Veepstakes, McCain edition

[bicker]

although you contiually try to say that they are.

No I don't. That's the problem. You don't seem to care about what I'm writing; you're apparently just choosing to argue against something other than what I wrote instead -- something easier to argue against.

 

[corndog]

Powell brings in more than 30 years experience in politics, a person that is ready to lead, a person who appears extremely knowledgable, a thinker who doesn't spend too much time thinking, someone with conviction, someone who has led in peace and in war.

Isn't that exactly what McCain is? Thus my point that Powell doesn't have anything.

 

[corndog]

No I actually went and looked it up and read the decision...

The summary that you posted is inconsistent with your prior statement on the case.

 

[Bobbles]

It's very enjoyable reading this thread!

I have had several flashbacks from the movie "A Christmas Story" when Ralphie is beating up on Farkus. Flick sees Ralphie's Mom (Webmaster-in-control) coming and tries, in vain, to let Ralphie know that his mom is going to kill him (give him minor personal attack points).

(Then again, this is a "conservative discussion". )

Hilarious!

 

[WonderfulDreamer2]

No guts, no glory.

I've already had my hand slapped here on this thread for bickering with someone.

 

[Master Mason]

No I don't. That's the problem. You don't seem to care about what I'm writing; you're apparently just choosing to argue against something other than what I wrote instead -- something easier to argue against.

You continually try to say that something is being done that is wrong, when I ask for examples of things that are being done wrong, you can't produce them. The constitution is specific about what can and can't be done. Just because you don't like something does not make it wrong.

 

[bicker]

I cannot believe you are continuing to claim I'm saying something that I've already told you I'm not.

 

[WonderfulDreamer2]

Where us that "Cone of Silence" when you need it?

 

[WonderfulDreamer2]

I cannot believe you are continuing to claim I'm saying something that I've already told you I'm not.

So you admit, even with all the ginormous words, you really aren't saying anything? Just clarifying here.

 

[Master Mason]

um no, the supream court ruled that it was legal to prohibit the recipient of a scholarship from using the scholorship to pay for a seminary school. That does not prohibit the free exercise of religion in any way.

The summary that you posted is inconsistent with your prior statement on the case.

My prior statement is above

Washington State established its Promise Scholarship Program to assist academically gifted students with postsecondary education expenses. In accordance with the State Constitution, students may not use such a scholarship to pursue a devotional theology degree. Respondent Davey was awarded a Promise Scholarship and chose to attend Northwest College, a private, church-affiliated institution that is eligible under the program. When he enrolled, Davey chose a double major in pastoral ministries and business management/administration. It is undisputed that the pastoral ministries degree is devotional. After learning that he could not use his scholarship to pursue that degree, Davey brought this action under 42 U.S. C. §1983 for an injunction and damages, arguing that the denial of his scholarship violated

Please explain how my prior statement was inconstitant, the guy wanted to use his scholarship for a pastorial ministry degree, he was denied based on his choice of major, the SC found that to be legal.....

 

[bicker]

So you admit, even with all the ginormous words, you really aren't saying anything? Just clarifying here.

No, I'm saying what I'm saying:

If McCain nominates Romney or Pawlenty, then he's basically telling people who care about personal liberty to vote for Obama. So it'll come down to a very clear choices: Personal Liberty versus the Christian Jihad.

Killing is the weakest form of obstruction. It creates martyrs, which is counter-productive to the intended aim. The really smart zealots find a way to kill the soul of what they hate, without killing people.

I'm a real conservative -- not a fake one like most of the Republican Party, who only talk conservatism and then try to legislate their religious beliefs onto everything.

[Someone attacks one of the fundamental foundations of my religion.] That's just more rationalization for imposing your own personal values and beliefs onto others...

Does that clear it up?

 

[Magic Mom]

No, I'm saying what I'm saying:

If McCain nominates Romney or Pawlenty, then he's basically telling people who care about personal liberty to vote for Obama. So it'll come down to a very clear choices: Personal Liberty versus the Christian Jihad.

Killing is the weakest form of obstruction. It creates martyrs, which is counter-productive to the intended aim. The really smart zealots find a way to kill the soul of what they hate, without killing people.

