Mitt Romney Accidentally Confronts A Gay Veteran; Awesomeness Ensues

Originally posted by GunzCoty

First of all, taking away rights from veterans cannot be justified.

reply to post by Cuervo

 

Obama, Bush and most if not all of congress, are traitors to the United States Constitution. The patriot act and the NDAA violate the United States Constitution.

So anyone who supports Obama, Bush , as well as anyone who has a name on the patriot act and the NDAA, is a anti-American traitor.

If Romney wins and is part of that, or passes any kind of bullsh*t to take away our rights, then he to is a anti-American traitor.

But as of now I know Obama is a anti-American traitor, I don't know if Romney is, and I don't know about the 3erd party in this case.

So I guess if you are for the rights of the people then you will not be voting Obama, so may I ask who you are going to vote for?

This ^^^ is a load of BS.

Show me what part of the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. Because it's been to the Supreme Court and they disagree. And in America, they decide what's Constitutional. Not you.

reply to post by Debunkology


What he "THINKS" they wanted to hear. He was pandering for votes, and he answered the question based on his assumption of who he was speaking with. And if you don't believe he flip-flops on issues, I guess you haven't done much research into his past.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by primus2012

Be careful of whom you select as your champion. Planned Parenthood's champion/saint is Margaret Sanger for example. They still laud her to this day. We know what her intent was behind the promotion of abortion and birth control.

I am fully aware of Margaret Sanger. There are many things in human history that were meant well. But we have evolved to understand humanity on a larger scope.

I 100% support Planned Parenthood. Which has nothing to do with this topic.

But it does. Support of a person/group/party because they are championing a cause you believe in. Their motives must come into consideration. The Sanger thing was an example. The ends do not justify the means.

And also, you said that marriage laws were there to keep out undesirables. Well that is the entire reason why Planned Parenthood came into existence. Just throwing that back at you for calling the kettle black.

edit: Yeah it was a bit of a slide off-topic, but not entirely. I have Ron Paul's take on same sex marriage. It's none of the Fed's damn business, and we need less legislation, not more when it comes down to defining our rights.

Originally posted by primus2012

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by primus2012

Be careful of whom you select as your champion. Planned Parenthood's champion/saint is Margaret Sanger for example. They still laud her to this day. We know what her intent was behind the promotion of abortion and birth control.

I am fully aware of Margaret Sanger. There are many things in human history that were meant well. But we have evolved to understand humanity on a larger scope.

I 100% support Planned Parenthood. Which has nothing to do with this topic.

But it does. Support of a person/group/party because they are championing a cause you believe in. Their motives must come into consideration. The Sanger thing was an example. The ends do not justify the means.

And also, you said that marriage laws were there to keep out undesirables. Well that is the entire reason why Planned Parenthood came into existence. Just throwing that back at you for calling the kettle black.

edit: Yeah it was a bit of a slide off-topic, but not entirely. I have Ron Paul's take on same sex marriage. It's none of the Fed's damn business, and we need less legislation, not more when it comes down to defining our rights.

DONE - NO MORE RESPONSES. This is off topic. I have read Sanger in full and related topics.

Ron Paul is a Southern Fundamental Christian who people are fooled by.

Liberals/Democrats are so hypocritical. On one side they want equal opportunity for all and no prejudice against people so that everyone can practice whatever they want openly....but the second someone is against gay marriage (as in this thread) they automatically jump on the person for being bigoted and unaccepting of different beliefs. How are you going to tell people to let gay marriage be practiced openly and tell peope to be accepting to new beliefs when liberals cant even accept someone with a different belief that is opposed to gay marriage...loony left...

Originally posted by NAeagle89
Liberals/Democrats are so hypocritical. On one side they want equal opportunity for all and no prejudice against people so that everyone can practice whatever they want openly....but the second someone is against gay marriage (as in this thread) they automatically jump on the person for being bigoted and unaccepting of different beliefs. How are you going to tell people to let gay marriage be practiced openly and tell peope to be accepting to new beliefs when liberals cant even accept someone with a different belief that is opposed to gay marriage...loony left...

You're just deeply confused.

Being liberal doesn't mean accepting bigots and racists and fascists, it means fighting for what's right... NO ONE accepts everyone; that's not possible. Liberals accept a LOT MORE people than conservatives do... which is why you see so many more minorities, gays, etc., voting Dem. While the majority of Republican voters are white people, and rich folks...

Liberal doesn't mean accepting jerks, and their retarded beliefs.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Ok kid here ya go.

Yes we the people do decide what's Constitutional, that's why we have a Constitution.

Anyway on to the list.

#1 Freedom from unreasonable searches

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The US Patriot Act says: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

#2 Right to a speedy and public trial

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

US Patriot Act: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

#3 Freedom of association

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

P.A : To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

#4 Right to legal representation

Amendment VI: ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

P.A: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

#5 Freedom of speech

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

P.A: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

#5 Right to liberty

Amendment VI: ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him

P.A: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.


Wake up, I leave you with a Motley Crue quote.

In the beginning Good always overpowered the evils Of all man's sins... But in time The nations grew weak And our cities fell to slums While evil stood strong... In the dusts of hell Lurked the blackest of hates For he whom you fear Awaits you... Now, many many lifetimes later Lay destroyed, beaten down Only the corpses of rebels Ashes of dreams And blood-stained streets....... It has been written that "Those who have the youth Have the future" So come now, children of the beast Be strong And Shout at the Devil

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by primus2012

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by primus2012

Be careful of whom you select as your champion. Planned Parenthood's champion/saint is Margaret Sanger for example. They still laud her to this day. We know what her intent was behind the promotion of abortion and birth control.

I am fully aware of Margaret Sanger. There are many things in human history that were meant well. But we have evolved to understand humanity on a larger scope.

I 100% support Planned Parenthood. Which has nothing to do with this topic.

But it does. Support of a person/group/party because they are championing a cause you believe in. Their motives must come into consideration. The Sanger thing was an example. The ends do not justify the means.

And also, you said that marriage laws were there to keep out undesirables. Well that is the entire reason why Planned Parenthood came into existence. Just throwing that back at you for calling the kettle black.

edit: Yeah it was a bit of a slide off-topic, but not entirely. I have Ron Paul's take on same sex marriage. It's none of the Fed's damn business, and we need less legislation, not more when it comes down to defining our rights.

DONE - NO MORE RESPONSES. This is off topic. I have read Sanger in full and related topics.

Ron Paul is a Southern Fundamental Christian who people are fooled by.

edit on 7-9-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

Southern Fundamental Christian? Please explain. You mean Southern Baptist? Like Billy Graham, one of the heroes of the civil rights movement? Christian Fundamentalism began in the north, Minneapolis to be exact in 1902. It just took off more in the south among the Baptists but is far reaching. Ron Paul is a good guy, hates no one. He was honest about same sex marriage, that he personally doesn't promote it, but that it's none of business what others want to do. Don't see how that is anywhere near a Moral Majority or Christian Right stance (those are/were Christian fundamentalist groups).

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by NAeagle89
Liberals/Democrats are so hypocritical. On one side they want equal opportunity for all and no prejudice against people so that everyone can practice whatever they want openly....but the second someone is against gay marriage (as in this thread) they automatically jump on the person for being bigoted and unaccepting of different beliefs. How are you going to tell people to let gay marriage be practiced openly and tell peope to be accepting to new beliefs when liberals cant even accept someone with a different belief that is opposed to gay marriage...loony left...

You're just deeply confused.

Being liberal doesn't mean accepting bigots and racists and fascists, it means fighting for what's right... NO ONE accepts everyone; that's not possible. Liberals accept a LOT MORE people than conservatives do... which is why you see so many more minorities, gays, etc., voting Dem. While the majority of Republican voters are white people, and rich folks...

Liberal doesn't mean accepting jerks, and their retarded beliefs.

Liberal means more or in large amounts. Liberalism means "More government is needed to take care of us." More benefits, more legislation, more definitions to tell us who we are and what we can/can't do, more expenses, more rules, more taxes, more, more, more, and it doesn't stop until more becomes all.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Times change, people change, and yes- even major religions change. When Mitt Romney was 30 is not today.

Are you the same person you were 30 some odd years ago? I am not. 30 years ago there were no female pastors in most major religions; that is not the case now. 30 years ago there were no openly homosexual ministers at all; today there are.

The world today is NOTHING like it was when Mitt was 30. People grow and change throughout their lives. I don't support Romney or Obama but I don't judge either by who they may or may not have been 30 something years ago.

Originally posted by GunzCoty

First of all, taking away rights from veterans cannot be justified.

reply to post by Cuervo

 

Obama, Bush and most if not all of congress, are traitors to the United States Constitution. The patriot act and the NDAA violate the United States Constitution.

So anyone who supports Obama, Bush , as well as anyone who has a name on the patriot act and the NDAA, is a anti-American traitor.

If Romney wins and is part of that, or passes any kind of bullsh*t to take away our rights, then he to is a anti-American traitor.

But as of now I know Obama is a anti-American traitor, I don't know if Romney is, and I don't know about the 3erd party in this case.

So I guess if you are for the rights of the people then you will not be voting Obama, so may I ask who you are going to vote for?

But we already know what Romney has said about the Patriot Act and he strongly supports it. By your rationale, that automatically makes him a traitor.

So... who are you voting for?

Originally posted by ParacelsusPontifex
Sorry, but I have to respond to this.

Get off it.

"Dogmatic Godling?" WTH????????????????????

Yep.

Originally posted by ParacelsusPontifex
"Not up to debate." In other words------------"The fact that there are legitimate reasons against having open homosexuality and gay marriage in the military and some agree with that is wrong to ME--------therefore, anybody who disagrees with me I will insult and ignore."

Gotcha.

