muleman are you saying that Bill Clinton's actions are akin to Dennis Hastert's actions? You actually think that consensual sex between adults is as horrific as child molestation?
It should be obvious that Muleman thinks whichever one was done by a Democrat is worse. Republicans never do anything wrong.
muleman are you saying that Bill Clinton's actions are akin to Dennis Hastert's actions? You actually think that consensual sex between adults is as horrific as child molestation?
______________________________________________________________________
Please provide proof of the child molestation you claim.
I wouldn't think that to be even objectionable for a liberal. Y'all do support NAMBLA.
Bill Clinton’s infidelity, sexual harassment and assault of women is well documented.
Whatever Dennis Hastert may have or may have not done is unknown and pure speculation at this point.
Regardless, the liberals here don’t have a problem with and are supporting the attacks on people of faith.
Their lack of morals, ethics and respect for people’s faith contributes to the decline of our culture.
[Edited on 5/31/2015 by BillyBlastoff]
Newt Gingrich's track record on keepings one's marital vows is nothing to brag about, but I don't see the self righteous Republican right on his case.
They were when it mattered. His support among Republican voters and colleagues tanked. He resigned.
I thought he was cheating on his cancer stricken wife the whole time he was impeaching Clinton. And wasn't that his second wife?
http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/a/gingrichn.htm
Doesn't it matter when the person is committing the adultery? It was a matter of public record that Newt cheated on his first wife. That was the reason for the divorce.
Let's not forget the huge amount of Republican support Newt received in his 2012 bid for President.
Your statement is disingenuous. As are the majority of Republicans in office.
Newt Gingrich's track record on keepings one's marital vows is nothing to brag about, but I don't see the self righteous Republican right on his case.
They were when it mattered. His support among Republican voters and colleagues tanked. He resigned.
Because he faced censure and being expelled from the house. It didna't stop him from criticizing others after he resigned. Typical Republican, do as I say not as I do. Much like you. Alloak. 😛
Newt Gingrich's track record on keepings one's marital vows is nothing to brag about, but I don't see the self righteous Republican right on his case.
They were when it mattered. His support among Republican voters and colleagues tanked. He resigned.
Because he faced censure and being expelled from the house. It didna't stop him from criticizing others after he resigned. Typical Republican, do as I say not as I do. Much like you. Alloak. 😛
______________________________________________________________________
Not surprising but the liberals here have no problems with attacks on people’s ethics, morals and faith. They simply attack the people trying to protect them and make it a political matter.
That is exactly the problem: politics.
The liberals want big government to decide and set the rules.
i usually refrain from biting on your bullsh*t posts Mule but this time I could not resist.
So let me see if I understand what your saying here. Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us but in this case what is happening in Oklahoma is o.k because you agree with it so then it is o.k. for big government to create rules which infringe on some peoples rights to protect those you agree with?
And it is o.k to attack the gays morals because you don't agree with them?
O.K. now I understand. 
I even question if this faith based law may violate the Constitution of the United States First Amendments establishment clause. I would love to see this challenged if it does pass.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
i usually refrain from biting on your bullsh*t posts Mule but this time I could not resist.
So let me see if I understand what your saying here. Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us but in this case what is happening in Oklahoma is o.k because you agree with it so then it is o.k. for big government to create rules which infringe on some peoples rights to protect those you agree with?
And it is o.k to attack the gays morals because you don't agree with them?
O.K. now I understand.
I even question if this faith based law may violate the Constitution of the United States First Amendments establishment clause. I would love to see this challenged if it does pass.
_______________________________________________________________________
I did not say “Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us”
You inserted the word “protect” which is a gross misrepresentation.
The law passed in Oklahoma is to protect people of faith from the secular progressive from suing them for practicing their faith.
You may think that “infringes” on homosexual “rights” that do not exist. There are no “rights” based on sexual perversion.
Your “gays morals” statement is a joke. No such thing exists.
It is not a matter of “not agreeing with them”. It is a matter of protecting people of faith from prosecution for exercising their religious and constitution rights.
Misrepresenting my post is so typical of your type. A lack of ethics, faith, morals and values is exactly why you wouldn’t understand.
i usually refrain from biting on your bullsh*t posts Mule but this time I could not resist.
So let me see if I understand what your saying here. Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us but in this case what is happening in Oklahoma is o.k because you agree with it so then it is o.k. for big government to create rules which infringe on some peoples rights to protect those you agree with?
And it is o.k to attack the gays morals because you don't agree with them?
O.K. now I understand.
I even question if this faith based law may violate the Constitution of the United States First Amendments establishment clause. I would love to see this challenged if it does pass.
_______________________________________________________________________
I did not say “Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us”
You inserted the word “protect” which is a gross misrepresentation.The law passed in Oklahoma is to protect people of faith from the secular progressive from suing them for practicing their faith.
You may think that “infringes” on homosexual “rights” that do not exist. There are no “rights” based on sexual perversion.
Your “gays morals” statement is a joke. No such thing exists.
It is not a matter of “not agreeing with them”. It is a matter of protecting people of faith from prosecution for exercising their religious and constitution rights.
Misrepresenting my post is so typical of your type. A lack of ethics, faith, morals and values is exactly why you wouldn’t understand.
Have any of these so called "events" ever happened????
That is besides folks who were discriminated by the religious nutjobs, of course.
Don't recall any "progressives" suing folks for going to church.
Maybe hannity & el porko can provide evidence.
You sure as hell can't.
I find it laughable that the right can take "progress" and make it a dirty word.
i usually refrain from biting on your bullsh*t posts Mule but this time I could not resist.
So let me see if I understand what your saying here. Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us but in this case what is happening in Oklahoma is o.k because you agree with it so then it is o.k. for big government to create rules which infringe on some peoples rights to protect those you agree with?
And it is o.k to attack the gays morals because you don't agree with them?
O.K. now I understand.
I even question if this faith based law may violate the Constitution of the United States First Amendments establishment clause. I would love to see this challenged if it does pass.
_______________________________________________________________________
I did not say “Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us”
You inserted the word “protect” which is a gross misrepresentation.The law passed in Oklahoma is to protect people of faith from the secular progressive from suing them for practicing their faith.
You may think that “infringes” on homosexual “rights” that do not exist. There are no “rights” based on sexual perversion.
Your “gays morals” statement is a joke. No such thing exists.
It is not a matter of “not agreeing with them”. It is a matter of protecting people of faith from prosecution for exercising their religious and constitution rights.
Misrepresenting my post is so typical of your type. A lack of ethics, faith, morals and values is exactly why you wouldn’t understand.
I find it laughable that the right can take "progress" and make it a dirty word.
X2
History will show that they were wrong on social issues. But give them all the credit for going down swinging at progress and an unwillingness to accept anything or anyone that does not neatly fit into a narrowly defined and unenlightened mindset.
The broad judgement of others' morals & ethics as repeated in this thread by a troll only serves to reinforce the above paragraph.
i usually refrain from biting on your bullsh*t posts Mule but this time I could not resist.
So let me see if I understand what your saying here. Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us but in this case what is happening in Oklahoma is o.k because you agree with it so then it is o.k. for big government to create rules which infringe on some peoples rights to protect those you agree with?
And it is o.k to attack the gays morals because you don't agree with them?
O.K. now I understand.
I even question if this faith based law may violate the Constitution of the United States First Amendments establishment clause. I would love to see this challenged if it does pass.
_______________________________________________________________________
I did not say “Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us”
You inserted the word “protect” which is a gross misrepresentation.The law passed in Oklahoma is to protect people of faith from the secular progressive from suing them for practicing their faith.
You may think that “infringes” on homosexual “rights” that do not exist. There are no “rights” based on sexual perversion.
Your “gays morals” statement is a joke. No such thing exists.
It is not a matter of “not agreeing with them”. It is a matter of protecting people of faith from prosecution for exercising their religious and constitution rights.
Misrepresenting my post is so typical of your type. A lack of ethics, faith, morals and values is exactly why you wouldn’t understand.
I find it laughable that the right can take "progress" and make it a dirty word.
X2
History will show that they were wrong on social issues. But give them all the credit for going down swinging at progress and an unwillingness to accept anything or anyone that does not neatly fit into a narrowly defined and unenlightened mindset.
The broad judgement of others' morals & ethics as repeated in this thread by a troll only serves to reinforce the above paragraph.
Yup.
I don't understand this division of people into "secular liberals" vs "people of faith"
My wife is a regular church goer (Catholic), believes in her religious rituals, and believes in the power of prayer. She also believes that we should be kind to all, everyone should be treated the same regardless of sexual orientation, has no problem with gays getting married etc.
so what does that make her? Is her faith not good enough, or does it not count?
and, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jesus say "Love thy neighbor as thyself," and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?"
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by stormyrider]
Well, I suppose it's constitutional because only the powers of the federal government are limited by the Constitution but, sheeesh, what is the matter with these people? At first I thought this must be a parody news site, but no. Two years ago we had a Republican state representative introduce a bill that would make Christianity the official religion of North Carolina, but at least the Republican majority had the good sense to kill it.
The first sentence is not true. The Bill of Rights applies to the states as well. No way this is Constitutional.
i usually refrain from biting on your bullsh*t posts Mule but this time I could not resist.
So let me see if I understand what your saying here. Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us but in this case what is happening in Oklahoma is o.k because you agree with it so then it is o.k. for big government to create rules which infringe on some peoples rights to protect those you agree with?
And it is o.k to attack the gays morals because you don't agree with them?
O.K. now I understand.
I even question if this faith based law may violate the Constitution of the United States First Amendments establishment clause. I would love to see this challenged if it does pass.
_______________________________________________________________________
I did not say “Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us”
You inserted the word “protect” which is a gross misrepresentation.The law passed in Oklahoma is to protect people of faith from the secular progressive from suing them for practicing their faith.
You may think that “infringes” on homosexual “rights” that do not exist. There are no “rights” based on sexual perversion.
Your “gays morals” statement is a joke. No such thing exists.
It is not a matter of “not agreeing with them”. It is a matter of protecting people of faith from prosecution for exercising their religious and constitution rights.
Misrepresenting my post is so typical of your type. A lack of ethics, faith, morals and values is exactly why you wouldn’t understand.
I find it laughable that the right can take "progress" and make it a dirty word.
X2
History will show that they were wrong on social issues. But give them all the credit for going down swinging at progress and an unwillingness to accept anything or anyone that does not neatly fit into a narrowly defined and unenlightened mindset.
The broad judgement of others' morals & ethics as repeated in this thread by a troll only serves to reinforce the above paragraph.
_________________________________________________________________________
The degrading of culture, accepting an amoral society and possessing no values is not progress.
Its popularity with the liberals is understandable in their celebrity worship world and in their “its all about me” life.
The entire concept of Unit, God and Country is completely foreign to a Democrat.
i usually refrain from biting on your bullsh*t posts Mule but this time I could not resist.
So let me see if I understand what your saying here. Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us but in this case what is happening in Oklahoma is o.k because you agree with it so then it is o.k. for big government to create rules which infringe on some peoples rights to protect those you agree with?
And it is o.k to attack the gays morals because you don't agree with them?
O.K. now I understand.
I even question if this faith based law may violate the Constitution of the United States First Amendments establishment clause. I would love to see this challenged if it does pass.
_______________________________________________________________________
I did not say “Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us”
You inserted the word “protect” which is a gross misrepresentation.The law passed in Oklahoma is to protect people of faith from the secular progressive from suing them for practicing their faith.
You may think that “infringes” on homosexual “rights” that do not exist. There are no “rights” based on sexual perversion.
Your “gays morals” statement is a joke. No such thing exists.
It is not a matter of “not agreeing with them”. It is a matter of protecting people of faith from prosecution for exercising their religious and constitution rights.
Misrepresenting my post is so typical of your type. A lack of ethics, faith, morals and values is exactly why you wouldn’t understand.
I find it laughable that the right can take "progress" and make it a dirty word.
X2
History will show that they were wrong on social issues. But give them all the credit for going down swinging at progress and an unwillingness to accept anything or anyone that does not neatly fit into a narrowly defined and unenlightened mindset.
The broad judgement of others' morals & ethics as repeated in this thread by a troll only serves to reinforce the above paragraph.
_________________________________________________________________________
The degrading of culture, accepting an amoral society and possessing no values is not progress.
Its popularity with the liberals is understandable in their celebrity worship world and in their “its all about me” life.The entire concept of Unit, God and Country is completely foreign to a Democrat.
Liberals are "all about me?" Then why are they more willing to pay a little more in taxes to help those more disadvantaged? Why are most straight liberals all for offering equal rights to gays even though it doesn't affect their life at all? Why are most liberals for religious equality where every religion gets to worship they way they want to as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others that may have different beliefs? I could go on and on, but obviously you are too deranged to understand what not being selfish is all about.
i usually refrain from biting on your bullsh*t posts Mule but this time I could not resist.
So let me see if I understand what your saying here. Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us but in this case what is happening in Oklahoma is o.k because you agree with it so then it is o.k. for big government to create rules which infringe on some peoples rights to protect those you agree with?
And it is o.k to attack the gays morals because you don't agree with them?
O.K. now I understand.
I even question if this faith based law may violate the Constitution of the United States First Amendments establishment clause. I would love to see this challenged if it does pass.
_______________________________________________________________________
I did not say “Liberals want big government to make the rules to protect us”
You inserted the word “protect” which is a gross misrepresentation.The law passed in Oklahoma is to protect people of faith from the secular progressive from suing them for practicing their faith.
You may think that “infringes” on homosexual “rights” that do not exist. There are no “rights” based on sexual perversion.
Your “gays morals” statement is a joke. No such thing exists.
It is not a matter of “not agreeing with them”. It is a matter of protecting people of faith from prosecution for exercising their religious and constitution rights.
Misrepresenting my post is so typical of your type. A lack of ethics, faith, morals and values is exactly why you wouldn’t understand.
I find it laughable that the right can take "progress" and make it a dirty word.
X2
History will show that they were wrong on social issues. But give them all the credit for going down swinging at progress and an unwillingness to accept anything or anyone that does not neatly fit into a narrowly defined and unenlightened mindset.
The broad judgement of others' morals & ethics as repeated in this thread by a troll only serves to reinforce the above paragraph.
_________________________________________________________________________
The degrading of culture, accepting an amoral society and possessing no values is not progress.
Its popularity with the liberals is understandable in their celebrity worship world and in their “its all about me” life.The entire concept of Unit, God and Country is completely foreign to a Democrat.
Liberals are "all about me?" Then why are they more willing to pay a little more in taxes to help those more disadvantaged? Why are most straight liberals all for offering equal rights to gays even though it doesn't affect their life at all? Why are most liberals for religious equality where every religion gets to worship they way they want to as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others that may have different beliefs? I could go on and on, but obviously you are too deranged to understand what not being selfish is all about.
______________________________________________________________________
Yea, as long as their religious beliefs can be ignored when it is convenient.
The government can and should create laws to protect people from being prosecuted for practicing their faith.
Using gay and morals in the same sentence is a contradiction in terms.
“willing to pay a little more in taxes to help those more disadvantaged”
And how is that working out for the people? After 50 years of entitlements there are more poor people, the public schools are a failure and black people are being slaughtered by their own people at an epidemic rate.
Good job liberals, keep throwing away working people’s money and failing to accomplish you stated intent.
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by Muleman1994]
