Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Carolina in 2010?

waco1954 wrote:

<quoted text> Yes...by reducing their credit rating.

How so?

The Enemy Within wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks Bacon, I don't know how sharp I am but I do pay attention to what business man like Robert have to say. The knowledge and experience he and others like him have to offer cannot be taught in any books Seven has the luxury of reading today.

So books are not written by business people?

Why do republicans hate book learning?

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>That does not answer the question.
Why someone should have civil rights have nothing to do with the question of putting that to a popular vote.
BTW even prisoners have the civil right to marry. As long as it is to the opposite sex. At least in this state.

Civil marriage is not a civil right, it is a privelege granted by the state. That's why you have to buy a license.

The Enemy Within wrote:

<quoted text>
Homophobe??
I don't fear gays. I just chose not to participate in their lifestyle choice.

Who is asking you to do so? But why vote to restrict their state recognition?
Clearly anyone who voted for amendment one fears something about gays marrying.

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>Civil marriage is not a civil right, it is a privelege granted by the state. That's why you have to buy a license.

Whatever helps you to sleep at night, bigot.

Robert, I knew that you would not directly answer the question about putting Civil rights of minorites to a vote in the 1960's. You know that it would have been soundly defeated and a great injustice would have been committed. Just as today, the rights of gays cannot be determined by a popular vote. A great injustice was perpetuated on this group by Amendment One. It will eventually be repealed, and generations to come will look back and say, "It still looks like prejudice and hate was still running rampant in 2012." You can't be for freedom and justice when you deny any group the full right of privlidges. It is just a lip service to all Amendment One 'yes' voters. Do you have any homosexuals in your family? My brother and his partner of 20 years exhibit more love for each other than any heterosexual couple that I know? Is that love wrong, and should they be denied marriage in the name of that love? I don't expect an answer because you really can't put up a solid defense against it, but I will give you the opportunity to try. Please remember in your response that The Constitution is the basis of government in this nation, and Not the Bible.

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>Civil marriage is not a civil right, it is a privelege granted by the state. That's why you have to buy a license.

So, it appears you are confusing a Driver's License to a human right. Is it a a right or a privilidge for those who disolve their marriage in divorce?

Robert and all consevatives, Please explain the meaning of these words from your perspective of voting 'yes' and supporting Amendment One.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, and that they are endowed by creator with certain inalienable rights; That among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"

Please explain to me how a 'Yes' vote on Amendment One accomplished this noble purpose.

Richard Burr

Stowe it is spelled "privilege".You mangled it also A.Z. WHERE DID YOU LOSERS GO TO SCHOOL?:) I went to the University of GED.

waco1954 wrote:

Stowe it is spelled "privilege".You mangled it also A.Z. WHERE DID YOU LOSERS GO TO SCHOOL?:) I went to the University of GED.

Sorry, typo.

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Alright cat-woman,
Let me ask you this. Are you telling us an act between a person 60 years old and another one 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes is a crime and one minute later it is not?
Since you are falling back on the legal debate, in many states some homosexuals acts are ILLEGAL. Are you asking us to observe some laws and not others? Who gets to make this choice? You? The gays? The Federal Government?

Yes, it is a crime. If they were so stupid as to not be able to wait that 1 minute they deserve it. Besides, if this purported couple were about to have sex 1 minute before an 18th birthday, then they were doing it before when the youngster was even younger. You are making a POOR attempt at twisting my words. My discussion dealt with acts participated in by 2 consenting adults and not with some moral judgement of what "homosexual acts" are on the books as being illegal. Those places where "some homosexual acts" are illegal are not illegal only for homosexuals but for heterosexuals also. And, if those who wish to participate in those acts are both consenting adults, then the law is wrong not the participants. Where ANY sexual act takes place where one of the partners is not consenting or is too young to understand consenting, then it should be illegal. Besides, what is your definition of "homosexual acts"? If you are talking about oral sex, etc. is it only homosexual when it is performed by same sex partners and is it not a homosexual act if it's performed by opposite sex partners?

BTW "The Truth" Here is a little bit of truth for you to digest. Also, most sodomy laws included oral sex.

Sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were historically universal. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex[citation needed], many statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes as well, sometimes even acts between married persons.

Through the 20th century, the gradual liberalization of American sexual mores led to the elimination of sodomy laws in most states. During this time, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining fourteen states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia).

waco1954 wrote:

Stowe it is spelled "privilege".You mangled it also A.Z. WHERE DID YOU LOSERS GO TO SCHOOL?:) I went to the University of GED.

I told you. I graduated from Jim Crow Senior High. I looked it up in the George Washington Carver Share Cropping Dictionary, and in ebonics , it is spelled the way I spelled it. You have to understand that until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, we had never had any of it, therefore we used it very infrequently, thus the misspelling of the word. LOL

The same old risky behavior that got us into the last bailout which cost US taxpayers more money than over three consecutive years of all social programs combined. No, he didn't have to answer to me and the SOB is lucky in that respect. But I and all other taxpayers sure as hell were forced to go farther in debt to finance his bailouts. Republican cockroaches want to squeeze the middle class so they can give bailouts to the bankers , more tax breaks to the rich and no regulation of their scams..

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>The name is Dimon and he will have to answer to the stockholders, not to you or the moronic bureaucrats masquerading as intelligent regulators.

Stowe...AZ...just messing with you guys. :)

Aybody still alive from the fabulous 50's and the gang from around the frozen delight?

TSF wrote:

The same old risky behavior that got us into the last bailout which cost US taxpayers more money than over three consecutive years of all social programs combined. No, he didn't have to answer to me and the SOB is lucky in that respect. But I and all other taxpayers sure as hell were forced to go farther in debt to finance his bailouts. Republican cockroaches want to squeeze the middle class so they can give bailouts to the bankers , more tax breaks to the rich and no regulation of their scams..
<quoted text>

You simpleton! Morgan Chase repaid every cent of their TARP money plus interest as did most every other financial institution. The only TARP recipient that still owes money is GM which was the payoff to Obama's union thug supporters.

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

Robert and all consevatives, Please explain the meaning of these words from your perspective of voting 'yes' and supporting Amendment One.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, and that they are endowed by creator with certain inalienable rights; That among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"
Please explain to me how a 'Yes' vote on Amendment One accomplished this noble purpose.

Robert, You have a genuine talent for avoiding direct questions asked to you.

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
Robert, You have a genuine talent for avoiding direct questions asked to you.

A society has the right to set standards for itself. Most of those who voted for Amendment 1 believe that gay marriage damages the traditonal family structure and in turn threatens the whole of society. Does that answer your question, Arnold?