[The Urban Sombrero]

If no liberty should be sacrificed unless it infringe upon the liberty of another (essential liberty), then, TRT, the liberty to choose a gay partner and marry him or her... what liberty of yours is infringed upon?

[TheRealThing]

����

As if the PHRASE "essential liberty" had meaning for only one man? As if the PHRASE essential liberty only applied in one letter? As if the concept of essential liberty existed in but one mind? Ridiculous.

Elections have consequences. If a person doesn't like the policies and appointments of the elected, fretting and whining isn't the democratic answer. Organizing and working in the marketplace of ideas and images to gain the hearts and minds of people before the next round of elections is the way.

Were the SCOTUS to reverse the two decisions that seem to most vex you, TRT, our debate here would remain the same, at least on the gay marriage decision.

One man coined the phrase, it is a quote attributable to one Benjamin Franklin. There is no disputing that fact, and even in today's world he has legal rights as to what that intellectual property actually means. Now 250 years after the fact, comes the liberal, blinders on and flag waving their distortions of the phrase. I told you there was no revelation so profound that you would not feel compelled to deny it, and of course you have. But you need to get busy in that marketplace of ideas because the trend of the voter since 2010, as the record proves, has been to soundly reject the policies of the La-La.

Our debate? :please: You're sticking up for sin, offering [attachment=o3509] Feelings--- nothing more than--- feelings. While I have 300 years of American history on my side, but more importantly, I have God's Word on my side. There has been no debate from you.

[The Urban Sombrero]

One man coined the phrase, it is a quote attributable to one Benjamin Franklin. There is no disputing that fact, and even in today's world he has legal rights as to what that intellectual property actually means. Now 250 years after the fact, comes the liberal, blinders on and flag waving their distortions of the phrase. I told you there was no revelation so profound that you would not feel compelled to deny it, and of course you have. But you need to get busy in that marketplace of ideas because the trend of the voter since 2010, as the record proves, has been to soundly reject the policies of the La-La.

Our debate? :please: You're sticking up for sin, offering [attachment=o3509] Feelings--- nothing more than--- feelings. While I have 300 years of American history on my side, but more importantly, I have God's Word on my side. There has been no debate from you.

i am advocating for essential liberty, and the idea that when civil government denies liberty to one group because the exercise thereof offends another group that ultimately freedom is threatened.

Again, TRT, how does gay marriage impede your exercise of liberty? It is interesting that you would claim "intellectual property" on essential liberty.

[TheRealThing]

i am advocating for essential liberty, and the idea that when civil government denies liberty to one group because the exercise thereof offends another group that ultimately freedom is threatened.

Again, TRT, how does gay marriage impede your exercise of liberty? It is interesting that you would claim "intellectual property" on essential liberty.

And thus the loop train again pulls into the station at Circleville, La-La Land. Upon your immergence as the urban sombrero, it took you all of 10 posts to bring up gay marriage. That was in the Scalia thread. And as such demonstrates your real agenda, the liberal agenda. Your intent is to push that agenda, and you only couch and conflate your liberal arguments in the words of the founders, disgracing their intellect, sacrifice and good character. You and others of your ilk errantly believe that the tactic will lend much needed credibility to what is a very dishonest social platform. I will never be deceived nor do I believe will the vast majority of Americans, as the result of past election clearly indicates.

[The Urban Sombrero]

And thus the loop train again pulls into the station at Circleville, La-La Land. Upon your immergence as the urban sombrero, it took you all of 10 posts to bring up gay marriage. That was in the Scalia thread. And as such demonstrates your real agenda, the liberal agenda. Your intent is to push that agenda, and you only couch and conflate your liberal arguments in the words of the founders, disgracing their intellect, sacrifice and good character. You and others of your ilk errantly believe that the tactic will lend much needed credibility to what is a very dishonest social platform. I will never be deceived nor do I believe will the vast majority of Americans, as the result of past election clearly indicates.

Nope, TRT, you focus on gay marriage. Because, your real focus is to enforce your belief that America was and should be a Christian nation, and somehow these people you label "liberals" are trying to shape America into their image. This is, of course, the "culture war" of Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan, et al. I am ultimately trying to avoid that land mine.

I firmly believe that Constitutional democracy American style protects the minority from the majority, and that as long as the exercise of a party's liberty does not impede the exercise of another's, that "pursuit of happiness" ought to apply.

God makes his sun to shine and his rain to fall on righteous and unrighteous, on just and unjust. In so doing, no advocacy of unrighteousness and injustice is happening. The general grace of God and the honoring of liberty and freedom of conscience are not part of the culture war in my view.

[TheRealThing]

Nope, TRT, you focus on gay marriage. Because, your real focus is to enforce your belief that America was and should be a Christian nation, and somehow these people you label "liberals" are trying to shape America into their image. This is, of course, the "culture war" of Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan, et al. I am ultimately trying to avoid that land mine.

I firmly believe that Constitutional democracy American style protects the minority from the majority, and that as long as the exercise of a party's liberty does not impede the exercise of another's, that "pursuit of happiness" ought to apply.

God makes his sun to shine and his rain to fall on righteous and unrighteous, on just and unjust. In so doing, no advocacy of unrighteousness and injustice is happening. The general grace of God and the honoring of liberty and freedom of conscience are not part of the culture war in my view.

http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/sho...ost1966412
The Urban Sombrero's 10th post on BGR, dated Feb. 14, 2016

I doubt the Framers conceived two men united in marriage. Not sure they conceived of women voting. Your "two camps" model does not do service to true debate, in my opinion.

^^Did you say this or not?



PROJECTION THEORY; "The theory views this tendency as a defense mechanism whereby unenviable or unpleasant traits, impulses or ideas are attributed to another. In this way, the projector is able to avoid the unpleasantness in themselves."

CODEPENDENCY; "a type of dysfunctional 'helping' relationship where one person supports or enables another person's drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling addiction, poor mental health, immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement."

In other words, Pewee Herman's "I know you are but what am I" rationale, meets the "let me help you be sick" syndrome.

I'm not about to help you rehabilitate your errant arguments all over again. I'm out.

[The Urban Sombrero]

http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/sho...ost1966412
The Urban Sombrero's 10th post on BGR, dated Feb. 14, 2016


^^Did you say this or not?



PROJECTION THEORY; "The theory views this tendency as a defense mechanism whereby unenviable or unpleasant traits, impulses or ideas are attributed to another. In this way, the projector is able to avoid the unpleasantness in themselves."

CODEPENDENCY; "a type of dysfunctional 'helping' relationship where one person supports or enables another person's drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling addiction, poor mental health, immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement."

In other words, Pewee Herman's "I know you are but what am I" rationale, meets the "let me help you be sick" syndrome.

I'm not about to help you rehabilitate your errant arguments all over again. I'm out.

Ah, the boxer raises his arms.

You return to original intent, as if the Framers not conceiving of something, ends debate. My point needs no rehabilitation. It, in truth, is you running from getting nailed down on your desire to limit freedom by throwing yet more and more straw about Ben Franklin and a quote parsing liberty as set against security as somehow proving something in this debate. Pathetic.

[TheRealThing]

Ah, the boxer raises his arms.

You return to original intent, as if the Framers not conceiving of something, ends debate. My point needs no rehabilitation. It, in truth, is you running from getting nailed down on your desire to limit freedom by throwing yet more and more straw about Ben Franklin and a quote parsing liberty as set against security as somehow proving something in this debate. Pathetic.

:hilarious: