Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://beta.conquerclub.com/forum/
john9blue wrote:what defense? i explained what i meant in my post. come on man.
john9blue wrote:what defense? i explained what i meant in my post. come on man.
Metsfanmax wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Night Strike wrote:Because race is a Constitutionally protected state of being while sexual preference is not. That's why you can't equate race with homosexuality.
Race is not a "Constitutionally protected state of being." Please use more precise arguments if you're going to argue about the Constitution; there is no language in the Constitution that says anything of the sort. The only part of the Constitution that even makes reference to race is the Fifteenth Amendment, which of course says that the government may not discriminate based on race when deciding who to grant suffrage to. So I'm not sure where you came upon this idea that the Constitution has any caveats or beliefs about race other than that specific rule, but it is surely a false belief; I cannot understand, based on a reading of the Constitution, why you would say that the Constitution cares any more about race than it does sexual preference.
In fact, it is the Fourteenth Amendment itself that protects against general discrimination in the application of laws by the federal government, and the text of this amendment does not make any reference to race or any other specific state of being. It simply says "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I simply cannot see, based on the reading of this text, how one could conclude that the government can discriminate based on sexual preference but not on race.
Reposting this because it's important. I'm not talking about rights. Neither should anyone else. The Fourteenth Amendment isn't about rights. It simply says that you cannot write a law that only applies to some subset of the population, that discriminates against others due to some arbitrary standard. It may be convenient for you to paint our position as defending marriage as a right because that is easier to attack, but I'm not doing that. I would be just as happy if no one was allowed to enter into a state-sanctioned marriage. As long as everyone follows the same rules, it's constitutional.
john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:john9blue wrote:you think tea partiers are against gay marriage? wtf lol... f*ck fox news, they're the reason people think this stuff.
I'm sorry you are unable to laugh. I don't watch Fox News other than when Jon Stewart is making fun of them.
not saying you did. i'm about to puke from all these words you're stuffing in my mouth!
fox news helped publicize the tea party, and in doing so inserted a more socially conservative agenda, presumably to pander more to their viewers. this neo-tea party is the one that is hated on by the left (for good reason). you don't need to watch fox news to be influenced by them.
Woodruff wrote:john9blue wrote:what defense? i explained what i meant in my post. come on man.
Thanks, Phatscotty.
Phatscotty wrote:john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:john9blue wrote:you think tea partiers are against gay marriage? wtf lol... f*ck fox news, they're the reason people think this stuff.
I'm sorry you are unable to laugh. I don't watch Fox News other than when Jon Stewart is making fun of them.
not saying you did. i'm about to puke from all these words you're stuffing in my mouth!
fox news helped publicize the tea party, and in doing so inserted a more socially conservative agenda, presumably to pander more to their viewers. this neo-tea party is the one that is hated on by the left (for good reason). you don't need to watch fox news to be influenced by them.
Tea partiers are for states rights.
Baron Von PWN wrote:Phatscotty wrote:john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:john9blue wrote:you think tea partiers are against gay marriage? wtf lol... f*ck fox news, they're the reason people think this stuff.
I'm sorry you are unable to laugh. I don't watch Fox News other than when Jon Stewart is making fun of them.
not saying you did. i'm about to puke from all these words you're stuffing in my mouth!
fox news helped publicize the tea party, and in doing so inserted a more socially conservative agenda, presumably to pander more to their viewers. this neo-tea party is the one that is hated on by the left (for good reason). you don't need to watch fox news to be influenced by them.
Tea partiers are for states rights.
We know this because Phatscotty says so. I as a self appointed tea partier say this. Tea partiers are in favor of collectivizing agriculture in order to reduce taxes.
Phatscotty wrote:john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:john9blue wrote:you think tea partiers are against gay marriage? wtf lol... f*ck fox news, they're the reason people think this stuff.
