NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    I understand the term PC refers to politically correct.  I guess I'm confused by the application of this term in this case.  If I understand certain provisions of the bill correctly it permits retail service providers to discriminate based on their own belief system.  Objecting to such a slippery slope has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with equality under the law. 

    If my religious beliefs characterize people with blond hair and blue eyes as evil then I'm sorry Swedes I won't sell you product X simply because your hair is the wrong color and so are your eyes. 




    Are you trying to espouse the unproven theory that being homosexual is determined the same way that hair pigment and eye color are?



    Yeah, see arguments that make no sense. Period. Fantasy land statements.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    I understand the term PC refers to politically correct.  I guess I'm confused by the application of this term in this case.  If I understand certain provisions of the bill correctly it permits retail service providers to discriminate based on their own belief system.  Objecting to such a slippery slope has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with equality under the law. 

    If my religious beliefs characterize people with blond hair and blue eyes as evil then I'm sorry Swedes I won't sell you product X simply because your hair is the wrong color and so are your eyes. 




    Are you trying to espouse the unproven theory that being homosexual is determined the same way that hair pigment and eye color are?



    Yeah, see arguments that make no sense. Period. Fantasy land statements.




    It's the old, keep repeating a lie tactic. Unfortunately, that does work, with people that are not lovers of truth, whom are the great majority.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    I understand the term PC refers to politically correct.  I guess I'm confused by the application of this term in this case.  If I understand certain provisions of the bill correctly it permits retail service providers to discriminate based on their own belief system.  Objecting to such a slippery slope has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with equality under the law. 

    If my religious beliefs characterize people with blond hair and blue eyes as evil then I'm sorry Swedes I won't sell you product X simply because your hair is the wrong color and so are your eyes. 




    Are you trying to espouse the unproven theory that being homosexual is determined the same way that hair pigment and eye color are?



    I haven't the remotest clue how gender orientation is determined, Babe.  What I do know is that stereotypes are rarely accurate, that discrimination is discrimination no matter how you package it and that the Arizona bill was little more than a thinly veiled attempt at licensing discriminatory practices.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    AFNAV130, kind of tough to sort all of this out but let me give it a shot. 

    You're not 'anti-gay'  (your words) but Christianity is a threat to gays.  And then ". . .they are extreme, sick, twisted and dangerous."  You'll pardon me but that's kind of a head-scratcher. 

    I suspect, although you haven't said so, that you think I'm what you would characterize as a 'liberal' simply because not only do I disagree with what you've written, I totally reject it as being about as inaccurate as statements can be. 

    If you had actually lived in Massachusetts instead of condeming it without any firsthand knowledge you'd know that Mass happens to be one of the most patriotic states in the union.  (Yes, people can be patriotic and still be 'liberal' as you label them).  How would I know?  I was born and raised in Boston and have lived in a number of states including a couple that are pretty conservative:  Virginia and Florida.  Virginians and Floridians don't lack patriotism but, in my opinion, they have nothing over Mass.



    Ahhhh the classic cut and paste certain words to further an agenda. I said AT THE TOP they are dangerous etc. Ie their mouthpieces. Much like any group that pushes an agenda. I bet most gays don't give two hoots about then AZ bill, for instance.  As far as Christinanity being a threat, you don't think so? the Church isnt so hot on the idea, and that puts a big chink in their we are special speech stump speeches, no? You don't have to think you are liberal. You are liberal in your opinions. By thinking Mass isn't, proves you are. Virginia and Florida. Wow. Hmmm. For me so far? NH, Texas, New Meixico, GA, and Arizona. All of them have more freedoms than any state in NE has. When you have more freedoms in a state that wasn't even around when the Constitution was written is quite sad. They abide by it more than you guys do. Patriotic has nothing to do with it. Think 4th celebrations and maybe taking the kids to Bunker Hill means patriotism? Respect maybe, but it's actions that determine what you are alluding to. Much like gun crime. When a black guy kills a white guy..crickets. Other way around? Non stop agenda pushing, guns are bad, white people are bad. The libs jump all over it. So in the end, you can cut and paste what you want, and your obvious inability to see how the Christianity things is a problem that has nothing to do with me is fairly telling. 



    You haven't  the remotest clue what my opinions are.  All that you 'know' is that I'm challenging some of your preconceived notions and that must make me (gasp!) a liberal. 

    Do us all a favor, most particularly yourself.  Stop posting.  With each post you are outing yourself more and more and it's got nothing to do with being 'conservative' as you label yourself.  I've got a number of really conservative cousins and they'd take you to task in a heartbeat for some of the stuff you've posted here.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    I understand the term PC refers to politically correct.  I guess I'm confused by the application of this term in this case.  If I understand certain provisions of the bill correctly it permits retail service providers to discriminate based on their own belief system.  Objecting to such a slippery slope has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with equality under the law. 

    If my religious beliefs characterize people with blond hair and blue eyes as evil then I'm sorry Swedes I won't sell you product X simply because your hair is the wrong color and so are your eyes. 




    Are you trying to espouse the unproven theory that being homosexual is determined the same way that hair pigment and eye color are?



    I haven't the remotest clue how gender orientation is determined, Babe.  What I do know is that stereotypes are rarely accurate, that discrimination is discrimination no matter how you package it and that the Arizona bill was little more than a thinly veiled attempt at licensing discriminatory practices.

     



    If that's your argument thats fine. Then the no shoes nor shirt no service is discrimination too no? See the problem is, a bill like that shouldn't be neccessary. Someone's not comfortable providing you a service move on. They lose the money. That should be the end, and I bet is in most cases. The media is propaganda. Otherwise they'd smell BS and not even cover it. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    I understand the term PC refers to politically correct.  I guess I'm confused by the application of this term in this case.  If I understand certain provisions of the bill correctly it permits retail service providers to discriminate based on their own belief system.  Objecting to such a slippery slope has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with equality under the law. 

    If my religious beliefs characterize people with blond hair and blue eyes as evil then I'm sorry Swedes I won't sell you product X simply because your hair is the wrong color and so are your eyes. 




    Are you trying to espouse the unproven theory that being homosexual is determined the same way that hair pigment and eye color are?



    I haven't the remotest clue how gender orientation is determined, Babe.  What I do know is that stereotypes are rarely accurate, that discrimination is discrimination no matter how you package it and that the Arizona bill was little more than a thinly veiled attempt at licensing discriminatory practices.

     




    There are a ton of discriminatory practices that are acceptable. That's the debate; where do we draw the discriminatory lines.

    I say when those lines are being drawn over other inalienable rights.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    I understand the term PC refers to politically correct.  I guess I'm confused by the application of this term in this case.  If I understand certain provisions of the bill correctly it permits retail service providers to discriminate based on their own belief system.  Objecting to such a slippery slope has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with equality under the law. 

    If my religious beliefs characterize people with blond hair and blue eyes as evil then I'm sorry Swedes I won't sell you product X simply because your hair is the wrong color and so are your eyes. 




    Are you trying to espouse the unproven theory that being homosexual is determined the same way that hair pigment and eye color are?



    I haven't the remotest clue how gender orientation is determined, Babe.

     



    Neither does anybody else. The closest thing to an answer that we have is that it comprises a combination of psychological factors, environmental factors and genetic factors. And that is by no means a rock solid answer.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    I understand the term PC refers to politically correct.  I guess I'm confused by the application of this term in this case.  If I understand certain provisions of the bill correctly it permits retail service providers to discriminate based on their own belief system.  Objecting to such a slippery slope has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with equality under the law. 

    If my religious beliefs characterize people with blond hair and blue eyes as evil then I'm sorry Swedes I won't sell you product X simply because your hair is the wrong color and so are your eyes. 




    Are you trying to espouse the unproven theory that being homosexual is determined the same way that hair pigment and eye color are?



    I haven't the remotest clue how gender orientation is determined, Babe.

     



    Neither does anybody else. The closest thing to an answer that we have is that it comprises a combination of psychological factors, environmental factors and genetic factors. And that is by no means a rock solid answer.

     



    There are some things we know are not the truth without knowing every aspect of the cause of something. One thing we do KNOW is that sexual orientation is not a choice like prefering vanilla to chocolate.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    I understand the term PC refers to politically correct.  I guess I'm confused by the application of this term in this case.  If I understand certain provisions of the bill correctly it permits retail service providers to discriminate based on their own belief system.  Objecting to such a slippery slope has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with equality under the law. 

    If my religious beliefs characterize people with blond hair and blue eyes as evil then I'm sorry Swedes I won't sell you product X simply because your hair is the wrong color and so are your eyes. 




    Are you trying to espouse the unproven theory that being homosexual is determined the same way that hair pigment and eye color are?



    I haven't the remotest clue how gender orientation is determined, Babe.

     



    Neither does anybody else. The closest thing to an answer that we have is that it comprises a combination of psychological factors, environmental factors and genetic factors. And that is by no means a rock solid answer.

     



    There are some things we know are not the truth without knowing every aspect of the cause of something. One thing we do KNOW is that sexual orientation is not a choice like prefering vanilla to chocolate.

     




    Ahhhh, some would say preferring vanilla to chocolate isn't actually a choice.

    Bottom line: No proof exists that being gay is a choice. No spin will change that.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else


    As Mark Twain said:

    "Don't try to teach a pig to sign....it wastes time and irritates the pig!"

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If that's your argument thats fine. Then the no shoes nor shirt no service is discrimination too no? See the problem is, a bill like that shouldn't be neccessary. Someone's not comfortable providing you a service move on. They lose the money. That should be the end, and I bet is in most cases. The media is propaganda. Otherwise they'd smell BS and not even cover it. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I dont agree with your analogy AFNAV. Bigotry targets individuals who belong to a group - hence the rights in your and my Constitution protecting people regardless of relatively "static" attributes like race, religion (I acknowledge that peolpe cna and sometimes do change their religious beliefs but the point I am making is I hope still clear), etc. In the example of no shoes, shirt, etc. these are characteristics that EVERYONE can belong to without any "redefinition" of who they are by either themselves or others. THat is for example, a white person or a black person can wear a shirt or not wear a shirt and their state of shirtlessness does not change who they or who we think they are.

    In some states there had been laws that allowed for discriminatory treatment of people who were not white. THose laws have been found immoral.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    I understand the term PC refers to politically correct.  I guess I'm confused by the application of this term in this case.  If I understand certain provisions of the bill correctly it permits retail service providers to discriminate based on their own belief system.  Objecting to such a slippery slope has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with equality under the law. 

    If my religious beliefs characterize people with blond hair and blue eyes as evil then I'm sorry Swedes I won't sell you product X simply because your hair is the wrong color and so are your eyes. 




    Are you trying to espouse the unproven theory that being homosexual is determined the same way that hair pigment and eye color are?



    I haven't the remotest clue how gender orientation is determined, Babe.

     



    Neither does anybody else. The closest thing to an answer that we have is that it comprises a combination of psychological factors, environmental factors and genetic factors. And that is by no means a rock solid answer.

     



    There are some things we know are not the truth without knowing every aspect of the cause of something. One thing we do KNOW is that sexual orientation is not a choice like prefering vanilla to chocolate.

     




    Ahhhh, some would say preferring vanilla to chocolate isn't actually a choice.

    Bottom line: No proof exists that being gay is a choice. No spin will change that.



    My point IS that being gay is NOT merely a choice. So you sound like you are agreeing with me...

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

     



    If that's your argument thats fine. Then the no shoes nor shirt no service is discrimination too no? See the problem is, a bill like that shouldn't be neccessary. Someone's not comfortable providing you a service move on. They lose the money. That should be the end, and I bet is in most cases. The media is propaganda. Otherwise they'd smell BS and not even cover it. 




    I dont agree with your analogy AFNAV. Bigotry targets individuals who belong to a group - hence the rights in your and my Constitution protecting people regardless of relatively "static" attributes like race, religion (I acknowledge that peolpe cna and sometimes do change their religious beliefs but the point I am making is I hope still clear), etc. In the example of no shoes, shirt, etc. these are characteristics that EVERYONE can belong to without any "redefinition" of who they are by either themselves or others. THat is for example, a white person or a black person can wear a shirt or not wear a shirt and their state of shirtlessness does not change who they or who we think they are.

    In some states there had been laws that allowed for discriminatory treatment of people who were not white. THose laws have been found immoral.

     



I'll concede that point about shirts and shoes thing. Good point. As to the last part very true. That was a race issue. That was a thing figured out at birth. This is were it is such a close issue. It's not a birthright(gay) or a large majority doesn't think so.  That's where this big divide is. 

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    Having sex or not having sex is a choice

    What exact hormonal, chemical or DNA difference inside an individual's body that attracts them to the same sex is not a choice. Are their some who are pschologically effected by some post birth event, probably, But it isn't the prevailing reason. Observing obviously gay and lesbian indivuals at a young age should be simple proof there is more going than simole choice.

    I don't feel any need to try and change any of them.

    If you believe in God let God handle it.

    if they believe in God , it's between them and God

    If the don't believe in God , and are comfortable with who they are, nothing will change them

    If they are glt they should have the understanding that everyone is different and they cannot force acceptance. And everyone should be tolerant of each other, but not be forced to interact more than necessary. 

    just my take, 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to 347pg's comment:

     

     

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to 347pg's comment:

    What is the difference between a person discriminating against a gay person because they disagree with them

    and

    The NFL discriminating against Arizona because they disagree with it?

    It's all discrimination.  The pot is calling the kettle black.

    You have every right to be offended.  You have no right to not be offended.

     



    You really dont have a clue that two different actions with two different purposes are generally not equal arguments?

     

    Take the idea that while one person might kill someone in cold blood another might kill sonmeone in self defense. The two acts and intentions are dramatically different. Their moral values are not at all equal.

    In the case you bring up one party is trying to make acts of bigotry that impact real people are legally defensable while the other example is a party saying that it will act to protect the premise that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

    Come on and start to think things through.

     



    Really?

    Have you ever been to a store that has a sign posted that says "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"?

    Not saying it's right or wrong, but if a person has a strong personal belief which government can violate with a court decision, where is freedom of religion?

    It is freedom of religion not freedom from religion, which this country is fast approaching.  Obviously, when the government forces a vendor to make a cake for a gay couple which they don't want to make because of personal beliefs (right or wrong), people can feel threatened. 

    If a Muslim taxi cab driver can keep driving when they see a potential customer with a dog and there is no outrage, why is it that Christians cannot practice matters of conscience as well?

    And the NFL is practicing the same type of bigotry against people of faith.  You just refuse to see or accept it.

    Come clean and just admit it.



    They won't and can't. Christianity is a threat (especially to gays). Also, they are liberal nanny state babies. They will bow down to anything if they think it will cause a controversy. They appear to me what I feel Tories were like back in the day.  Go ask WW2 vets what they think of how the country is now. I have. Not happy. They put everything on the line. For this? Want to see things change quick? Turn off the entitlements. Oops. That would be funny. What then? These liberals will be begging for your help and they will find none. Then it will start. The looting, rioting, murders. Good times and you know why? Because it's all about them. Me me me. Give me free stuff. You have money they don't. Not fair!  Obamacare will be free! It will be cheap! The FSA (Free S**t Army) rejoiced. Then uh oh it's not really what it was supposed to do. All politicians are losers. But I especially remember the FSA hero Pelosi saying "We'll find out what's actually in the bill when we pass it"(obamacare). Brilliant! Great way to do business. Had a right winger said that, oh boy. Face it, the country is in the toilet and everyday some liberal has his hands on it ready to flush. Anyhow, I'm afraid talking won't resolve it, and especially in a liberal nut job state like Mass. How the hell did the Revolution even start there? Must have been a mistake. Truly.



    Wealthy, hard-working liberals like me want to pay higher taxes so the less fortunate have healthcare they might otherwise not be able to afford.  You, meanwhile, are advocating for a shooting war to kill people you disagree with.  And you think it's we who are flushing the country down the toilet?  Look at the log in your own eye, buddy, because you're the problem. 

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to 347pg's comment:

     

     

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to 347pg's comment:

    What is the difference between a person discriminating against a gay person because they disagree with them

    and

    The NFL discriminating against Arizona because they disagree with it?

    It's all discrimination.  The pot is calling the kettle black.

    You have every right to be offended.  You have no right to not be offended.

     



    You really dont have a clue that two different actions with two different purposes are generally not equal arguments?

     

    Take the idea that while one person might kill someone in cold blood another might kill sonmeone in self defense. The two acts and intentions are dramatically different. Their moral values are not at all equal.

    In the case you bring up one party is trying to make acts of bigotry that impact real people are legally defensable while the other example is a party saying that it will act to protect the premise that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

    Come on and start to think things through.

     



    Really?

    Have you ever been to a store that has a sign posted that says "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"?

    Not saying it's right or wrong, but if a person has a strong personal belief which government can violate with a court decision, where is freedom of religion?

    It is freedom of religion not freedom from religion, which this country is fast approaching.  Obviously, when the government forces a vendor to make a cake for a gay couple which they don't want to make because of personal beliefs (right or wrong), people can feel threatened. 

    If a Muslim taxi cab driver can keep driving when they see a potential customer with a dog and there is no outrage, why is it that Christians cannot practice matters of conscience as well?

    And the NFL is practicing the same type of bigotry against people of faith.  You just refuse to see or accept it.

    Come clean and just admit it.



    They won't and can't. Christianity is a threat (especially to gays). Also, they are liberal nanny state babies. They will bow down to anything if they think it will cause a controversy. They appear to me what I feel Tories were like back in the day.  Go ask WW2 vets what they think of how the country is now. I have. Not happy. They put everything on the line. For this? Want to see things change quick? Turn off the entitlements. Oops. That would be funny. What then? These liberals will be begging for your help and they will find none. Then it will start. The looting, rioting, murders. Good times and you know why? Because it's all about them. Me me me. Give me free stuff. You have money they don't. Not fair!  Obamacare will be free! It will be cheap! The FSA (Free S**t Army) rejoiced. Then uh oh it's not really what it was supposed to do. All politicians are losers. But I especially remember the FSA hero Pelosi saying "We'll find out what's actually in the bill when we pass it"(obamacare). Brilliant! Great way to do business. Had a right winger said that, oh boy. Face it, the country is in the toilet and everyday some liberal has his hands on it ready to flush. Anyhow, I'm afraid talking won't resolve it, and especially in a liberal nut job state like Mass. How the hell did the Revolution even start there? Must have been a mistake. Truly.



    Wealthy, hard-working liberals like me want to pay higher taxes so the less fortunate have healthcare they might otherwise not be able to afford.  You, meanwhile, are advocating for a shooting war to kill people you disagree with.  And you think it's we who are flushing the country down the toilet?  Look at the log in your own eye, buddy, because you're the problem. 

     



    Sorry man. I'm just connecting the dots. Divided country, major issues, mistrust of government. Last time that happened well in say 1850 something. I'm not advocating for anything, just looking at the stark reality of what may be coming. I'm just saying what may happen. What happens when entitlements run out? The dollar collapses? The debt ceiling keeps climbing. I don't want to see it happen. But you wealthy liberals keep feeding the frenzy. Maybe a reset needs to happen.  I don't want to have to fight off hordes of people who have nothing. As far as a war, it won't be me starting one. It may however happen. I still don't understand not forcing people who could work to do so. Those who legitimately can't are the ones who deserve the help.  You gloss over facts. You feel you are doing goo, and I'd rather you help than not for sure. However, you are not. You are enabling those who don't need enabling.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    Having sex or not having sex is a choice

    What exact hormonal, chemical or DNA difference inside an individual's body that attracts them to the same sex is not a choice. Are their some who are pschologically effected by some post birth event, probably, But it isn't the prevailing reason. Observing obviously gay and lesbian indivuals at a young age should be simple proof there is more going than simple choice.

    I don't feel any need to try and change any of them.

    If you believe in God let God handle it.

    if they believe in God , it's between them and God

    If the don't believe in God , and are comfortable with who they are, nothing will change them

    If they are glt they should have the understanding that everyone is different and they cannot force acceptance. And everyone should be tolerant of each other, but not be forced to interact more than necessary. 

    just my take, 



    Exactly. I have no idea what sane human would ever claim it to be a choice as if they're choosing between dishwasher detergent in aisle 11.

    No one wakes up one day choosing to be gay and to take on socciety's potential discrimination against them as if it would be a choice.

    Kansas Patriot is one on here who calls it a "choice" or "preference". Babe is another. lmao

    These kinds of people in society are total whack jobs.

    Rusty


    1) you did great right up until you said whack jobs. but you are so right no one would want yo choose to wake up to this Just to take on society.

    i wouldnt say they are whacko tho, . I may disagree on this but they do have a right to those religious beliefs. And they are the conventional wisdom beliefs of 99 ,9999999% of all the people who have ever lived. They might call us wackos lol

    And then maybe too I may disagree with you on something else.  Does that make me whacko. You a whacko? No way. Well maybe both lol. (And there are things we disagree on)

    i don't think of Palin or Fox or the tea party like you Do. Just don't. 

    I believe in God , I don't care what anyone says. 

    You seem to think it mumbo jumbo, that's okay, but

    I  would never say you are whacko. ( if you do feel that way' as I read you)

    You believe in science, I just believe God works thru science

    And to your dialog  with the military guys , who have sacrificed and now see that a bunch of progressives are destroying this country (see my Obama rant , we may disagree on that too)   A lot of people  are as frustrated as can be, and I am right there. Ya get so frustrated you want to burst.

    And to rub salt in the wound, Obama.has the political touch of a Chicago thug. I think Churchill once said of FDR. "A second rate mind and a first rate temperament."  Obama has a second rate mind and a goon temperment.  

    All I am saying you might try to give these guys some grace, the chances of influencing minds on any issue would be greater. Or at least coming into a common universe

    just saying.........

    2) Possible FYI

    We not long ago had a discussion on Hitler being or not being a socialist, I said he was, BOTH you and Babe corrected me in your own ways lol, Well tonite I read a debate between what we would call professional intellectuals. They study and write books, and on this very subject.       2 of the 3 believe that Hiler was a Socialist. for Example 

    Socialized medicine = nationalized health care., 

    Hitler just believed that private banks and factories were more efficient to serve the prolitariat

    Both Stalin and Hiler destroyed unions and murdered classes of people.

    Famous socialists of the time applauded Hilters economic plan. ( Wells, Dublois ? Spelling)

    Hitler and Stalin were brothers at war 

    And the   left wing -good vs right wing (hitler-bad ) jabber was also refuted

    I know you read, you may or maybe not find  the debate fascinating. In the end it becomes not too important as they are just two sides of the same coin, differentiated by semantics 

    Later

     

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to 347pg's comment:

     

     

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to 347pg's comment:

    What is the difference between a person discriminating against a gay person because they disagree with them

    and

    The NFL discriminating against Arizona because they disagree with it?

    It's all discrimination.  The pot is calling the kettle black.

    You have every right to be offended.  You have no right to not be offended.

     



    You really dont have a clue that two different actions with two different purposes are generally not equal arguments?

     

    Take the idea that while one person might kill someone in cold blood another might kill sonmeone in self defense. The two acts and intentions are dramatically different. Their moral values are not at all equal.

    In the case you bring up one party is trying to make acts of bigotry that impact real people are legally defensable while the other example is a party saying that it will act to protect the premise that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

    Come on and start to think things through.

     



    Really?

    Have you ever been to a store that has a sign posted that says "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"?

    Not saying it's right or wrong, but if a person has a strong personal belief which government can violate with a court decision, where is freedom of religion?

    It is freedom of religion not freedom from religion, which this country is fast approaching.  Obviously, when the government forces a vendor to make a cake for a gay couple which they don't want to make because of personal beliefs (right or wrong), people can feel threatened. 

    If a Muslim taxi cab driver can keep driving when they see a potential customer with a dog and there is no outrage, why is it that Christians cannot practice matters of conscience as well?

    And the NFL is practicing the same type of bigotry against people of faith.  You just refuse to see or accept it.

    Come clean and just admit it.



