Paul Ryan promises hate group that he...

Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

There are 5444 comments on the www.wisconsingazette.com story from Oct 9, 2012, titled Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality. In it, www.wisconsingazette.com reports that:

In a recent interview with Focus on the Family president Jim Daly, Paul Ryan reassured the anti-gay hate group that a Romney-Ryan administration will fiercely oppose gay rights.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.wisconsingazette.com.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5566 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
You addressed the reasons with some dumbass proclamation..do you think they are arguments?
The proclamations usually don not address the issues correctly let alone contradict my argument...
like dismissing them as RATIONALIZATIONS...
that's the real good stuff lides...
like I always say, you use your ignorance as a sword...
One can make proclamations when the facts are this clear.

There is no prerequisite for, nor a requirement of procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage.

This is a fact, Jane. It has been illustrated for you in the most basic terms.

It isn't my fault that you can't offer the most basic defense of your position. Nor is it my fault that you continually cite court decisions that you either cannot defend, or have been superseded.

Feel free to grow up and join the debate, if you are able.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5567 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
One can make proclamations when the facts are this clear.
.
RATIONALIZATIONS don't meet the rational basis standard?

It erroneous and in fact just plain stupid...
justice dumbass indeed...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5568 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
RATIONALIZATIONS don't meet the rational basis standard?
It erroneous and in fact just plain stupid...
justice dumbass indeed...
Jane, it is not a rationalization.

There is no procreative requirement relative to the legal protections of marriage.

That's not a rationalization, it's a fact.

I notice that you don't actually offer ANY argument in defense of your position... Again. What's that matter, Jane? Have all of your rationalizations been thoroughly debunked?
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#5569 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup HE did. I don't LIE ...
I don't either, phony ass.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#5570 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
AHA!
You deny it, but you lie, so no one believes you...
Wait yesterday I was a terrible lawyer, today I am fake, yesterday I failed the LSAT's MAKE UP YOUR BULLYING MIND!
You are a a fraud, and now JUMP HIGHER!
I love all your post about me..
keep em coming...
and don't worry, I will look for the ones you try to hide from me you liar!
SO, HOW MANY NAMES do you post under....is your lie that "Mona" doesn't judge them, but you do under another name?
You lie so well I do have trouble figuring out where the lie is...but its always there...
I don't use the "judge it" icons under ANY name.

Go ahead an tell us how you are going to prove it was me. Go ahead.... I need a good laugh to start the weekend off right.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#5571 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane, it is not a rationalization.
There is no procreative requirement relative to the legal protections of marriage.
That's not a rationalization, it's a fact.
I notice that you don't actually offer ANY argument in defense of your position... Again. What's that matter, Jane? Have all of your rationalizations been thoroughly debunked?
Jane is incapable of saying he is wrong. Don't expect it from him. He will ALWAYS change the subject, and then yell at you for red herrings. He's quite the dullard.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5572 Dec 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Jane is incapable of saying he is wrong. Don't expect it from him. He will ALWAYS change the subject, and then yell at you for red herrings. He's quite the dullard.
Actually, she is. She finally did concede that infertile heterosexual couples are able to marry, despite their inability to procreate. However, she seems utterly incapable of making the leap of logic to understand that condition illustrates that the state does not have a legitimate interest in procreation relative to marriage.

Although there is a lot of talk strew about about Jane being a lawyer, I don't see it. Jane lacks the competence to offer a defense against a traffic ticket.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5573 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane, it is not a rationalization.
T
you Do get that you've called them that for weeks right?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5574 Dec 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>I don't either, phony ass.
yes you do.
and you bully.

You are actually a total fraud.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5575 Dec 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't use the "judge it" icons under ANY name.
Go ahead an tell us how you are going to prove it was me.
I'm not going to, I am just going to point out each time the board lights up with them and leave it to others to see when you arrive...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5576 Dec 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane is incapable of saying he is wrong. Don't expect it from him. He will ALWAYS change the subject, and then yell at you for red herrings. He's quite the dullard.
this sounds NOTHING like you..
consistency is not your virtue..
An BTW, I have admitted mistakes many times here...
The fact that you are ignorant and wrong is not a reflection on me as much as you want it to be...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5577 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Although there is a lot of talk strew about about Jane being a lawyer,.
yah, everyday...BY MONA!
and now by you...

if you don't want it brought up, why don't both of you STOP BRINGING IT UP?

I confided that in both of you just to tell you how well you bullying attempts were being received by me...
the facts of reality really help deflect your BS attacks...
funny you both DON'T realize this...
even now.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5578 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
you Do get that you've called them that for weeks right?
Well, you've been offering inept rationalizations for weeks. What else what I supposed to call them? Would you prefer BS? How about pseudo-logic? Any of the above would be equally applicable.

Can you offer a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would a) render such a restriction constitutional, and b) render your argument valid?

I don't think you can. In fact, I know you cannot. You've already tacitly admitted as much when you ceased even attempting to offer such an interest.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5579 Dec 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>I don't either, phony ass.
and when you say "either" you are admitting you know I don't lie...
(talk about a slip)

guess what that makes you....
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5580 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

I notice that you don't actually offer ANY argument in defense of your position...
WOow, pete and repeat...
from lides?

no way!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5581 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
WOow, pete and repeat...
from lides?
no way!
Have you come up with the legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry yet?

I didn't think so.
Ray

Newport, OR

#5582 Dec 14, 2012
Homosexuality is immoral and an affront on society. Forcing people to accept "gay marriage" is like forcing people to accept funding for abortions.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5583 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you come up with the legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry yet?
Yup, two in fact.

But they fell off the fence, who is left?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#5584 Dec 14, 2012
lides wrote:
She finally did concede that infertile heterosexual couples are able to marry
What a revelation! I think crayons may be a little advanced for you. If you want to deal in facts you should refer to Jane as a man, because he is. You should refer to yourself as Justice Dumbass because you are.

If a man and a woman allpied for a marriage license how would the clerk know they were infertile?

If a same sex couple applied for a marriage license the clerk would know they are an infertile couple.

Do you know where children come from? Hint, it isn't the stork.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#5585 Dec 14, 2012
How does someone FORCE you to accept anything? All you have to do is comply with the law; nobody cares if you don't like it.
Ray wrote:
Homosexuality is immoral and an affront on society. Forcing people to accept "gay marriage" is like forcing people to accept funding for abortions.

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 12 min Three Psyche 1,059
News Gay marriage victory at Supreme Court triggerin... 49 min The Rainbow Kid 3
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 5 hr Redeemed 4,201
News Government does not have a place in your bedroo... 7 hr david traversa 1
News Woman arrested as gay couple gets Alabama marri... (Feb '15) 10 hr ChromePearl 23
News Annie's Mailbox: Mom upset with response to her... 16 hr Dr Reker s Bellhop 2
News Khloe files for divorce against Lamar again 17 hr So Do It Already 1
More from around the web