Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

Mar 20, 2014 Full story: Daily Press & Argus 2,815

When Vanessa Willock wanted an Albuquerque photographer to shoot her same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006, she contacted Elane Photography.

Full Story
First Prev
of 141
Next Last
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2827 May 7, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The article doesn't even mention Reagan's increases to social security taxes, which fully offset the tiny middle class tax cut that was part of his giant give-away to the 1%. As I mentioned recently, the social security increase helped make the gigantic deficit appear to be smaller than it actually was. And now the Republican plan is to make up for that by cutting the benefits on social security recipients.
Anyone that thinks Republicans have no love for taxes need only look at New Jersey and Chris Christy.

And how about those deficits:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
See the green text and chart line.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2829 May 8, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
My guess is Sarah enjoyed the limelight from her vice presidential campaign, including dresses that cost may people's annual salary. Fox News gave her an opportunity to stay in the limelight and make more money than she would in an entire lifetime of public service. It turns out, she was just as drawn to the trappings of wealth and power as the people she had taken down on the way to the governor's office.
I certainly agree with you that winning high office is a solid commitment on the part of the candidate to the thousands who helped her get there. I'm not quite sure why anyone would now consider Palin to be eligible for any office higher than dog catcher. And probably not even that.
Ahh the memories of the Palin spin machine.

You just reminded me of the comment I got from one of her supporters after Fox let her go. The lady was insisting Sarah wasn't fired by Fox; it was simply her contract expiring. Which is true in a very naive way. Sort of like saying when a politician loses an election or a ball player gets bounced they weren't fired, they just didn't get their contracts renewed.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2830 May 8, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I said I would admit to being in error if that were shown to be the case. So far, you have made wild claims, but not a single cite for substantiation. Lying? No. But you are.
What a shock.
And of course you'd like to avoid the Eric Holder issue. People like you have to do that.
Knock off the tantrums. They make you look foolish.
I gave a link to an article in the Washington Post that said Palin resigned in 2009. You call that a wild claim?

Using a "red herring" of Eric Holder may fool some of your low information voter fans, but the rest of us know better.
Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1.Topic A is under discussion.
2.Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3.Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2831 May 8, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave a link to an article in the Washington Post that said Palin resigned in 2009. You call that a wild claim?
Using a "red herring" of Eric Holder may fool some of your low information voter fans, but the rest of us know better.
Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1.Topic A is under discussion.
2.Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3.Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
I must have missed your cite. Post it again and I will take a look.

I brought up AG Holder to illustrate the bias of people like you which you substantiated with your frenzied and hysterical avoidance. It is, indeed, relevant. No diversion is likely given your obsession with trying to smear Palin and anything not by-decree "progressive." I sought balance. You avoided it. No surprise there. People like you will say absolutely anything to try and make her look bad and make you seem to be morally (or whatever) superior. That's just one reason I consider people like you dishonest and unethical.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2832 May 8, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I must have missed your cite. Post it again and I will take a look.
I brought up AG Holder to illustrate the bias of people like you which you substantiated with your frenzied and hysterical avoidance. It is, indeed, relevant. No diversion is likely given your obsession with trying to smear Palin and anything not by-decree "progressive." I sought balance. You avoided it. No surprise there. People like you will say absolutely anything to try and make her look bad and make you seem to be morally (or whatever) superior. That's just one reason I consider people like you dishonest and unethical.
Red herrings, by definition, are NOT relevant.

Gee...... does that shoot down your only means of attempting to control a conversation? Not very bright, are you?

Google : "when did Sarah Palin resign as governor" You are not going to find ANY article that backs up your position. She resigned in July 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2833 May 8, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Red herrings, by definition, are NOT relevant.
Your "definition" is verified.
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee...... does that shoot down your only means of attempting to control a conversation? Not very bright, are you?
I disagree with your claim of diversion. I claim it's a balance to your bias and smearing. You are free to continue your smearing and bias from here to eternity and I have no doubt that you will.

That you'd like to claim that I'm not too bright bothers me not at all. For one, I consider the source (you). Secondly, I know better (at least according to facts and statistics) and I consider you a to be a dishonest extremist, only after scoring your imaginary points against a breeder who dares disagree with you or the extremist gay perspective/agenda. In other words (simpler so that you can understand, but will, of course, disagree with) you're trying for power. The power (however illusory) over anybody who dares disagree with you and/or your position. In other words (also simple so you can understand) you're like any politician, be it Palin, Pelosi or Holder.
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Google : "when did Sarah Palin resign as governor" You are not going to find ANY article that backs up your position. She resigned in July 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
I stand corrected re Palin's resignation. No emotional trauma there (at least for me). Merely a corrected error. If that gives you a stiffy, enjoy your stiffy.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#2834 May 9, 2014
Title of thread:
Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

(nothing whatsoever to do with Sarah Palin)
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2835 May 10, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "definition" is verified.
<quoted text> I disagree with your claim of diversion. I claim it's a balance to your bias and smearing. You are free to continue your smearing and bias from here to eternity and I have no doubt that you will.
That you'd like to claim that I'm not too bright bothers me not at all. For one, I consider the source (you). Secondly, I know better (at least according to facts and statistics) and I consider you a to be a dishonest extremist, only after scoring your imaginary points against a breeder who dares disagree with you or the extremist gay perspective/agenda. In other words (simpler so that you can understand, but will, of course, disagree with) you're trying for power. The power (however illusory) over anybody who dares disagree with you and/or your position. In other words (also simple so you can understand) you're like any politician, be it Palin, Pelosi or Holder.
<quoted text>
I stand corrected re Palin's resignation. No emotional trauma there (at least for me). Merely a corrected error. If that gives you a stiffy, enjoy your stiffy.
Nah..... I enjoy watching you eat crow.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2836 May 10, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah..... I enjoy watching you eat crow.
Then you enjoy nothing. You claimed I was a lair. You were the lair. I was merely in error.

Enjoy your hysterics.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2837 May 10, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Then you enjoy nothing. You claimed I was a lair. You were the lair. I was merely in error.
Enjoy your hysterics.
You're arrogant and stupid.
1. Reagan 'energized' the economy!
2. He lowered taxes!
3. He created 'voodoo economics!'

One of those is true. Hint, it's #3
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2838 May 10, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Then you enjoy nothing. You claimed I was a lair. You were the lair. I was merely in error.
Enjoy your hysterics.
I lied by correcting your lie? Interesting.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2839 May 10, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I lied by correcting your lie? Interesting.
No, stupid. You lied by claiming that I lied when the TRUTH is, I easily acknowledged my error when show it was, in FACT, that it was just an error. And because you are a liar, you're a loser.

And always will be.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2840 May 10, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> No, stupid.
Yes, stupid. In fact you could be the poster shi*heat for stupid.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2841 May 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, stupid. In fact you could be the poster shi*heat for stupid.
GASP
Are you saying you will abdicate?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2842 May 12, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
You lied by claiming that I lied when the TRUTH is, I easily acknowledged my error when show it was, in FACT, that it was just an error.
Nice syntax.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 141
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Photography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in N... (Aug '13) 1 hr LuzAranda 747
Worth a Look Fri WE JUST DONT CARE 12
Chicago's Downtown Fri DonfromCanadainth... 21
Community Digest: Halloween party, birthday bas... Oct 23 Always Good 2
Disaster is haunted house plot Oct 23 Always Good 2
Fine Art America's Best Photo Artist Oct 23 Always Good 4
Rediscovering Lost Photos From a Long-Ago West End Oct 22 Great view 3

Photography People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE