Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#14555 Jul 5, 2012
waco1909 wrote:
Silvercoastcorks has his views.They aren't really very radical our unusual.THERE are a lot of people both black and white who are proponents of total racial segregation.My opinion really isn't important to anyone but myself.Many people think there is some sort if a racial war on the horizon.I think they may even be looking forward to it.I'm not.
My position is very clear. I like or dislike people based on their personality and their willingness to be unselfish and see themselves as part of the entire mix, the melting pot, if you will. I like and dislike many black people as well as many white people, along with people of other ethnicities based soley on this position. There is only one thing that I demand to be the same color. That is my socks. I really have a serious problem with different colored socks mixing together. Just how I raised, I suppose. My mom always checked me for that.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#14556 Jul 6, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Mike, I never claimed to be a scientist, but scientist do say that humans are at the top of the evolutionary ladder. That being said, I think they also inferred that, as humans, we are supposed to know better.
You keep saying the community will take care of the children. You have yet to provide an address for me to send you a bill of one of my children. Do your part.
You have not demonstrated that homosexuality is moral. Your claim that my claim that unnatural does not define immorality is your opinion. You have not offered any supporting evidence supporting your claims. And again, you have not showed, commented or demonstrated what exactly gay couples stand to gain with same sex marriages.
If you do not like the majority vote you can change your venue.
You made the claim and you cannot support your claim that homosexuality is immoral.
All I need to show is that it is not immoral. I feel I have with logic and facts about nature. Your claims of unnatural have been shown wrong by me.
Science does not claim because we are at the top of the food chain we know right or wrong any better than other animals.
In fact science makes many claims that our cognitive mind often gets in the way of understanding morality. Your position is a perfect example of this.

I see your cognitive mind is using emotion and imagination to determine your morality without use of scientific knowledge and facts.
You are forgoing one of the greatest assets man has today, science.

I have refuted your claims and you have not refuted mine. If you cannot refute mine, I feel as if you have no good logical reasons for your position.

This is the land of debate. If you do not refute with facts and logic, you lose in the eyes of anyone who sees logic and reason as a good thing.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#14557 Jul 6, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Mike, I never claimed to be a scientist, but scientist do say that humans are at the top of the evolutionary ladder. That being said, I think they also inferred that, as humans, we are supposed to know better.
You keep saying the community will take care of the children. You have yet to provide an address for me to send you a bill of one of my children. Do your part.
You have not demonstrated that homosexuality is moral. Your claim that my claim that unnatural does not define immorality is your opinion. You have not offered any supporting evidence supporting your claims. And again, you have not showed, commented or demonstrated what exactly gay couples stand to gain with same sex marriages.
If you do not like the majority vote you can change your venue.
I have shown how society benefits from gay marriage. Remember my adoption of the handicapped argument?
You argued that gay marriage is not good for the state. I proved that wrong in this one example. I am sure there are many other reasons I have not even thought of. But you have yet to show how it is bad for the state or bad for anything for that matter.
You make claims it is bad, but none show and logical reason it is bad.
Example, you claim it is bad for the institution of marriage. But give zero reasons it is bad for the institution of marriage.

Maybe you do not understand how this debate thing works yet?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#14558 Jul 6, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Mike, I never claimed to be a scientist, but scientist do say that humans are at the top of the evolutionary ladder. That being said, I think they also inferred that, as humans, we are supposed to know better.
You keep saying the community will take care of the children. You have yet to provide an address for me to send you a bill of one of my children. Do your part.
You have not demonstrated that homosexuality is moral. Your claim that my claim that unnatural does not define immorality is your opinion. You have not offered any supporting evidence supporting your claims. And again, you have not showed, commented or demonstrated what exactly gay couples stand to gain with same sex marriages.
If you do not like the majority vote you can change your venue.
I feel I do help the society as a whole in raising children.
I pay taxes and support the idea of government welfare safety nets for one.
I give charity when I can.
I try to teach others to do the same as I am now right here. Maybe one day due to my voice you and others will realize that is what 'humanity' really means.
If I can teach one person this, I have done a positive thing for helping our society, thus helping raising children in our society.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14559 Jul 6, 2012
In his case....the moving finger...having writ..moves on.
TSF

Four Oaks, NC

#14560 Jul 6, 2012
Republicans are rejoicing.. The Chinese are endorsing Romney for president of the USA. This is in appreciation for all the American jobs Romney outsourced to China.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#14561 Jul 6, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I have shown how society benefits from gay marriage. Remember my adoption of the handicapped argument?
You argued that gay marriage is not good for the state. I proved that wrong in this one example. I am sure there are many other reasons I have not even thought of. But you have yet to show how it is bad for the state or bad for anything for that matter.
You make claims it is bad, but none show and logical reason it is bad.
Example, you claim it is bad for the institution of marriage. But give zero reasons it is bad for the institution of marriage.
Maybe you do not understand how this debate thing works yet?
Mike, I'd like to know where you got your information regarding gay couples and adoption of children with disabilities? I read your post earlier and I can't find anything that supports your claim.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#14562 Jul 6, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I have shown how society benefits from gay marriage. Remember my adoption of the handicapped argument?
You argued that gay marriage is not good for the state. I proved that wrong in this one example. I am sure there are many other reasons I have not even thought of. But you have yet to show how it is bad for the state or bad for anything for that matter.
You make claims it is bad, but none show and logical reason it is bad.
Example, you claim it is bad for the institution of marriage. But give zero reasons it is bad for the institution of marriage.
Maybe you do not understand how this debate thing works yet?
Your children with disabilities argument rests on a fact made by you of "it is known that more gay couples adopt....". Who is this know by?

http://www.disabled-world.com/editorials/disa...

I didn't read on this site where more gay couples adopt children with disabilities.

You argument is not valid in the fact that gay and lesbian couples can't adopt in two states in the U.S. and it's very difficult in other states whether they have same sex marriage or not for gay and lesbian couples to adopt. So how do more gay couples adopt children with disabilities?
Taxpayer

Rougemont, NC

#14563 Jul 6, 2012
The fascist United Socialist Authority has laid out a step-by-step model of how Fidel Castro instituted Marxism in Cuba, Mao Zedong in China, Stalin in Russia and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela:
1.Nationalize major sectors of the economy
2.Redistribute wealth
3.Discredit opposition
4.Censors opposing viewpoints
5.Control gun ownership
6.Develop a constabulary force to control civilian population
They have begun to materialize in the U.S.: From a form of “nationalization” through government bailouts, to “hate crime” legislation aimed at silencing the public opinion, to the federal government labeling tea partiers and veterans as domestic terrorists, to efforts underway to get the U.S. on board with a United Nations small arms treaty, which would regulate private gun ownership. They would not want Americans to fight back as they are marched to the gas chambers.
Illuminati

Clover, SC

#14564 Jul 6, 2012
TSF wrote:
Republicans are rejoicing.. The Chinese are endorsing Romney for president of the USA. This is in appreciation for all the American jobs Romney outsourced to China.
Another fool chimes in.
Illuminati

Clover, SC

#14565 Jul 6, 2012
Taxpayer wrote:
The fascist United Socialist Authority has laid out a step-by-step model of how Fidel Castro instituted Marxism in Cuba, Mao Zedong in China, Stalin in Russia and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela:
1.Nationalize major sectors of the economy
2.Redistribute wealth
3.Discredit opposition
4.Censors opposing viewpoints
5.Control gun ownership
6.Develop a constabulary force to control civilian population
They have begun to materialize in the U.S.: From a form of “nationalization” through government bailouts, to “hate crime” legislation aimed at silencing the public opinion, to the federal government labeling tea partiers and veterans as domestic terrorists, to efforts underway to get the U.S. on board with a United Nations small arms treaty, which would regulate private gun ownership. They would not want Americans to fight back as they are marched to the gas chambers.
There are people on this forum right now who would do exeactly what you outlined above. Their first tactic is to demonize anyone who dares to disagree with them. You first must convince people that your opposition are "bad" people. Once enough people agree with that assessment, you through away the due process. This is what the NAZIs (German National Socialist Party)did to their political opposition. They murdered about ^ million Jews and many others who simply disagreed eith them. Once you convince youself and enough others that someone else is a bad person, it is a small step to the gas chambers. These re the tactics employed by several of the persistant posters n this thread.
Taxpayer

