Duck Dynasty
Forums › General Discussion › Duck Dynasty-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Have you ever noticed that most of what you do is fixate on minutae and deflect rather than face the substance of people's comments? Why is that? I know why, I'm just wondering if you do.★fnord★ wrote:
Can't even get the quote right.ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Because direct democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what's for dinner. Also it seems a bit redundant to hold a popular vote on whether or not we should follow the Constitution.★fnord★ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote: ✂️
✂️53% support their right to marry and it's trending upward:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/sex-marriage-support-solidifies-above.aspxThen why not let the people decide instead of the courts?
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote: ✂️their unsupport of this "gay gene" because the science even denies it.
There certainly is not a religious gene. There is a part of all of our brains that stimulates our pleasure centers when contemplating 'the big question', it's just that some of us prefer to keep it an open question. Others, sadly, revert to the deeply-ingrained fear of 'the other' which once served an evolutionary purpose but now just makes one into a closed-minded, self-righteous and reactionary boor.
I never mentioned a gay gene. Science has known for at least a decade that it's not an on/off switch, but rather a continuum determined not by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental. We are certain that sexual identity is baked into the cake long before puberty. That's why you should remember that when you condemn gays to being akin to the worst kind of criminals (pedophiles), you are often attacking mere children. -
@ Fnord,
You twist context to support your argument. You make wild statements and back them with partial statements and half truths. If you didn't twist actual researchable facts then you wouldn't have anything to hide your opinion behind. The last fourteen pages of comments are filled with your opinion rooted in partial statements or made up biblical or constitutional assertions. Love that you would take a pro 2nd A/ Liberty quote and twist it to fit your argument supporting your popular vote, leftist opinion. You don't like to deal with actual facts because facts work against your arguments. So continue to inaccurately quote and site history the way you wish it was. -
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
You speak of "actual facts" yet your side has yet to give any. All you give are bible quotes which hold no grounds in this argument. Science and real world events are the only things that can be used in this debate to say yes to equal rights or no. Surprisingly enough, both support equality. The only thing that says its wrong or that it shouldn't be done is fairy tale stories. Why is that? Our side uses facts, your side uses opinions tainted by man made religion. And you call us the bigoted evil hate filled ones? Hmmmm@ Fnord,
Oh and under tow. If you are going to fling accusations out way. Make sure that your side hasn't done those things in the past first. Just saying.... It looks kinda funny seeing you accuse our side of "twisting quotes" to suit our needs. Not give "researchable facts" to back up claims. Really? Where are yours? -
Michigan is next. Fed courts will be looking at their marriage ban in Febuary. Dominoes are falling and there's nothing you can do Phil. :)
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
You've memorized Harry's lakeside soliloquy from Dumb and Dumber, good for you.@ Fnord,
You twist context to support your argument. You make wild statements and back them with partial statements and half truths. If you didn't twist actual researchable facts then you wouldn't have anything to hide your opinion behind. The last fourteen pages of comments are filled with your opinion rooted in partial statements or made up biblical or constitutional assertions. Love that you would take a pro 2nd A/ Liberty quote and twist it to fit your argument supporting your popular vote, leftist opinion. You don't like to deal with actual facts because facts work against your arguments. So continue to inaccurately quote and site history the way you wish it was. -
Every country and now state that has granted equality is still alive. The sky is still up, no burning brim stone raining down. Sisters aren't marrying fathers, or sons and mothers, or horses and men, or geese and dogs. Everything stayed the same. Crazy I know, you were hopping for the apocalypse and all. Straight people don't feel their marriage is any less. In fact, they don't care 😱. Why? Because why would they? They live their lives, we live ours. Everyone is happy.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Lol I knew it was coming but damn, didn't think it would happen this fast. Country wide equality by end of 2014?Michigan is next. Fed courts will be looking at their marriage ban in Febuary. Dominoes are falling and there's nothing you can do Phil. :)
-
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
My side? Bible quotes? Where I have I given bible quotes? I'm amazed at your generalization. only side I have take is against Fnords and Addi's endless ability to create "facts", twist quotes and misrepresent the research able ones. By pointing that out I get lumped in with someone else's arguments? Typical. Unlike Fnord and Addi, I'm not making statements that fictitiously twisting history or the constitution. Fnord, wheres the article and paragraph that spells out a seperation of C&S in the constitution.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
You speak of "actual facts" yet your side has yet to give any. All you give are bible quotes, your side, And you call usMake sure that your side, It looks kinda funny seeing you accuse our side of "twisting quotes" to suit our needs. Not give "researchable facts" to back up claims. Really? Where are yours?@ Fnord,
-
★fnord★ wrote:
You're so obtuse.........BwwhahahhahahahahahaÙℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
You've memorized Harry's lakeside soliloquy from Dumb and Dumber, good for you.@ Fnord,
You twist context to support your argument. You make wild statements and back them with partial statements and half truths. If you didn't twist actual researchable facts then you wouldn't have anything to hide your opinion behind. The last fourteen pages of comments are filled with your opinion rooted in partial statements or made up biblical or constitutional assertions. Love that you would take a pro 2nd A/ Liberty quote and twist it to fit your argument supporting your popular vote, leftist opinion. You don't like to deal with actual facts because facts work against your arguments. So continue to inaccurately quote and site history the way you wish it was. -
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Noise! Noise! Nothing but noise! You admit you have no dog in this fight yet here you are, making noise. Little yappy dog, go lay down!〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
My side? Bible quotes? Where I have I given bible quotes? I'm amazed at your generalization. only side I have take is against Fnords and Addi's endless ability to create "facts", twist quotes and misrepresent the research able ones. By pointing that out I get lumped in with someone else's arguments? Typical. Unlike Fnord and Addi, I'm not making statements that fictitiously twisting history or the constitution. Fnord, wheres the article and paragraph that spells out a seperation of C&S in the constitution.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
You speak of "actual facts" yet your side has yet to give any. All you give are bible quotes, your side, And@ Fnord,
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Michigan is next. Fed courts will be looking at their marriage ban in Febuary. Dominoes are falling and there's nothing you can do Phil. :)
Let's not listen to the people, just disregard their voice. Nothing to see here.....
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Yeah, that pesky constitution. Won't let us vote away people's rights.Ojibwe wrote:
Michigan is next. Fed courts will be looking at their marriage ban in Febuary. Dominoes are falling and there's nothing you can do Phil. :)
Let's not listen to the people, just disregard their voice. Nothing to see here.....
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote: ✂️Fnord, wheres the article and paragraph that spells out a seperation of C&S in the constitution.
US Constitution
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
Notice that there are two separate edicts, indicated by the word 'or'. Also notice which one of these appears first. The initial one clearly states that any legislation that establishes an article of faith as law is unconstitutional. The following one clearly states that any law prohibiting an individual from practicing their faith is likewise unconstitutional. Separating the state from religious influence and the religious individual from state influence. James Madison, the author of this, was quite clear that his intention was exactly as I describe it. I eagerly await your well-reasoned factually and historically accurate rebuttal. -
Ojibwe wrote:
Real rich coming from someone with the megaphone who stands behind everyone else's comments and just piles on with you "yeah, yeah, so there!!" comments. Lol. You've turned this original post into a topic it was never about.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Noise! Noise! Nothing but noise! You admit you have no dog in this fight yet here you are, making noise. Little yappy dog, go lay down!〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
My side? Bible quotes? Where I have I given bible quotes? I'm amazed at your generalization. only side I have take is against Fnords and Addi's endless ability to create "facts", twist quotes and misrepresent the research able ones. Fnord, wheres the article and paragraph that spells out a seperation of C&S in the constitution.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
@ Fnord,
-
Worst decision ever
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Are you telling me the Bill of Rights - IS - the Constitution ? They are amendments. You site amendments but no paragraph or article in the constitution. FAIL! Your statement is inaccurate if you claim a separation of C&S is in the Constitution.Look it up. You are wrong.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote: ✂️Fnord, wheres the article and paragraph that spells out a seperation of C&S in the constitution.
US Constitution
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... I eagerly await your well-reasoned factually and historically accurate rebuttal. -
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Holy crap! An amendment to the Constituion carries the same weight of law as the constitution. Go study up in civics.★fnord★ wrote:
Are you telling me the Bill of Rights - IS - the Constitution ? They are amendments. You site amendments but no paragraph or article in the constitution. FAIL! Your statement is inaccurate if you claim a separation of C&S is in the Constitution.Look it up. You are wrong.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote: ✂️Fnord, wheres the article and paragraph that spells out a seperation of C&S in the constitution.
US Constitution
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... I eagerly await your well-reasoned factually and historically accurate rebuttal. -
Oarsman wrote:
Study up son http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html?ModPagespeed=noscriptÙℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Holy crap! An amendment to the Constituion carries the same weight of law as the constitution. Go study up in civics.★fnord★ wrote:
FAIL! Your statement is inaccurate if you claim a separation of C&S is in the Constitution.Look it up. You are wrong.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote: ✂️Fnord, wheres the article and paragraph that spells out a seperation of C&S in the constitution.
US Constitution
Amendment I
I eagerly await your well-reasoned factually and historically accurate rebuttal. -
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
What does that say about amendments to the Constituion. Does it say the government or private citizens can ignore the amendments? Because if it does you should reconsider where you get your " facts."Oarsman wrote:
Study up son http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html?ModPagespeed=noscriptÙℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Holy crap! An amendment to the Constituion carries the same weight of law as the constitution. Go study up in civics.★fnord★ wrote:
FAIL! Your statement is inaccurate if you claim a separation of C&S is in the Constitution.Look it up. You are wrong.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
US Constitution
Amendment I -
Oarsman wrote:
Keep studyingÙℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
What does that say about amendments to the Constituion. Does it say the government or private citizens can ignore the amendments? Because if it does you should reconsider where you get your " facts."Oarsman wrote:
Study up son http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html?ModPagespeed=noscriptÙℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Holy crap! An amendment to the Constituion carries the same weight of law as the constitution. Go study up in civics.★fnord★ wrote:
FAIL! Your statement is inaccurate if you claim a separation of C&S is in the Constitution.Look it up. You are wrong.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
US Constitution
Amendment I -
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
-
YOU wrote:
That come from the national archives website. www.archives.gov.A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
Sorry pal. Amendments to the constitution become part of the constitution once they are ratified. Last I checked the Bill of Rights has been ratified.
Let me know if you find a "source" that says otherwise.
-
Oarsman wrote:
Wow, another deviation of context and the original topic point. Read what was fnord claims is in the constitution and my reply. I think you didn't read back, hence your confusion.YOU wrote:
This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
Let me know if you find a "source" that says otherwise.
Check it out
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html?ModPagespeed=noscript
-
Nit picky BS. "The first amendment is not part of the constitution because it is part of the amendments to the constitution." Noise, just more noise. It doesn't add to the conversation one iota. Just undertow playing games with semantics. Keep yap yap yapping and tell yourself you're winning.
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote: Study up son http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html?ModPagespeed=noscript
You should take another look at that link...
"There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that there is a wall of separation between religion and government. The Wall, however, is a nice shorthand metaphor for non-establishment."Let me translate that for you:
The exact words, "Wall of separation of church and state" do not appear, HOWEVER the concept of it is laid out in a way that it might as well say that.Your claim that amendments are not part of the constitution is ludicrous. At the top of the Bill of Rights, IN THE CONSTITUTION, it states that amendments modify and expand the constitution and becoming a part of it. You are clearly and demonstrably a willfully misinformed fool who has no interest in the truth. You contribute absolutely nothing to this conversation other than being an object of ridicule. It's fucking pathetic.
-
"RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz."
-
Ojibwe wrote:
It's funny how those semantics are stubern facts. Non of which you can site to form your opinion because your opinion I based on things like media talking points, clever water cooler comments and guilty feelings. Non of which establish fact.Nit picky BS. "The first amendment is not part of the constitution because it is part of the amendments to the constitution." Noise, just more noise. It doesn't add to the conversation one iota. Just undertow playing games with semantics. Keep yap yap yapping and tell yourself you're winning.
-
Undertow.
Are you still suggesting that the 1st amendment is not part of the constitution?
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
For someone who bases their argument on faith, you sure are hung up on facts.Ojibwe wrote:
It's funny how those semantics are stubern facts. Non of which you can site to form your opinion because your opinion I based on things like media talking points, clever water cooler comments and guilty feelings. Non of which establish fact.Nit picky BS. "The first amendment is not part of the constitution because it is part of the amendments to the constitution." Noise, just more noise. It doesn't add to the conversation one iota. Just undertow playing games with semantics. Keep yap yap yapping and tell yourself you're winning.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC