Rainbow crosswalks?


I disagree.


There is no assumption on my part, the scripture is overwhelming clear on the issue of justice and vengeance; man is commanded to seek only justice and that is defined in no uncertain terms.


Obviously, that single point is the totality of the divide between your side and mine; you have no problem using government force to implement your personal preferences that completely disregard the people’s Rights and preferences.

I have no desire to force my preferences on anyone and I think to do so would be the most arrogant and disrespectful thing that a person could do to humanity.

You think that some would “be surprised” at your opposition to these gay crosswalks, that is because you assume that everyone wants to force their will on others as you do; therefore opposing something that is designed to appease the queer mafia must be surprising from a Leftist.

But I am not surprised in the least, in this matter as in all others you recognize no Principle higher than your own opinion, what “side” that opinion lines up with has nothing to do with it; you don’t live there but you are convinced that you know what’s best for them.

In other words, no surprise.


I don’t use government at all. Never have never will. I am one person in a sea of other people. Government cannot do anything unless lots of people agree.

Do I have a problem with government using it’s power to achieve certain goals? (without being overly verbose) In certain cases I do not as long as the power it uses can achieve the goals set for it as defined by the evidence that action will achieve the desired result.

Just curious…

Are you anti-abortion?
Do you think that gay people should be allowed to marry?
Do you support specific times for public prayer?
Do you think an atheist should be allowed to be President?

See above.

Neither do you, you just disguise it in a belief in something you cannot prove exists so that you can say it’s not your opinion, but that’s exactly what it is.


“Metaphysical assumption” look it up RET, I’ve used the term correctly here.

You’ve defined why you take that assumption, not that it isn’t one.


I might ask you the same questions.
Are you pro-abortion on demand?
Do you understand the historical significance of the term “marriage?”
Do YOU support specific times for public prayer?
Do you think an avowed Christian should be prohibited from being President?


Are you pro-abortion on demand? - No

Do you understand the historical significance of the term “marriage?” - In a legal sense no, in a religious sense, yes.

Do YOU support specific times for public prayer? - Anytime can be a time of prayer, public or private, what I object to is the state specifically recognizing it.

Do you think an avowed Christian should be prohibited from being President? - Nope

Your turn…


Then you obviously aren’t a REAL progressive Democrat, CSB. The PURPOSE of having a LEGAL definition of marriage is the SAME as having the RELIGIOUS definition…the establishment of and record of families and their relationship of their members. Plus, you simply CANNOT be a progressive Democrat unless you support a woman’s unfettered right to kill her unborn child whenever the mood strikes her. You must be appalled at the City of New York sanctioning the stoppage of all traffic to kow-tow to their Muslim population, then.


I am anti abortion, no human life can be taken without Due Process under our Constitution; if you want to murder babies you must amend the Constitution to remove their Right to life and Due Process.

I could care less what gay people do, what I object to is changing the definitions of words like “marriage” for no reason other than to use government force to spit in the eye of those whom you hate for their beliefs.

Anyone can pray anytime they want and to anything they want to pray to, of course I don’t support mandating a “permissible time” for prayer; it is your side that seeks to control speech, thought and choices like prayer.

There is no Constitutional requirement of religious faith for those seeking the presidency, why would any Constitutional Conservative pretend there is? Your side constantly picks evil monsters to run for office and often times they win; if the people want despicable leaders they have every Right to choose them. I live in Kalifornia, we only choose complete scumbags for our Statewide offices and criminal racists like Obama don’t even bother to campaign here because they know they will win our votes.

I have no problem with this, stupid is supposed to hurt and those who vote stupidly are the ones who suffer the most; that is exactly how it is supposed to work.


I can prove the Constitution of the United States exists and I can prove what it says, I can also prove that your side has absolutely no respect for what it says and neither do most Republican Party elected representatives.

It is your side who uses government force to take the Rights of your enemies away, it is you who places your opinions above the Rights of innocent people.


I have taken no assumptions, I also do not have detailed scripture discussions with those who refuse to read the scriptures; there is no lack of clarity on the matter of justice in scripture and therefore no need for assumptions as to what that means.

Unless of course your agenda is to justify things which you know are condemned in scripture.


A Muslim is doing it when they quote the Koran.

Thus, you are doing it if you cite the Bible.

It’s the same thing RET. It is a Metaphysical assumption. Both what holy book to listen to, and how to interpret them.

Then why do Jews and Christians interpret it differently?

You Protestants equally differ from us Catholics, as we kept more of the Old Testament. The Deuterocanonical books.


The Bible is only metaphysical to those who reject it and disagreements do not equal justification for disagreement; as usual you avoid simply admitting something (in this case that you reject the authority of scripture).


So wrong:

metaphysical [ met-uh-fiz-i-kuh l ]
pertaining to or of the nature of metaphysics.


concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth.
concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance.

Pretty sure you didn’t look it up. Laziness abounds.

Yeah, that’s why C.S. Lewis studied metaphysics, and then wrote about it. Because he rejected Scripture.

“Mere Christianity” is just chock full of heresy.


You said “metaphysical assumption”, I am positive that you know that so as usual you misdirect when you know that you have been exposed.


Actually, they don’t. The Christians acknowledge the teaching to be found in the Old Testament–the Jews Torah, for the most part–and the Jews simply ignore the New Testament as if it has no meaning for them because it’s predicated on the idea that the awaited Messiah WAS Jesus Christ, which they reject.


Dam right I’m not…I can’t believe you’re just now figuring that out?


I’m not up on this story…Sorry.


Morally, I would argue that right and wrong are right and wrong because of the harm and suffering it causes. If a fetus can be aborted early enough, the fetus won’t suffer. If you want to argue that it suffers because it won’t be able to live its life, then every time a woman is killed or murdered who is capable of having children has potentially killed every child she and her female descendants could have had (but we don’t base our laws on potential).

That said, it is the parents that are left to suffer the loss of their child. But, we allow people (in some cases) to suffer all the time if that is their choice.

For my part, I really don’t care what it’s called, but I do understand your objection and think we should avoid, whenever possible, using the state as a hammer against organized/ unorganized religion. I’m acctually in support of creating new words or phrases from a legal standpoint that means the same thing as marriage and convey the same rights as married heto couples and calling it something else (garried?..lol). From there if a gay couple wants to call themselves married in a coloqual sense, I could care less.


As far as speech control, can you give me an example that is representative of the left (including moderates) or are all of your examples supported by the far left? As I said, I have no trouble with people exercising the right to pray, what I take issue with is forcing prayer into public spaces, government ect…

Should “In God We Trust” be on our money?

I don’t think so.

Good, but your side would lose its collective S*** if an atheist or Muslim ran for President. As a matter of fact (since we’re labeling people as taking “sides”), I’ve seen polls that show the right distrusts atheists more than Muslims…


Which is irrelevant in the abortion debate, the law protects life unless Due Process has been afforded to the condemned. The time for your “argument” is the campaign to change the law; not after the law has been bastardized and 70 million innocent babies have been slaughtered.

How many people have you heard of in just the last few years who were fired non PC speech, can you recall a single elected Democrat who objected to a single instance?
How about today when an NBA player was chastised for criticizing China’s brutality, anyone from the Left condemn the NBA?
Colleges and Universities censoring Conservative speakers ring a bell?
How about cities like Berkeley who refuse permits for Conservative organizations but don’t enforce the laws of even getting a permit on Leftist groups?
Roseanne Barr?
Tim Allen?
Obama’s IRS targeting Conservative 501’s to withhold their classification until after the election?
Mainstream news outlets not covering abortion mill horror houses or events where legally armed citizens prevent attempts at mass shootings?
Social Media sites banning mainstream Conservatives while allowing the most vile of Leftist hate speech to go unchecked?
The Souths battle flag?
The Colorado Baker?
The Oregon wedding photographer?
The censorship of all Muslim references and associations of terrorists who commit violence?
The immediate assumption and reporting that all acts of violence were by perpetrators with “Right Wing” leanings (until it is proved that they were Leftist’s and then all reporting on their politics ceases)
Christians banned or fired from public jobs because they do not hide their Faith while no objection is ever raised when Atheists or Liberals openly condemn Christians, Conservatives and white people in general (even in public classrooms)
Hate Crime Laws that only apply to white people?
The complete refusal to recognize the well documented and reliable science and scientists can call BS on fairy tales like “human caused global warming” in political arenas, education and the media?
The shouting down and violent attacks of any Conservative who seeks to speak publicly and those who choose to attend?

I could do this all day but these events occur in mainstream education, mainstream media and mainstream political bodies; there are no “moderate democrats” because any democrat who does not tow the hard Left line is thrown under the bus.

Obama was a Racist Muslim and Clinton was an Atheist, the only people I have ever seen “lose their sh***t” over an election is your side, non stop insanity and lies for almost 3 years now.

I wouldn’t vote for a Muslim or a Democrat because people CHOOSE their religion and their Party affiliation; those who choose despicable organizations to join but then claim “but I don’t embrace the crazy stuff” are either morons or liars. Either way will disqualify them from my support.

But Conservatives fight to find Candidates who will represent their views and fight for them, we do not bastardized our entire system trying to destroy the Democrats who won with no evidence of wrongdoing.