No, when it comes to equality, everybody is protected. That is not up for debate. Period. No matter what gods or demons you decide to pull from a book. No, I do NOT care if it is against your religion. That is the point of equality and protection. To protect people from your religion and other factors that would unfairly discriminate.

Originally posted by ParacelsusPontifex
This is "evil." So disagreeing with something that goes against religious and moral beliefs and laws for thousands of years is evil. OK.

I am extremely happy to live in the USA where dangerous viewpoints like yours are getting a diminishing role and the rest of the nation is generally protected from it.

Originally posted by ParacelsusPontifex
How about abortion. Is that evil?

Actually, abortion is against my religion. The difference between you and I, however, is that I can debate that (or any other social issue) without bringing up my religion. I don't need to invoke a holy smoke monster from the old testament or threaten people with hell. Because nobody should care what my religion says about it if they don't share my faith. You are protected from my religious dogma just as I am from yours.

But we already know what Romney has said about the Patriot Act and he strongly supports it. By your rationale, that automatically makes him a traitor.

reply to post by Cuervo


Then yes he is a traitor.
I have been thinking 3rd party, how about you?

Originally posted by Cuervo

Actually, abortion is against my religion. The difference between you and I, however, is that I can debate that (or any other social issue) without bringing up my religion.

There are many religious people who support individual rights and Right of Choice - - - over their own right of religious belief.

Even though - - they themselves are against abortion.

I know - - I've been having that debate for 20+ years.

I don't agree with everything a politician says, even the ones that I respect, admire and agree with the most. The one this that I value more than what one says is their ability to stick with their beliefs no matter how unfavorable of a reception it is getting. Unfortunately, this quality is few and far between.

Originally posted by GunzCoty

But we already know what Romney has said about the Patriot Act and he strongly supports it. By your rationale, that automatically makes him a traitor.

reply to post by Cuervo

 

Then yes he is a traitor.
I have been thinking 3rd party, how about you?

Gary Johnson's looking pretty good to me, honestly. But I'm holding judgement until I see Obama and Romney debate.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Cuervo

Actually, abortion is against my religion. The difference between you and I, however, is that I can debate that (or any other social issue) without bringing up my religion.

There are many religious people who support individual rights and Right of Choice - - - over their own right of religious belief.

Even though - - they themselves are against abortion.

I know - - I've been having that debate for 20+ years.

Exactly. I would vote to help pregnant women gain better support systems and be better equipped to succeed as mothers so as to encourage keeping the child but I would never vote to take away their choice.

Plus, being somebody who wears a dude-suit makes me a bit unqualified to really speak to the issue in a totalitarian way.

That's got to be pretty embarrassing for Mitt.

Originally posted by NAeagle89
Liberals/Democrats are so hypocritical. On one side they want equal opportunity for all and no prejudice against people so that everyone can practice whatever they want openly....but the second someone is against gay marriage (as in this thread) they automatically jump on the person for being bigoted and unaccepting of different beliefs.

Execpt it's absoluely true. For one, if you're against two consenting adults getting legally married because of their sexuality (especially considering that it has nothing to do with you), you're most likely bigoted against people with said sexuality.

Two, there have has yet to be a valid argument against marriage equality, so you would have to have your head in the sand in other to oppose marriage equality, so that one's also true.

Besides, how is that hypocrital? They have the equal opportunity to spout their remarks, just as I have equal opportunity to call said remarks stupid. As for prejudice, there's nothing prejudiced about calling marriage inequality supporters bigoted/stubborn, as I explained above. It's simply taking it to it's next logical conclusion. Looks like you have a lot to learn.

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by NAeagle89
Liberals/Democrats are so hypocritical. On one side they want equal opportunity for all and no prejudice against people so that everyone can practice whatever they want openly....but the second someone is against gay marriage (as in this thread) they automatically jump on the person for being bigoted and unaccepting of different beliefs.

Execpt it's absoluely true. For one, if you're against two consenting adults getting legally married because of their sexuality (especially considering that it has nothing to do with you), you're most likely bigoted against people with said sexuality.

Two, there have has yet to be a valid argument against marriage equality, so you would have to have your head in the sand in other to oppose marriage equality, so that one's also true.

Besides, how is that hypocrital? They have the equal opportunity to spout their remarks, just as I have equal opportunity to call said remarks stupid. As for prejudice, there's nothing prejudiced about calling marriage inequality supporters bigoted/stubborn, as I explained above. It's simply taking it to it's next logical conclusion. Looks like you have a lot to learn.

Feel a little like this?

reply to post by technical difficulties


Man 1 - "You cannot get on our boat because you have a red shirt."
Man 2 - "I don't like that you are not letting me on the boat because of my shirt. I see people with all sorts of shirts on this boat. Some don't even have shirts and others have a couple layers of them. I even see that guy over their slapping his shirt. I'm not asking you to wear a red shirt or even offer red shirts in your gift shop."
Man 1 - "You are intolerant of my beliefs that say I should hate red shirts!"
Man 2 - *scratches head and walks off*

This is how the whole marriage debate looks to me.