Rougemont, NC

#14566 Jul 6, 2012
$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest."
Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts in many cases, the cronyism and corporatism is happening in plain sight, as when our government pays premium prices to contractors for work that taxpayers are already paying the government to do – outsourcing of military and security work in the Middle East being a well-known example. For instance, XE Services (formerly Blackwater) quotes a Congressional report that alleges "Blackwater charges the government $1,222 per day per guard,'equivalent to $445,000 per year, or six times more than the cost of an equivalent U.S. soldier'" (Erik Prince, Blackwater's co-founder and CEO at the time, disputed that figure). Either way,given that the U.S. spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined, why are we paying large numbers of private contractors to do what taxpayers already pay the military to do?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14567 Jul 6, 2012
You just called some of the people on this thread potential mass murderers.But THEY are the ones doing the demonizing??!!??
Taxpayer

Rougemont, NC

#14568 Jul 6, 2012
Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage. Walter Williams

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14569 Jul 6, 2012
Taxpayer wrote:
$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest."
Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts in many cases, the cronyism and corporatism is happening in plain sight, as when our government pays premium prices to contractors for work that taxpayers are already paying the government to do – outsourcing of military and security work in the Middle East being a well-known example. For instance, XE Services (formerly Blackwater) quotes a Congressional report that alleges "Blackwater charges the government $1,222 per day per guard,'equivalent to $445,000 per year, or six times more than the cost of an equivalent U.S. soldier'" (Erik Prince, Blackwater's co-founder and CEO at the time, disputed that figure). Either way,given that the U.S. spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined, why are we paying large numbers of private contractors to do what taxpayers already pay the military to do?
Its our plot to take over the world using private security guards.You're just too smart for us.
Illuminati

Clover, SC

#14570 Jul 6, 2012
Please excuse the typo's in the previous post. I want to add one other thing. The Left tries to associate the NAZIs with the Conservative political belief system. The NAZIs were SOCIALISTS. The world was outraged by the attrocities committed by them so the Left portrays them as a right wing dictatoship. The Communists were our allies in WWII. The Communists killed an estimated 20 million of their own people in the war, but the left in this country seems to embrace their theory of politics without admitting their admiration. The point is there is little difference between NAZIS and Communists. The left embraces one and shuns the other.
Illuminati

Clover, SC

#14571 Jul 6, 2012
waco1909 wrote:
You just called some of the people on this thread potential mass murderers.But THEY are the ones doing the demonizing??!!??
The mentality demonstrated by those people indicates that given the proper circumstances, They could convince themselves that any action against their opponents could be justified.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14572 Jul 6, 2012
Maybe you guys are gonna get marched to the gas chambers.I'M old fashioned.THEY'LL have to shoot me first.Cause i'm damn sure gonna be shooting at them.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14573 Jul 6, 2012
Hitler was not a socialist despite the name of his party.I believe you know of his hatred of communists.Socialism is communist light.
Illuminati

Clover, SC

#14574 Jul 6, 2012
Taxpayer wrote:
Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage. Walter Williams
Don't tell me what I believe. I am a Conservative and I absolutely do not believe that the gov't should take one penny more from anyone than is required to perform the role for gov't as is described in the constitution. In short, The gov't should stay out of your and my pocketbook and business to the extent possible and carry out its basic mission to maintain a stable society. The unintended consequences of well-intended gov't programs are responsible for many of the problems our country faces.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Newland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Teens of Avery county 14 hr native 6
For what reason does someone marry twice their ... 14 hr ole big balls 8
John Millan is a rotten human being! 18 hr MeinKampf 5
Dumb bich that ruins lives (Oct '16) 23 hr Whats up 7
Hoes Sat Wondering 1
Dodge durango Sat Wondering 1
Does anyone know Joby Harris? What's he like? (Jan '17) Sat Ha ha 9

Newland Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Newland Mortgages