Social issues still fire up GOP despi...

Social issues still fire up GOP despite 2012 loss

There are 155 comments on the KFVS12 story from Jun 19, 2013, titled Social issues still fire up GOP despite 2012 loss. In it, KFVS12 reports that:

Republican lawmakers have a message for those who want the party to soften its emphasis on social conservatism in hopes of reaching a wider national audience: Not so fast.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KFVS12.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#125 Jun 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>So you merely want a simplistic and incomplete post, one your small mind can grasp. Here then, revel in your total ignorance:

Show where it says it is not a child.
I don't have to. You stated it WAS a child. Back your statement!
I have not said it was or was not a child. I simply asked you to prove what YOU said.
So prove it.
See the Light

United States

#126 Jun 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, conservative is not a religious ideology. Once you see it, your jaw will fall gaping, hitting your own feet. For when you finally see it, you will know how wrong you are, but then it will be too late. You will be rotting away, on your bed of death, realizing you have wasted it all, your life, your brain, your very existence. For when you draw your last breath that will be it, you will be forgotten, left in the cold ground, rotting, fading, until there is nothing left. All because you refused to contribute to life, so focused and worried about death, worshiping that one day that will come for us all, expecting a reward for that. Such a waste of flesh you have become, such a useless tool for the mass produced religion of new.
You don't know much,just stfu

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#127 Jun 23, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to. You stated it WAS a child. Back your statement!
I have not said it was or was not a child. I simply asked you to prove what YOU said.
So prove it.
Incorrect, including children is the same as supporting the stoning of children, your book includes no exception to the rule based on age, therefore, it includes children. You are making excuses to justify your religious right to stone children.
See the Light

United States

#128 Jun 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect, including children is the same as supporting the stoning of children, your book includes no exception to the rule based on age, therefore, it includes children. You are making excuses to justify your religious right to stone children.
That person is another that sits in the basement and is on Topix all day, telling everyone she knows whaT SHE'S TALKIING ABOUT.lol
See the Light

United States

#129 Jun 23, 2013
See the Light wrote:
<quoted text>That person is another that sits in the basement and is on Topix all day, telling everyone she knows whaT SHE'S TALKIING ABOUT.lol
above is a mistake-I mean't you!

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#130 Jun 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Incorrect, including children is the same as supporting the stoning of children, your book includes no exception to the rule based on age, therefore, it includes children. You are making excuses to justify your religious right to stone children.
Then by your assertion, the second amendment includes ALL arms because it does not include any exceptions. That's not what I usually hear from liberals.
By your assertion, screaming "fire" in a movie theater should be protected under the first amendment, because no exceptions are listed.
By your assertion, a product which takes 4 AA batteries can be used with 1, 2, or 3 AA batteries because 1, 2, or 3 is not listed as exceptions in the instructions.

Back your claim, or admit you've been out debated.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#131 Jun 24, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Then by your assertion, the second amendment includes ALL arms because it does not include any exceptions. That's not what I usually hear from liberals.
By your assertion, screaming "fire" in a movie theater should be protected under the first amendment, because no exceptions are listed.
By your assertion, a product which takes 4 AA batteries can be used with 1, 2, or 3 AA batteries because 1, 2, or 3 is not listed as exceptions in the instructions.
Back your claim, or admit you've been out debated.
Yes, it did include all arms, that is why they pushed for laws that change the second amendment.

We have laws that state such exceptions to freedom of speech as well.

The last one is just nonsense.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#132 Jun 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it did include all arms, that is why they pushed for laws that change the second amendment.
We have laws that state such exceptions to freedom of speech as well.
The last one is just nonsense.
I actually agree that it included all arms, but your ignorance is showing. Gun Control Laws do not change the second amendment.

You are right,there are laws that state such exceptions to free speech. They do not change the first amendment.

The Bill Of Rights, describes the RIGHTS of the Citizenry, that can not be deprived by the government. Yet the government has, and continues to, pass laws that do just that.

You just explained perfectly how gun control laws and speech laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!! Congratulations!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#133 Jun 24, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually agree that it included all arms, but your ignorance is showing. Gun Control Laws do not change the second amendment.
You are right,there are laws that state such exceptions to free speech. They do not change the first amendment.
The Bill Of Rights, describes the RIGHTS of the Citizenry, that can not be deprived by the government. Yet the government has, and continues to, pass laws that do just that.
You just explained perfectly how gun control laws and speech laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!! Congratulations!
Gun control laws add "exceptions" to the amendment, that is changing it.

The Bill of Rights was not a law document, it was simply a promise.

