Obama is not a real Christian...

Started May 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,188
Re: Obama is not a real Christian...
In reply to Lee Jay, May 14, 2012

ljfinger wrote:

TFergus wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

TFergus wrote:

We have elections... more than 30 states have said "no thanks".

Individual freedom isn't subject to vote in this country

Actually it is. Their are communities you are not allowed to drive motor vehicles in, there are cities you are not allowed to smoke in, there is a whole country you are not allowed to kill people in.... unless "people" = unborn babies, of course.

So, you think driving and polluting the air of others are inalienable rights? That's telling.

Inalienable rights? I thought we were talking personal freedoms.
Like in the very comment of YOURS that I quoted. Think much ?
Warn someone when you're going to change your point, dude...

  • it's the foundation on which the country was founded. These so-called "voters" don't understand anything about their own country or the principles on which it was founded, which include:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"All" means all, and the "pursuit of Happiness" applies to all.

Then we should vote on the legality of murder, since we want serial killers happy... we should have votes on the right to steal, since we want to make thieves happy... we should vote as to whether or not smokers can smoke in your home, by right, since we don't want them unhappy.... we should have elections on whether or not it is legal to kill abortion Drs... or take down buildings with planes... because we hate to have the crazy & foreign people unhappy.... who else ?

What on Earth are you rambling about?

Guaranteeing "happiness for all".
Again... your demand.

Who was it that said "All means all" ?

Oh.... you.

ALL men have the right to the pursuit of happiness....

Right - which means your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can't infringe on someone else's by, for example, killing them.

But by making an insurance company pay for the health care of your boyfriend simply because he is technically your "wife"... is "not infringing" ?

It's infringing on the health insurance companies and all those that pay into it with higher premiums.

Lemme guess... Obamacare rids us of all that. {wink}

but not always at the cost of the taxpayers, medical companies, insurance companies, and/or whoever else is affected when immorality affects the voters' pocketbook.

Again, you're rambling. Try to stay on topic.

I would suggest to you that the weakness is your reading and comprehension.

You can't break apart a paragraph and say "again you're..." when it was all one thought. That's how the weak fight in text.... ask Chato.

They have a right to happiness.
They can get "married" anywhere they want.
But hardly anyone wants to pay for the rights they earn as a "married" couple.

They should have the same rights as any other married couple does.

I don't care that they're gay.... and I don't mind that you feel the way you do.... but since I believe it is Biblically wrong and immoral (even though I have gay friends whom I would die for "hate the sin, not the sinner" ), I still don't agree that they should have equal rights as far as insurance and tax benefits. They have every right to be "married" and they already live together... so their desire to get it on paper is just to benefit from a system that was long ago based on the correct version of marriage. I apply my same stance to male/female couples living together.

If you can't follow this time, just don't bother responding.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow