- so we keep fighting it. The fact that you keep coming up with new crap, I will introduce as evidence that what you were asking for last time is not what you really wanted.

I doesn't matter what liberals ask for -- what they want is power. It's not freedom, it's power. It's not liberty, it's control. Social Security - CONTROL. Communication -CONTROL. Education - CONTROL. Earnings - CONTROL. Liberals are so afraid of freedom.

In the meantime, I'll fight.


[/ QUOTE ]

Keep on fighting, buddy. Don't let the liberals get you down. Someday, maybe someday...Republicans might just win an election or two and perhaps take control of this liberal government. Perhaps, if you keep on fighting the good fight, all your blood, sweat, and tears just might unseat these liberals from the seats of power - these same liberals who are so controlling that they steal our hard earned money and spend it on pork-filled legislation like the recent Energy and Transportation bills.

Fight on, brother...fight on. Don't stop until you get to the gates of power, torch in hand, and let those freedom-hating liberals running the show in Washington know who's really boss.

I think a few more articles on Tarsus Trust just might turn the tide. Never let anyone accuse you of shirking your responsibilities in this battle.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh, sir

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
If what you're referring to on civil rights is that Southern Democrats were awful, so be it. Southern Democrats from the 50's and 60's are now called Republicans. Northern Dems carried on the tradition that is, today, the Democratic Party...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a marvelous piece of logic. Heads your guys are saints, tails your guys are saints.

You are engaging in what we call the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Basically, you say, Democrats are the best and only folks who want good things for the poeple, except for those Democrats who don't, but they aren't *real* Democrats.

No True Scotsman Fallacy

natedogg