I'm a real conservative -- not a fake one like most of the Republican Party, who only talk conservatism and then try to legislate their religious beliefs onto everything.

[Someone attacks one of the fundamental foundations of my religion.] That's just more rationalization for imposing your own personal values and beliefs onto others...

Does that clear it up?

So, to clarify, Romney is pro Christian Jihad? and anti freedom?

 

[agentpleakley]

No, I'm saying what I'm saying:

If McCain nominates Romney or Pawlenty, then he's basically telling people who care about personal liberty to vote for Obama. So it'll come down to a very clear choices: Personal Liberty versus the Christian Jihad.

Killing is the weakest form of obstruction. It creates martyrs, which is counter-productive to the intended aim. The really smart zealots find a way to kill the soul of what they hate, without killing people.

I'm a real conservative -- not a fake one like most of the Republican Party, who only talk conservatism and then try to legislate their religious beliefs onto everything.

[Someone attacks one of the fundamental foundations of my religion.] That's just more rationalization for imposing your own personal values and beliefs onto others...

Does that clear it up?

Maybe to you - but maybe to some of us - the opposite is true. Redistribution of wealth is a severe infringement of personal liberty and that is exactly what Obama plans to do. As far as Christian Jihad -- I don't see where you are coming from in this regard as far as McCain or Romney are concerned-- please explain.

 

[bicker]

So, to clarify, Romney is pro Christian Jihad? and anti freedom?

In 2003, Mitt Romney, as my governor, sought to obstruct the judicial decision that same-sex marriage was protected by the Massachusetts constitution. He fought to impose his religious belief about marriage on all of us; he sought to ban them and prevent implementation of them in 2004. He continued to seek to find a way to trump the will of the people and the laws of the Commonwealth, despite being reprimanded by our legislature. His arrogance ran that deep.

There you go; just one example of someone claiming to be a conservative, working to impose his religious beliefs on all of us. Some conservative!

 

[bicker]

Maybe to you - but maybe to some of us - the opposite is true. Redistribution of wealth is a severe infringement of personal liberty and that is exactly what Obama plans to do.

Money versus freedom? Hmm... I think freedom is more important. You're welcome to disagree.

As far as Christian Jihad -- I don't see where you are coming from in this regard as far as McCain or Romney are concerned-- please explain.

I provided one example, above. As I've offered before, I'll be glad to sit down with someone actually willing to learn about how it is to be a member of a small religious minority in the United States and talk about it. However, it has been very clear that in online forums, some folks use such discussions solely as an opportunity to further express their intolerance, so I am willing to have that discussion only eye-to-eye.

 

[Master Mason]

In 2003, Mitt Romney, as my governor, sought to obstruct the judicial decision that same-sex marriage was protected by the Massachusetts constitution. He fought to impose his religious belief about marriage on all of us; he sought to ban them and prevent implementation of them in 2004. He continued to seek to find a way to trump the will of the people and the laws of the Commonwealth, despite being reprimanded by our legislature. His arrogance ran that deep.

There you go; just one example of someone claiming to be a conservative, working to impose his religious beliefs on all of us. Some conservative!

No actually he fought to impose his belief on you. If he were to attempt to impose his religious belief on you then he would have been telling you that you could only be married in an LDS church, since that is the religion he follows.

 

[Master Mason]

Money versus freedom? Hmm... I think freedom is more important. You're welcome to disagree.

How about the freedom not to have my money confiscated by the governement.

 

[bicker]

You don't know much about LDS: According to the laws of the LDS, I could never be married in an LDS temple.

 

[What the Heck]

Money versus freedom? Hmm... I think freedom is more important. You're welcome to disagree.

If you look at it like that. I believe though that the redistribution of wealth isn't about the money as much as it's about freedom as well.

Anyway, can we get back to the Veepstakes?

 

[bicker]

How about the freedom not to have my money confiscated by the governement.

There is actually no such "freedom". It's a perversion of rhetoric. Regardless, I'm all in favor of low taxes, but money is no where near as important as personal liberty.