Do You Know David Lane? Every American Should

People pointed out Lane's political agenda and weighed in with their opinions. That's all that happened here.

 

So it's only good when people of the Socialist Left have political agenda's and opinions that are considered freedom of speech, all others need not apply. Is that what you are trying to say?

 

What ever you say boss. No further comments on civil unions?

 

Feel free to believe whatever you want about the 14th or any part of the constitution. Ignore all of the binding precedents established by case law. I'm quite sure that any legal scholar would confirm the absurdity of your theories. Meet me back here in a couple of weeks when I'm gloating over the SSM ruling coming down.

 

Discrimination results in the unequal treatment of people so is most certainly is about equality

Agreed. But you said that you do not "believe in equality" So if you think that inequality is OK, why are you against discrimination since the only effect of discrimination is the unequal treatment of people. ? Something is not clicking here

I'm ignoring you because most of the time you do not make sense. I have written extensively about the constitution on this thread and others that you have been on. Nothing seem to get through to you
.

Meaning a privilege ? Really? The SCOTUS has said that it is a right about a dozen times. Your saying that it is not a right does not change that.

 

Well that's good . I had you all wrong, or somewhat wrong anyway. But you will ignore then and minimize the threat at the peril of the nation.....that is not good

I never said that " Christianity is destabilizing the country" That is an absurd misrepresentation of my words. I am fine with the typical Christian doing their Christian things and live according to their faith

I said that radical Christians who want to impose their particular brand of extreme Christianity on the rest of us is a threat to our country and I will stand by that.

Any one who has read my prior posts knows where I stand on this matter. Why don't you?

I don't think so. Stay tuned for more

 

So are you inferring that the Progressive Left does not discriminate or use unequal treatment against it's opponents such as the GOP, Conservatives, religious groups and political groups like the T-Party?

 

Some examples please

If someone came into my place of business riding an elephant ,wearing a three corner hat, with a large cross on it and carrying a musket, I would serve them and engage in lively conversation with them

 

Radical Christians are a blip on the radar. They have no power or way to do a darn thing, besides waving their hands around wildly and talking loud.

 

No. Where did you get that idea? I was just mocking people's poor conception of what freedom of speech means.

 

Their numbers are less important that their location. They are in our government now!

 

Good point.... When Bush considered selling a deep water port to Dubai/UAE in 2006, the Progressive Democrat Socialists including Barack Obama were up in arms and totally against it claiming national security. Why was it wrong then and a national security risk then and not now?
See:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/...Al-Qaeda-Connection-Smoking-Gun-for-Bush-poll
versus,
http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/port-of-terror-obama-exposing-u-s-to-new-threat/

 

What is this? A change in foreign policy is supposed to prove that liberals discriminate or use unequal treatment against it's opponents such as the GOP, Conservatives, religious groups and political groups like the T-Party? I'm not even going to waist my time trying to understand this issue. Who the hell knows what is behind the change. You're suggesting that they just wanted to punish Bush. Well, there have been plenty of examples of conservatives who do things to punish Obama. It's not about discrimination-although we know why they hate Obama-Its about partisan politics. Oh and maybe it's really about national security. Things do change.

 

Kinda like how there are people who want the country to go full Communist also. Where there are the Koch brothers there is a George Soros and on and on. Most Americans are moderates and are sick of these extreme views. Right now the people have had their fill of liberal nonsense so things are about to change.

 

Not to this person of same-sex orientation. It ranks somewhere between the six letter 'f' word and 'homosexual' in my book. I didn't spend years fighting for our equality so that people would go back to calling themselves by the names our sworn enemies use for us, but it's not like I can stop them, either.

 

They are in our government, or at the doorstep NOW!

 

Nope. No one had better show up to my wedding uninvited.

 

We have people in our govt now that would be OK with no borders, amnesty for all, free college without any way to pay for it, no guns, a handicapped military, ect. That's far more destructive than some nut not wanting gays to marry, frankly.

 

They are an totalitarian monarchy in which religious law is relentlessly enforced and any political, social or religious dissident is brutally suppressed (usually involving torture and execution).

If they aren't a theocracy, I don't know what is.

Those elections are about as legitimate as North Korea's elections.

 

Really? NO boarders? Who would that be.?

The point is not that they are anti gay. It's that they are pro theocracy...in all areas of life. Why can't you get that

 

There will Always be extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, Lane is a perfect example of what some on the far right would like to change the Nation to fit their warped POV. There are also extremists on the left that would change the Nation to the polar opposite. it comes as no surprise that some of these extremists have the ear of our representatives, after all some of those Reps hold the same ideals they just do not express them in public because they know their POV is in the minority and would cost them their political careers. Thankfully Americans in general do not suffer extremists and have proven time and time again that there is only so much they will tolerate.

 

Probably because not many get that. But then conspiracy theorists always see things differently than most.

 

Who on the left is so extreme that they would destroy the foundation of our constitutional republic? Who on the left would advocate for a country that grants freedoms to only one particular religious group or special favors to those of a certain economic class.? Who would actually want to throw out the constitution in favor of religious doctrine? No! there is no comparison!!

 

If you consider liberal progressivism a doctrine then the answer is Obama.