PDA

View Full Version : More BS from this administration



texan
05-08-2015, 12:22 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/08/news/economy/april-jobs-report-economy-pick-up/

223,000 New Jobs reported.............How can we be sure they slipped in that they over stated jobs last month when they announced 125,000. They sneakily lower that later to 85,000.........I expect these to go down to less than 150,000 next month.

This admin has restated so many numbers it is scary over the years.


I will say that dem policies are stifling business in this country. Keep raising taxes so they can offer more giveaways and watch this stalled machine be stalled. You want jobs vote republican this time around.

Common
05-08-2015, 01:00 PM
When were taxs raised on business last, I dont remember

PattyHill
05-08-2015, 01:05 PM
Restating job numbers is pretty common; happens in every administration because data trickles in over time. Sometimes number of jobs are raised, sometimes lowered.

That's how it works.

PolWatch
05-08-2015, 01:09 PM
The state of Alabama has announced that the unemployment #'s are the lowest in 7 years. Its not the fed's, its the red-repub-red state of Alabama announcing these numbers.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2015, 01:36 PM
Restating job numbers is pretty common; happens in every administration because data trickles in over time. Sometimes number of jobs are raised, sometimes lowered.

That's how it works.

Data trickles all the time? What does that mean?

Ransom
05-08-2015, 01:53 PM
When were taxs raised on business last, I dont remember

John Roberts in his Supreme Court ruling reminded us all it was a tax....and thus Constitutional.

It's like taking candy from babies sometimes. Offer some competition, Common. Geez

PattyHill
05-08-2015, 02:28 PM
Data trickles all the time? What does that mean?

Seriously? You don't know?

Did you try google'ing?

Here you go. I google'd "why do the job numbers change"


http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/05/162361522/why-do-the-jobs-numbers-change


Here's a breakdown: the numbers in the monthly jobs report come from two places the household survey and the establishment survey. The household survey is used to calculate the unemployment rate and the establishment survey is used to calculate how many jobs the economy gained or lost the previous month.The household survey data comes from Census Bureau workers going to people's homes and asking them if they are working, if they are looking for work, etc. The establishment survey comes from the BLS contacting businesses and government agencies and asking them about the total number of employees they have, how many hours they've worked, etc. The BLS can't talk to every single person or every single business so they talk to about 140,000 businesses and government agencies and 60,000 households, and they use that data to calculate the job situation for the entire economy.

The revisions in the latest jobs report come from the establishment survey, and the reason they happen is that the BLS doesn't have all the information at the time the numbers are calculated. The BLS gives businesses and government agencies a deadline to submit their data but not everyone makes it. The information that comes in after the cut off date is what causes the revisions. BLS economist Megan Barker explained it to me this way:

After the press release, we are continuing to get more data so that can cause slight movements in what is showing as employment change over the month. We do have a second and a third revision to all of our data.



So if a business didn't get the BLS their data in time for the official release, they'll show up in the revision

Tahuyaman
05-08-2015, 02:31 PM
Seriously? You don't know

Does data " trickle down "?

Now she's trying to figure out a response. The term "trickle down" has her stumped.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2015, 02:38 PM
John Roberts in his Supreme Court ruling reminded us all it was a tax....and thus Constitutional.

It's like taking candy from babies sometimes. Offer some competition, Common. Geez

The administration first said it wasn't a tax in order to counter the argument that it was the single largest tax increase in history and get the blind lemmings to support it. Then they argued that it is in fact a tax in front of the Supreme Court so it would be ruled constitutional as the government has the constitutional authority to levy taxes.

Its possibly the the most clear example of all time of having it both ways.

Bo-4
05-08-2015, 04:52 PM
BLA BLA BLA

ALWAYS a way to spin it huh?

Meh, fuck off.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2015, 05:17 PM
BLA BLA BLA


Meh, $#@! off.

That's a very thoughtful comment coming from you.

MisterVeritis
05-08-2015, 05:25 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/08/news/economy/april-jobs-report-economy-pick-up/

223,000 New Jobs reported.............How can we be sure they slipped in that they over stated jobs last month when they announced 125,000. They sneakily lower that later to 85,000.........I expect these to go down to less than 150,000 next month.

This admin has restated so many numbers it is scary over the years.


I will say that dem policies are stifling business in this country. Keep raising taxes so they can offer more giveaways and watch this stalled machine be stalled. You want jobs vote republican this time around.
There is only one solution, a Convention of States to propose amendments under Article V of the US Constitution. We voted in Republicans and absolutely nothing changed. I left the National, Establishment Republican party. I will not vote for an Establishment Republican again. Time is running out. We have moved so deeply into fascism I do not believe we will recover.

PattyHill
05-08-2015, 05:43 PM
Does data " trickle down "?

Now she's trying to figure out a response. The term "trickle down" has her stumped.


I said "trickle in". Can you read?

And did my explanation resolve your confusion over why the numbers change or are you still blaming Pres. Obama (incorrectly)

If you don't know what "trickle in" means, here you go -
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/trickle+in


2. Fig. [for someone or something] to come into something or a place, a few at a time. The audience trickled into thehall little by little. They trickled in over a period of an hour or more.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2015, 06:01 PM
I said "trickle in". Can you read?

And did my explanation resolve your confusion over why the numbers change or are you still blaming Pres. Obama (incorrectly)

If you don't know what "trickle in" means, here you go -
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/trickle+in

When the news is bad, it must be revised over time. Is that what you meant by "trickles in"?

PattyHill
05-08-2015, 06:06 PM
When the news is bad, it must be revised over time. Is that what you meant by "trickles in"?


Once again, Tahuyaman, I hit the brick wall in dealing with you.

I said what I mean. I posted the link to what it means. Not much else I can do if you choose to misinterpret, misread, and misunderstand things.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2015, 06:08 PM
Once again, Tahuyaman, I hit the brick wall in dealing with you.

I said what I mean. I posted the link to what it means. Not much else I can do if you choose to misinterpret, misread, and misunderstand things.

i guess I'll never ask you to clarify ever again.

Safety
05-08-2015, 06:32 PM
i guess I'll never ask you to clarify ever again.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Safety
05-08-2015, 06:37 PM
Restating job numbers is pretty common; happens in every administration because data trickles in over time. Sometimes number of jobs are raised, sometimes lowered.

That's how it works.

Liar, Obama is the first president to post unemployment numbers. The previous presidents seemed to have 100% employment rate.





















/sarcasm

Tahuyaman
05-08-2015, 07:00 PM
Liar, Obama is the first president to post unemployment numbers. The previous presidents seemed to have 100% employment rate.





















/sarcasm

Sarcasm is only effective if it contains at least a kernel of truth. Your example of sarcasm is the type of comment made by people who have very limited intellectual curiosity and or no sense of humor.

Safety
05-08-2015, 07:07 PM
Sarcasm is only effective if it contains at least a kernel of truth. Your example of sarcasm is the type of comment made by people who have very limited intellectual curiosity and or no sense of humor.

You should really save your energy to fight the asskicking handed to you by @domer76 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1355). Get some more practice in before asking coach to call you up to the big leagues.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2015, 07:10 PM
You should really save your energy to fight the asskicking handed to you by @domer76 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1355). Get some more practice in before asking coach to call you up to the big leagues.

yeah. He's just proven to be a complete nit-wit void of any common sense. He completely ignores what you post and translates it into some wierd code talk known only to him

you'll need to to show me a specific example where he supposedly put me in my place.

you must be his soul mate.

Safety
05-08-2015, 07:14 PM
yeah. He's just proven to be a complete nit-wit void of any common sense. He completely ignores what you post and translates it into some wierd code talk known only to him

you must be his soul mate.

Practice, grasshopper, practice. One day soon, you can participate in a debate and may even be able to make a valid point.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2015, 07:15 PM
Practice, grasshopper, practice. One day soon, you can participate in a debate and may even be able to make a valid point.

yep, you and him are soul mates . Two nit-wits falling from the same tree.

Redrose
05-08-2015, 07:16 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/08/news/economy/april-jobs-report-economy-pick-up/

223,000 New Jobs reported.............How can we be sure they slipped in that they over stated jobs last month when they announced 125,000. They sneakily lower that later to 85,000.........I expect these to go down to less than 150,000 next month.

This admin has restated so many numbers it is scary over the years.


I will say that dem policies are stifling business in this country. Keep raising taxes so they can offer more giveaways and watch this stalled machine be stalled. You want jobs vote republican this time around.


I had to laugh when Pelosi proudly stated in front of the camera that they had created 350 million jobs one month. WOW! What a ditz.

We don't have that many people in the country. Numbers mean nothing to them. They just regurgitate bits and pieces of information.

Safety
05-08-2015, 07:20 PM
yep, you and him are soul mates . Two nit-wits falling from the same tree.

http://www.toledoblade.com/image/2011/10/01/800x_b1_cCM_z/Mark-Hamill-Luke-Skywalker-Yoda.jpg

Keep at it, it will come.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2015, 07:29 PM
Liberal speak in a way resembles a dog whistle. It resonates only to other liberals. It's just white noise to the normal human being.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2015, 07:30 PM
I had to laugh when Pelosi proudly stated in front of the camera that they had created 350 million jobs one month. WOW! What a ditz.

We don't have that many people in the country. Numbers mean nothing to them. They just regurgitate bits and pieces of information.


I thought she she said the Bush economy was losing 350 million jobs a month?

Ransom
05-08-2015, 08:10 PM
Where is the spin? Common looking for tax increases, did he read Justice John Robert's majority ruling. It's a tax.

domer76
05-08-2015, 08:44 PM
Liberal speak in a way resembles a dog whistle. It resonates only to other liberals. It's just white noise to the normal human being.

Fuck oh dear. Back to the "normal" bullshit again!

Here's a hint, grasshopper. The only "normal" people in the world are those you haven't met yet.

Dr. Who
05-08-2015, 09:15 PM
BLA BLA BLA

ALWAYS a way to spin it huh?

Meh, fuck off.
Please review the rules. That comment is in contravention of the good faith guideline.

del
05-08-2015, 09:35 PM
Liberal speak in a way resembles a dog whistle. It resonates only to other liberals. It's just white noise to the normal human being.

did you ask one?

lynn
05-08-2015, 09:50 PM
Seriously? You don't know?

Did you try google'ing?

Here you go. I google'd "why do the job numbers change"


http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/05/162361522/why-do-the-jobs-numbers-change


You have to wonder why in this day and age of technology that the government has to rely on surveys to give us this information.

Chris
05-09-2015, 10:41 AM
Restating job numbers is pretty common; happens in every administration because data trickles in over time. Sometimes number of jobs are raised, sometimes lowered.

That's how it works.



And because over time they invent new ways to measure employment to make themselves, both sides, look better.

Why people then turn around and trust government is beyond me.

Bo-4
05-09-2015, 11:35 AM
Restating job numbers is pretty common; happens in every administration because data trickles in over time. Sometimes number of jobs are raised, sometimes lowered.

That's how it works.

No Patty, Obama is totally cooking the books! ;-)

https://secure.freedomdonations.com/dae/images/asp_obamashushing.jpg

Tahuyaman
05-09-2015, 04:36 PM
$#@! oh dear. Back to the "normal" bull$#@! again!

Here's a hint, grasshopper. The only "normal" people in the world are those you haven't met yet.

the word "normal" is a curse word to a left winger.

PattyHill
05-09-2015, 04:38 PM
the word "normal" is a curse word to a left winger.


Do you have a link for that? or is this invective that is counter to a civil discourse?

Tahuyaman
05-09-2015, 04:46 PM
Do you have a link for that? or is this invective that is counter to a civil discourse?

Its a conclusion based on observation. Liberals think the word "normal" is discriminatory.

I'll bet I could get you to take a position that normal does not really exist, but is simply in the eye of the beholder.

PattyHill
05-09-2015, 04:58 PM
Its a conclusion based on observation. Liberals think the word "normal" is discriminatory.

I'll bet I could get you to take a position that normal does not really exist, but is simply in the eye of the beholder.

Oh. Based on YOUR observation. Well, that takes care of that source.

PolWatch
05-09-2015, 05:08 PM
Its a conclusion based on observation. Liberals think the word "normal" is discriminatory.

I'll bet I could get you to take a position that normal does not really exist, but is simply in the eye of the beholder.

Actually, it is. That is why an honest person expects people to tell the truth and a liar expects people to lie. We always think we are 'normal'.....its human nature.

PattyHill
05-09-2015, 05:16 PM
Actually, it is. That is why an honest person expects people to tell the truth and a liar expects people to lie. We always think we are 'normal'.....its human nature.


I agree, but that doesn't make the word normal a "curse word to liberals".

Also depends on how normal is used. For example, I could say a "normal" person is right-handed. That doesn't make left-handers "abnormal" necessarily. Just not the normal or average state. Most people are right-handed; some are left-handed; if you use "normal" in terms of "majority", you can say "it's normal to be right-handed".

If you use it in the context of non-deviant -i.e. "it's normal to be right handed and deviant to be left-handed" - I'd argue with that, because that's placing a moral context around right/left handedness, not just an estimation of numbers in the population.

Mister D
05-09-2015, 05:19 PM
Or one could say that normal people have two legs. Normal people have eyesight. Normal people don't have Down's Syndrome. Likewise, normal people aren't homosexual. It is what it is, ladies.

PolWatch
05-09-2015, 05:31 PM
Normal people are married with 2.5 children. Everyone who doesn't confirm is abnormal?

Mister D
05-09-2015, 05:34 PM
Normal people are married with 2.5 children. Everyone who doesn't confirm is abnormal?

Are they? Never heard that before. Could you cite some data on that? Normal do have two legs, eyesight, and aren't retarded.

PolWatch
05-09-2015, 05:39 PM
my figures are out of date....normal is now a household of 2.54 as of 2014

http://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/

Mister D
05-09-2015, 05:42 PM
my figures are out of date....normal is now a household of 2.54 as of 2014

http://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/

Households are groups of people living together. groups of people who, if normal, have two legs, eyesight, and aren't retarded...or gay :wink:

PattyHill
05-09-2015, 06:50 PM
Or one could say that normal people have two legs. Normal people have eyesight. Normal people don't have Down's Syndrome. Likewise, normal people aren't homosexual. It is what it is, ladies.


blind people, people who are missing a limb, people who are blind, aren't "abnormal". They are just part of a minority. Just like LGBT people are part of a minority.

So if you are using "normal" as "part of the majority" i'd agree with you. If you are using "normal" as "anything else is deviant" I wouldn't agree with you.

PattyHill
05-09-2015, 06:52 PM
oh - ps - that still doesn't make "normal" a "curse word to liberals" as Tahuyaman claimed.

Mister D
05-09-2015, 06:52 PM
blind people, people who are missing a limb, people who are blind, aren't "abnormal". They are just part of a minority. Just like LGBT people are part of a minority.

So if you are using "normal" as "part of the majority" i'd agree with you. If you are using "normal" as "anything else is deviant" I wouldn't agree with you.

Are people without legs deviant?

PattyHill
05-09-2015, 06:52 PM
Are people without legs deviant?

Nope. I assume you agree. LGBT's are also not deviant.

Mister D
05-09-2015, 06:53 PM
oh - ps - that still doesn't make "normal" a "curse word to liberals" as Tahuyaman claimed.

It's quite clear it causes some consternation.

Mister D
05-09-2015, 06:54 PM
Nope. I assume you agree. LGBT's are also not deviant.

Neither are retarded people. If you also believe the things I mentioned aren't normal then, yes, we agree.

PattyHill
05-09-2015, 06:55 PM
Neither are retarded people. If you also believe the things I mentioned aren't normal then, yes, we agree.


I agree people with learning disabilities are not deviant.

As long as we are defining normal in the mathematical sense - most people are this way - I agree. If there is any kind of judgment that if you aren't "normal" you are deviant, wrong, immoral, or whatever - then I wouldn't agree.

Tahuyaman
05-09-2015, 06:59 PM
What did I tell you..... Normality, is a abnormal concept to liberals.

Mister D
05-09-2015, 10:42 PM
I agree people with learning disabilities are not deviant.

As long as we are defining normal in the mathematical sense - most people are this way - I agree. If there is any kind of judgment that if you aren't "normal" you are deviant, wrong, immoral, or whatever - then I wouldn't agree.

No one mentioned deviance save for you. We're arrived at the crux of the problem. You want me to believe that homosexuality is merely a random variation, like left handedness, rather than a psycho-sexual foul up. You assume that by believing that I'm wronging someone. It's OK that you have one or no legs. It's OK that you're blind. It's OK that you're gay. It's not OK to pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

PattyHill
05-10-2015, 08:26 AM
No one mentioned deviance save for you. We're arrived at the crux of the problem. You want me to believe that homosexuality is merely a random variation, like left handedness, rather than a psycho-sexual foul up. You assume that by believing that I'm wronging someone. It's OK that you have one or no legs. It's OK that you're blind. It's OK that you're gay. It's not OK to pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Yes, I want you to learn that being gay/lesbian/transgender is a random variation. It's not a psycho-sexual foul up.

But if it's a matter of belief to you, the science won't matter. You will block out facts in favor of your belief.

Mister D
05-10-2015, 08:53 AM
Yes, I want you to learn that being gay/lesbian/transgender is a random variation. It's not a psycho-sexual foul up.

But if it's a matter of belief to you, the science won't matter. You will block out facts in favor of your belief.

We don't know what causes homosexuality. IOW, there is no science to speak of.

I'm sure you see no irony in your comments.

PattyHill
05-10-2015, 09:19 AM
We don't know what causes homosexuality. IOW, there is no science to speak of.

I'm sure you see no irony in your comments.

http://www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html

Most scientists would disagree. Years of research suggest that people can't change their sexual orientation (http://www.livescience.com/37139-facts-about-gay-conversion-therapy.html) because they want to, and that trying can cause mental anguish. What's more, some studieshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html#) suggest that being gay may have a genetic or biological basis

http://psychcentral.com/lib/gay-straight-and-the-reason-why-the-science-of-sexual-orientation/0005404


He adds, “The scientific knowledge currently available does bolster the idea that gays and lesbians are distinct ‘kinds’ of people who are entitled to protection from discrimination. But I also believe that there would be plenty of reasons why gay people should be accepted and valued by society, even if being gay were proven to be an outright choice.” I couldn’t agree more. As a woman who has self-identified as bisexual since the 1970s, my own sexual partnerships have focused on the individual rather than on a gender.

I agree more studies need to be done. And personally I don't care if people choose to be LGBT or if it's inherent in their biology. But along with the science, we can see around us people choosing to be LGBT when they are young, or when it's very difficult to be LGBT (think of Alan Turing or teachers who used to hide their sexuality for fear of being fired before the 90s).

There is science out there, even though it's still developing.

But even for those people that truly do "choose" to be gay/lesbian (if any exist) - it's not a "deviant" choice, it's just a choice. We don't call someone deviant because they only have sex with blondes. Or with a particular body type. It's just a choice, a preference.

domer76
05-10-2015, 09:21 AM
the word "normal" is a curse word to a left winger.
If it's not obvious to you by now, the only 'normal' is YOUR definition. You don't have a corner on what constitutes normal. If I knew you personally, I could point out any number of things that were abnormal.

You merely wish to use your definition to deny certain privileges to those groups you find 'icky'.

domer76
05-10-2015, 09:24 AM
Or one could say that normal people have two legs. Normal people have eyesight. Normal people don't have Down's Syndrome. Likewise, normal people aren't homosexual. It is what it is, ladies.
You wish to exclude those 'abnormal' people from the same privileges that 'normal' people enjoy?

Mister D
05-10-2015, 09:25 AM
http://www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html


http://psychcentral.com/lib/gay-straight-and-the-reason-why-the-science-of-sexual-orientation/0005404



I agree more studies need to be done. And personally I don't care if people choose to be LGBT or if it's inherent in their biology. But along with the science, we can see around us people choosing to be LGBT when they are young, or when it's very difficult to be LGBT (think of Alan Turing or teachers who used to hide their sexuality for fear of being fired before the 90s).

There is science out there, even though it's still developing.

But even for those people that truly do "choose" to be gay/lesbian (if any exist) - it's not a "deviant" choice, it's just a choice. We don't call someone deviant because they only have sex with blondes. Or with a particular body type. It's just a choice, a preference.

Your links only support my statement. Thanks. We simply don't know what causes homosexuality. Moreover, I didn't say it was a choice. Nor did I say it's deviant. I said it's abnormal and it is.

Mister D
05-10-2015, 09:27 AM
You wish to exclude those 'abnormal' people from the same privileges that 'normal' people enjoy?

Gay marriage is inane, son.

domer76
05-10-2015, 09:48 AM
Gay marriage is inane, son.

And legal. Sucks, huh?

But you avoided the question. Do you deny privileges to those you deem abnormal? Simple question.

PattyHill
05-10-2015, 10:02 AM
Your links only support my statement. Thanks. We simply don't know what causes homosexuality. Moreover, I didn't say it was a choice. Nor did I say it's deviant. I said it's abnormal and it is.

You said it was a "psycho sexual foul up".
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/44230-More-BS-from-this-administration?p=1084569&viewfull=1#post1084569


No one mentioned deviance save for you. We're arrived at the crux of the problem. You want me to believe that homosexuality is merely a random variation, like left handedness, rather than a psycho-sexual foul up. .

By the way, for those who DO think being gay/lesbian is a choice -that would mean heterosexuality is also a choice.

Mac-7
05-10-2015, 10:06 AM
By the way, for those who DO think being gay/lesbian is a choice -that would mean heterosexuality is also a choice.

Not the way you mean it.

Men having sexual intercourse with women is the normal way.

Homosexuals are abnormal.

Mister D
05-10-2015, 10:08 AM
You said it was a "psycho sexual foul up".
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/44230-More-BS-from-this-administration?p=1084569&viewfull=1#post1084569



By the way, for those who DO think being gay/lesbian is a choice -that would mean heterosexuality is also a choice.

Yes, I think it is. Since we don't actually know the cause I'm going with that until I have a reason to change my opinion.

Mister D
05-10-2015, 10:11 AM
And legal. Sucks, huh?

But you avoided the question. Do you deny privileges to those you deem abnormal? Simple question.

I just answered your question. Gay marriage (the "privileges" in question) is inane. Moreover, if we wish to consider marriage a right it's one gays have always freely exercised.

PattyHill
05-10-2015, 10:19 AM
Not the way you mean it.

Men having sexual intercourse with women is the normal way.

Homosexuals are abnormal.


While most men and women have sex with the opposite gender, if you think that having sex with the same gender is a choice someone can make, then that means heterosexuality is ALSO a choice. Can't have it both ways. Either gender preference is a choice, or it isn't.

Mac-7
05-10-2015, 10:26 AM
While most men and women have sex with the opposite gender, if you think that having sex with the same gender is a choice someone can make, then that means heterosexuality is ALSO a choice. Can't have it both ways. Either gender preference is a choice, or it isn't.

No it doesn't make being straight a co-equal choice alongside homosexuals.

But if you prefer to think that way then homosexuality is the worst choice to make.

domer76
05-10-2015, 11:53 AM
Not the way you mean it.

Men having sexual intercourse with women is the normal way.

Homosexuals are abnormal.
When you place your penis in your other sex partner's mouth and ejaculate, is that normal or not normal?

PattyHill
05-10-2015, 11:53 AM
No it doesn't make being straight a co-equal choice alongside homosexuals.

But if you prefer to think that way then homosexuality is the worst choice to make.


You really should add "in your opinion" on those kinds of posts.

In my opinion, having sex with someone you aren't attracted to is a MUCH worse choice.

I am very glad people like you are a disappearing over time. Such nastiness toward other people just for their choice of partner. It's like your heart is three sizes too small, in my opinion.

domer76
05-10-2015, 11:55 AM
I just answered your question. Gay marriage (the "privileges" in question) is inane. Moreover, if we wish to consider marriage a right it's one gays have always freely exercised.
Nope. I've read your twisted logic on that and it doesn't even remotely fly. It's laughably absurd, actually.

Chris
05-10-2015, 12:17 PM
Nope. I've read your twisted logic on that and it doesn't even remotely fly. It's laughably absurd, actually.

Again, nothing but bluster.

BTW, domer, you did know the first amendments were not called the Bill of Rights at the time. That only came about later. So there goes the silliest of your feeble failing arguments.

domer76
05-10-2015, 12:55 PM
Again, nothing but bluster.

BTW, domer, you did know the first amendments were not called the Bill of Rights at the time. That only came about later. So there goes the silliest of your feeble failing arguments.

Who gives a shit what they were called? Totally irrelevant. We all know what we are referring to, regardless of what they were referred to 230 years ago. Get your head out of your heiney and into the 21st century.

I see you didn't respond to my claim that those Amendments did not exist prior to this government and Constitution. You think they did? Who wrote them? Where did those first ten exist? What were they called?

Mister D
05-10-2015, 01:31 PM
Again, nothing but bluster.

BTW, domer, you did know the first amendments were not called the Bill of Rights at the time. That only came about later. So there goes the silliest of your feeble failing arguments.

Domer is all rage, no brains.

domer76
05-10-2015, 02:19 PM
Domer is all rage, no brains.
I'm as happy as a clam. Just not a lot of tolerance for bullshit.

Mister D
05-10-2015, 03:19 PM
I'm as happy as a clam. Just not a lot of tolerance for bull$#@!.

Like many gays, you clearly have emotional problems. You should be more like Green Arrow or Ravens Fan who are happy and confident in who they are.

When you can demonstrate that my position is "laughably absurd" (btw, your prose sucks, you're trying too hard) let us know. All we ever see from you is bluster.

Mac-7
05-10-2015, 03:57 PM
Nope. I've read your twisted logic on that and it doesn't even remotely fly. It's laughably absurd, actually.

Gay men have the same right as normal men to marry any woman that will have them.

Tahuyaman
05-10-2015, 05:30 PM
If it's not obvious to you by now, the only 'normal' is YOUR definition. You don't have a corner on what constitutes normal. If I knew you personally, I could point out any number of things that were abnormal.