    They won't and can't. Christianity is a threat (especially to gays). Also, they are liberal nanny state babies. They will bow down to anything if they think it will cause a controversy. They appear to me what I feel Tories were like back in the day.  Go ask WW2 vets what they think of how the country is now. I have. Not happy. They put everything on the line. For this? Want to see things change quick? Turn off the entitlements. Oops. That would be funny. What then? These liberals will be begging for your help and they will find none. Then it will start. The looting, rioting, murders. Good times and you know why? Because it's all about them. Me me me. Give me free stuff. You have money they don't. Not fair!  Obamacare will be free! It will be cheap! The FSA (Free S**t Army) rejoiced. Then uh oh it's not really what it was supposed to do. All politicians are losers. But I especially remember the FSA hero Pelosi saying "We'll find out what's actually in the bill when we pass it"(obamacare). Brilliant! Great way to do business. Had a right winger said that, oh boy. Face it, the country is in the toilet and everyday some liberal has his hands on it ready to flush. Anyhow, I'm afraid talking won't resolve it, and especially in a liberal nut job state like Mass. How the hell did the Revolution even start there? Must have been a mistake. Truly.



    Wealthy, hard-working liberals like me want to pay higher taxes so the less fortunate have healthcare they might otherwise not be able to afford.  You, meanwhile, are advocating for a shooting war to kill people you disagree with.  And you think it's we who are flushing the country down the toilet?  Look at the log in your own eye, buddy, because you're the problem. 

     



    Sorry man. I'm just connecting the dots. Divided country, major issues, mistrust of government. Last time that happened well in say 1850 something. I'm not advocating for anything, just looking at the stark reality of what may be coming. I'm just saying what may happen. What happens when entitlements run out? The dollar collapses? The debt ceiling keeps climbing. I don't want to see it happen. But you wealthy liberals keep feeding the frenzy. Maybe a reset needs to happen.  I don't want to have to fight off hordes of people who have nothing. As far as a war, it won't be me starting one. It may however happen. I still don't understand not forcing people who could work to do so. Those who legitimately can't are the ones who deserve the help.  You gloss over facts. You feel you are doing goo, and I'd rather you help than not for sure. However, you are not. You are enabling those who don't need enabling.



    Here's the problem with your view of the what's happening in the country.  You seem to think spending is mostly on welfare--entitlements to people who don't work.  If you classify Social Security and Medicare (two programs for old people who did work and paid into the systems while they were working) as an entitlement you have an argument.  But if you take out Social Security and Medicare (which most people don't view as welfare), the Federal government actually spends a fairly small portion of its budget on welfare programs.  Most (after Social Security and Medicare) is spent on defense--you know, where you worked when you had your government job. 

    Here (from the Congressional Budget Office) is a breakdown of federal spending. Worth studying so you understand where your tax dollars really go right now.  I've also added a graph from the Government Accounting Office on where state expenditures go (half to education and health care).  

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    I do stray into political issues here from time to time, sometimes against my better judgement.

    I have been a Libertarian long before many knew what the heck is was. In my mind it represents what being an individual is all about. It also is about the belief that a Big Brother Government is the greatest threat to individual rights and to personal beliefs.

     

    https://www.lp.org/platform

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    People say government is a big threat to individual liberties, but try living in a country without a functioning government.  All the countries that are prosperous, safe, have high quality of life--and promote individual liberty--have big governments.  Think about it for a minute, because the evidence from around the world is that big government is necessary for a free, healthy and prosperous society.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    People say government is a big threat to individual liberties, but try living in a country without a functioning government.  All the countries that are prosperous, safe, have high quality of life--and promote individual liberty--have big governments.  Think about it for a minute, because the evidence from around the world is that big government is necessary for a free, healthy and prosperous society.

     




    What exactly is it that big Government does well?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    People say government is a big threat to individual liberties, but try living in a country without a functioning government.  All the countries that are prosperous, safe, have high quality of life--and promote individual liberty--have big governments.  Think about it for a minute, because the evidence from around the world is that big government is necessary for a free, healthy and prosperous society.

     




    What exactly is it that big Government does well?



    Provide the foundation for a prosperous, healthy, safe, and free society.  Again, look around the world.  All the good places to live have big governments (or are tiny island nations).  

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    People say government is a big threat to individual liberties, but try living in a country without a functioning government.  All the countries that are prosperous, safe, have high quality of life--and promote individual liberty--have big governments.  Think about it for a minute, because the evidence from around the world is that big government is necessary for a free, healthy and prosperous society.

     




    What exactly is it that big Government does well?



    Provide the foundation for a prosperous, healthy, safe, and free society.  Again, look around the world.  All the good places to live have big governments (or are tiny island nations).  

     




    You realize you just laid down classic political double speak devoid of any factual references..........

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share