You just keep evading the entire point, your book justifies stoning children, it's that simple, and for you to in any way attempt to rationalize that only demonstrates that you support stoning children.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#134 Jun 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Gun control laws add "exceptions" to the amendment, that is changing it.
The Bill of Rights was not a law document, it was simply a promise.
You just keep evading the entire point, your book justifies stoning children, it's that simple, and for you to in any way attempt to rationalize that only demonstrates that you support stoning children.
You are wrong.

The rights granted in the second amendment "shall not be infringed". The definition of Infringe = to limit or undermine. What do you think gun control laws do? Limit or undermine. Therefore gun control laws ARE unconstitutional. Those laws do not change the wording or meaning of the second amendment in any way.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#135 Jun 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Gun control laws add "exceptions" to the amendment, that is changing it.
The Bill of Rights was not a law document, it was simply a promise.
You just keep evading the entire point, your book justifies stoning children, it's that simple, and for you to in any way attempt to rationalize that only demonstrates that you support stoning children.
Here, educate yourself.
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-doc...

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#136 Jun 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Gun control laws add "exceptions" to the amendment, that is changing it.
The Bill of Rights was not a law document, it was simply a promise.
You just keep evading the entire point, your book justifies stoning children, it's that simple, and for you to in any way attempt to rationalize that only demonstrates that you support stoning children.
Please provide proof of the Bill Of Rights ever being amended. If the second amendment has never been amended, it has never been changed. Since Amendments 1 - 10 have never been amended, none of the Bill Of Rights has been changed.

You were saying?

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#137 Jun 24, 2013
You see people? Liberals claim to be informed. However, this KittenKoder character is the perfect example of what you encounter.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#138 Jun 24, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually agree that it included all arms, but your ignorance is showing. Gun Control Laws do not change the second amendment.
You are right,there are laws that state such exceptions to free speech. They do not change the first amendment.
The Bill Of Rights, describes the RIGHTS of the Citizenry, that can not be deprived by the government. Yet the government has, and continues to, pass laws that do just that.
You just explained perfectly how gun control laws and speech laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!! Congratulations!
no, those laws put restrictions on those rights.

the 2nd amendment had restrictions on it the day it was ratified. in no way does the 2nd amendment grant unrestricted right to own weapons.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#139 Jun 24, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
You see people? Liberals claim to be informed. However, this KittenKoder character is the perfect example of what you encounter.
yet you don't even know your own 2nd amendment rights history. why not.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#140 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no, those laws put restrictions on those rights.
the 2nd amendment had restrictions on it the day it was ratified. in no way does the 2nd amendment grant unrestricted right to own weapons.
"Shall not be infringed". Is restriction not infringement?

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#141 Jun 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yet you don't even know your own 2nd amendment rights history. why not.
Actually I do, and posted a link to such. Typical Liberal coming in on the tail end of a conversation without researching the facts of said conversation.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#142 Jun 24, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
You see people? Liberals claim to be informed. However, this KittenKoder character is the perfect example of what you encounter.
Yet, the law restricting those rights, the laws clarifying them, do exist and you denying their existence does not make them go away.

Also, I am a capitalist, not a liberal, however I take that as a compliment coming from someone as ignorant as you, considering you support stoning children.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#143 Jun 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yet, the law restricting those rights, the laws clarifying them, do exist and you denying their existence does not make them go away.

Also, I am a capitalist, not a liberal, however I take that as a compliment coming from someone as ignorant as you, considering you support stoning children.
Show where I have denied their existence! Must all liberals put words in a conservative's mouth, in order to debate? I stated that those laws are unconstitutional.

Again, show where I have supported stoning children! Bet ya can't!

Another liberal that thinks posting insults wins debates. Pathetic!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#144 Jun 24, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Show where I have denied their existence! Must all liberals put words in a conservative's mouth, in order to debate? I stated that those laws are unconstitutional.
Again, show where I have supported stoning children! Bet ya can't!
Another liberal that thinks posting insults wins debates. Pathetic!
http://www.topix.com/forum/us/TKNTFMQ70509GFA...
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong.
The rights granted in the second amendment "shall not be infringed". The definition of Infringe = to limit or undermine. What do you think gun control laws do? Limit or undermine. Therefore gun control laws ARE unconstitutional. Those laws do not change the wording or meaning of the second amendment in any way.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Texas border residents mixed over whether they ... 1 min butters_ 15
News U.S. private prison operator shares seen rising... 1 min Mikey 6
News Donald Trump Is Mentally Ill According to Petit... 2 min Thesimpletruth 9
News DHS: Trump Border 'Wall' to Cost $21.6B, Take 3... 3 min Lawrence Wolf 449
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 4 min Soetoro 1,394
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Brad 1,497,103
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Dr Guru 237,623
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 32 min Chilli J 412,784
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr Julia 258,857
More from around the web