You merely wish to use your definition to deny certain privileges to those groups you find 'icky'.

You see? The word "normal" has no real meaning to a liberal. It confuses them and causes a form of anxiety in them. So, when they feel like that, they redefine things to make themselves feel better. They think normal means anything they want it to mean, but not what nature says it means.

I'm still trying to figure out what this person's fixation is with the word "icky".

Tahuyaman
05-10-2015, 05:35 PM
But even for those people that truly do "choose" to be gay/lesbian (if any exist) - it's not a "deviant" choice, it's just a choice. We don't call someone deviant because they only have sex with blondes. Or with a particular body type. It's just a choice, a preference.

Being selective, but within what nature says is normal is not deviant behavior. Deviating from normal is deviant.

I didn't know that needed to be explained.

Tahuyaman
05-10-2015, 05:37 PM
Like many gays, you clearly have emotional problems.

That's actually quite common within that subculture.

domer76
05-10-2015, 08:40 PM
Like many gays, you clearly have emotional problems. You should be more like Green Arrow or Ravens Fan who are happy and confident in who they are.

When you can demonstrate that my position is "laughably absurd" (btw, your prose sucks, you're trying too hard) let us know. All we ever see from you is bluster.

Is "D" for dense? Gay? Pretty effing funny, you are!

What is this always and free exercise of marriage by gays you refer to? Do you mean that oft vomited "they are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us"?

(You don't understand "happy as a clam"? Do I have to explain everything to you?)

domer76
05-10-2015, 08:43 PM
Gay men have the same right as normal men to marry any woman that will have them.

Yep. THAT'S the juvenile spewage I was referring to! Thanks Mac, you never fail us!

domer76
05-10-2015, 08:46 PM
You see? The word "normal" has no real meaning to a liberal. It confuses them and causes a form of anxiety in them. So, when they feel like that, they redefine things to make themselves feel better. They think normal means anything they want it to mean, but not what nature says it means.

I'm still trying to figure out what this person's fixation is with the word "icky".

Again, I'm just trying to get your concept of abnormal down to a level you can comprehend.

BTW, did you ever respond to my question about normalcy? I'll ask again.

When you place your penis inside the mouth of your opposite sex partner and ejaculate, is that normal?

Tahuyaman
05-10-2015, 08:50 PM
Three letter words confuse ^^^^^^

Tahuyaman
05-10-2015, 08:51 PM
Originally Posted by Mac-7

Gay men have the same right as normal men to marry any woman that will have them.





Yep. THAT'S the juvenile spewage I was referring to! Thanks Mac, you never fail us!


Well, is that not true?

PattyHill
05-10-2015, 08:54 PM
[COLOR=#333333]




Well, is that not true?


it's a totally stupid argument. Do you want a woman marrying your son when she is sexually attracted to other women, not to him?

In the 60s, both blacks and whites were free to marry, as long as they married someone of their own race. So Loving should never have happened, right?

this is such a bankrupt argument that I hate to even refute it yet again. Anyone promoting this argument proves that they are not arguing in good faith, that their arguments suck, and that they have no credible stance against same sex marriage. In other words, they are desperate.

Dr. Who
05-10-2015, 08:54 PM
Again, I'm just trying to get your concept of abnormal down to a level you can comprehend.

BTW, did you ever respond to my question about normalcy? I'll ask again.

When you place your penis inside the mouth of your opposite sex partner and ejaculate, is that normal?
Can we please keep these discussions PG?

Peter1469
05-10-2015, 08:56 PM
Again, I'm just trying to get your concept of abnormal down to a level you can comprehend.

BTW, did you ever respond to my question about normalcy? I'll ask again.

When you place your penis inside the mouth of your opposite sex partner and ejaculate, is that normal?


Warning: tone it down. This is a child friendly site.

Tahuyaman
05-10-2015, 09:09 PM
it's a totally stupid argument. Do you want a woman marrying your son when she is sexually attracted to other women, not to him?

In the 60s, both blacks and whites were free to marry, as long as they married someone of their own race. So Loving should never have happened, right?

this is such a bankrupt argument that I hate to even refute it yet again. Anyone promoting this argument proves that they are not arguing in good faith, that their arguments suck, and that they have no credible stance against same sex marriage. In other words, they are desperate.

im not going to address the insult to compare being homosexual to being black.

but now explain how the comment was not true.

PattyHill
05-10-2015, 09:15 PM
im not going to address the insult to compare being homosexual to being black.

but now explain how the comment was not true.

It was true; yes; men can always marry women regardless of their preferences and v.v..

But it was insulting, nonsensical, and nasty.

If you can say that the Loving decision wasn't necessary because "blacks can marry blacks and whites can marry whites" - if you can say that with a straight face - then I might at least accept you were arguing from a consistent perspective.

But if you really think that being able to marry someone you aren't sexually attracted to is equivalent to being able to marry your loved one, your soul mate, your partner - then I encourage you to marry someone of your own gender. It's legal in many states. Go ahead. Do it. And tell us if it feels like you are getting full rights.

Maybe what we need to do is say marriage is ONLY legal if you are the same gender. That may give you an idea of how it feels.

Or perhaps you are just trolling. Sadly, that is possible.

Tahuyaman
05-10-2015, 09:19 PM
It was true; yes
See, that wasn't so hard. You're making progress.

PattyHill
05-10-2015, 09:22 PM
See, that wasn't so hard. You're making progress.

Sadly, you aren't.

You know, men and women have been able to get married for the last couple centuries. You discovering this fact is nothing new. If you feel you have stumbled on some great new amazing idea - you are wrong.

PattyHill
05-10-2015, 09:24 PM
And now, Tahuyaman goes on "ignore" so I don't bore others on this forum with trying to counteract its stupid ideas.

Tahuyaman
05-10-2015, 09:40 PM
You know, men and women have been able to get married for the last couple centuries.

Thats been the case much longer than that.

Tahuyaman
05-10-2015, 09:43 PM
Sadly, you aren't.

You know, men and women have been able to get married for the last couple centuries. You discovering this fact is nothing new. If you feel you have stumbled on some great new amazing idea - you are wrong.

thats a very odd comment. Especially when I've been the one making the case for the time honored definition of marriage all this time.

domer76
05-10-2015, 09:53 PM
thats a very odd comment. Especially when I've been the one making the case for the time honored definition of marriage all this time.

You never did answer my question about you and your opposite sex partner and that "normal" sex thing?

Can I say "wee wee" and "squirt"?

Tahuyaman
05-10-2015, 09:56 PM
You never did answer my question about you and your opposite sex partner and that "normal" sex thing?

Can I say "wee wee" and "squirt"?

Your posts are so fucked up, I don't know what your question was.

birddog
05-11-2015, 07:28 AM
And now, Tahuyaman goes on "ignore" so I don't bore others on this forum with trying to counteract its stupid ideas.

Do you always run or ignore when you can't win an argument? Are you ever wrong, and do you ever admit it?

Mac-7
05-11-2015, 07:36 AM
Yep. THAT'S the juvenile spewage I was referring to! Thanks Mac, you never fail us!

4,000 years of tradition is the only thing that works.

This stupid argument about "who gays love" opens the door for incest, beastiality, pedophilia and group marriage.

Mac-7
05-11-2015, 07:38 AM
Do you always run or ignore when you can't win an argument? Are you ever wrong, and do you ever admit it?

In a perfect world libs like patty could have T put in jail for hate speech.

But the left has not progressed that far yet.

Mister D
05-11-2015, 07:41 AM
Is "D" for dense? Gay? Pretty effing funny, you are!

What is this always and free exercise of marriage by gays you refer to? Do you mean that oft vomited "they are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us"?

(You don't understand "happy as a clam"? Do I have to explain everything to you?)

You're a clumsy dancer too. Again, when you can demonstrate that my position is "laughably absurd" let us know. All we ever see from you is bluster.

I understand just fine. It's just that you're enraged as always. Sepsis? lol

Mister D
05-11-2015, 07:42 AM
Yep. THAT'S the juvenile spewage I was referring to! Thanks Mac, you never fail us!

Actually, it's a historical fact. Gays got married all the time.

Mister D
05-11-2015, 07:42 AM
That's actually quite common within that subculture.

Sadly, that appears to be the case.

Tahuyaman
05-11-2015, 08:33 AM
Sadly, that appears to be the case.

What's sad about it is that is so predictable, thus preventable.

Tahuyaman
05-11-2015, 08:36 AM
Do you always run or ignore when you can't win an argument?


Yes she does. Her emotions always get the best of her.

PattyHill
05-11-2015, 08:38 AM
Do you always run or ignore when you can't win an argument? Are you ever wrong, and do you ever admit it?


Um, every discussion I have with Tahuyaman I come out ahead.

But he/she brings out my worst instincts, and I don't care to indulge them. So I remove the source of the irritation.

Simple as that.