I'm sorry you are unable to laugh. I don't watch Fox News other than when Jon Stewart is making fun of them.
not saying you did. i'm about to puke from all these words you're stuffing in my mouth!
fox news helped publicize the tea party, and in doing so inserted a more socially conservative agenda, presumably to pander more to their viewers. this neo-tea party is the one that is hated on by the left (for good reason). you don't need to watch fox news to be influenced by them.
Tea partiers are for states rights. The people who live there make constitutional (hopefully) laws that they want to live under. You are so far past incorrect information and any credibility.
Phatscotty wrote:
I know the issues. LESS GOVERNMENT! especially Federal! Ron Paul has spoken loudly in favor of states rights for years. If you are unable to take my word for it, take Ron Paul's?
why is everyone acting so weird in this thread?
Baron Von PWN wrote:Phatscotty wrote:
I know the issues. LESS GOVERNMENT! especially Federal! Ron Paul has spoken loudly in favor of states rights for years. If you are unable to take my word for it, take Ron Paul's?
why is everyone acting so weird in this thread?
Pssh Ron paul's been around way before the Tea party. excuse me but "Taxed Enough Already" the TEA party is about one thing only, less taxes! That's why I as a tea partier favor nationalising sectors of the economy and using those revenues to eliminate taxes.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:Phatscotty wrote:
I know the issues. LESS GOVERNMENT! especially Federal! Ron Paul has spoken loudly in favor of states rights for years. If you are unable to take my word for it, take Ron Paul's?
why is everyone acting so weird in this thread?
Pssh Ron paul's been around way before the Tea party. excuse me but "Taxed Enough Already" the TEA party is about one thing only, less taxes! That's why I as a tea partier favor nationalising sectors of the economy and using those revenues to eliminate taxes.
I have now been swayed by this man's political stance, and from now on I am a Tea Partier, and I support nationalizing many sectors of the economy in order to use those revenues to eliminate taxes!
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:Phatscotty wrote:
I know the issues. LESS GOVERNMENT! especially Federal! Ron Paul has spoken loudly in favor of states rights for years. If you are unable to take my word for it, take Ron Paul's?
why is everyone acting so weird in this thread?
Pssh Ron paul's been around way before the Tea party. excuse me but "Taxed Enough Already" the TEA party is about one thing only, less taxes! That's why I as a tea partier favor nationalising sectors of the economy and using those revenues to eliminate taxes.
I have now been swayed by this man's political stance, and from now on I am a Tea Partier, and I support nationalizing many sectors of the economy in order to use those revenues to eliminate taxes!
I see no difference between nationalizing the economy and taxation (except that taxation only takes some of the income)
Phatscotty wrote:Woody, Congratulations. You have sucessfully replaced Pimpdave.
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Woody, Congratulations. You have sucessfully replaced Pimpdave.
Scotty, you were pimpdave's equal before he even left. You even use pictures, just like him. If you spent half as much time trying to understand what you read in these fora as you do in coming after me, your arguments would be a lot more effective.
Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Woody, Congratulations. You have sucessfully replaced Pimpdave.
Scotty, you were pimpdave's equal before he even left. You even use pictures, just like him. If you spent half as much time trying to understand what you read in these fora as you do in coming after me, your arguments would be a lot more effective.
You are coming after me 100% of the time.
Phatscotty wrote:I never respond to an original post of yours. You can't even communicate. Obviously my values piss you off to the point where you are calling me names and throwing hissy fits at me on a daily basis.
Phatscotty wrote:If you want to stop talking to each other fine.
Phatscotty wrote:All you do is context drop, throw out red herrings, and personal attacks.
Phatscotty wrote:Call it whatever you want (I know you will!). Your posts are in the gutter and I do not have to go into gutter world just because you dare me to.
I say no thank you, and good day.
PLAYER57832 wrote:So, any word on why same sex marriage is so terrible for society, yet?
Symmetry wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:So, any word on why same sex marriage is so terrible for society, yet?
So far it looks like heterosexuals are still getting married in NY, so the arguments about it being an "attack on traditional marriage" seem a bit defunct.