Who would you vote for the Republican ticket? (no left winger)

[Prefontaine]

well then when and where did you read this bill which you keep bringing up? and if you had read it prior to speaking about it why would you need to review it for new quotes to take from it? well........................

 

[UncleBuck]

all this talk of HR 7955 and he admits to having never read it. woo hoo you guys are sure smart

should i publish your PMs as well?

how about the one where you claim the line we are arguing about was taken out of context, while admitting that you have never read the full text?

question for you: how is it even possible to tell if something was taken out of context, hen you don't have the context?



have fun answering that one.

 

[UncleBuck]

well then when and where did you read this bill which you keep bringing up? and if you had read it prior to speaking about it why would you need to review it for new quotes to take from it? well........................

google "hr 7955 ron paul"

a few websites all have the exact same fucking text.

that's how i know.

 

[Prefontaine]

a know, publishing ll my PMs is extremely bad etiquette, but i would expect nothing less from a loser like you.

have a good day, asshat.
Re: .
Originally Posted by Prefontaine
actually it was taken out of context, you see if it wasnt take out of context it would have been more than a one sentence quote/summary, but i guess you wouldnt see that, especially since your one of these communists that think the government has the right to mandate that everyone buys a product, guess you wouldnt support things like shriner hospitals and free clinics etc that provide at cost and low cost healthcare, or maybe actually shoulder your own burden and get a job where you can afford your wifes health care, but i guess thats too much to ask of you, so lets just force everyone else to pay for you.
your'e telling me what i should do? i thought you were against that type of thing.

and my wife pays for her own insurance, for your edification.

and i do support free clinics and other charitable organizations. but i don't support someone with the means to insure themselves not doing so and then piling the costs onto everyone else, as so often happens.

if i am a communist for supporting the individual mandate, take it up with the heritage foundation, a prominent far-right group. they are the ones who came up with the idea in 1989. i know, that was probably before your time. you strike me as an 18 year old, if that.

the quote from hr 7955 stands. ron paul does not support the idea that the gay lifestyle is acceptable. nothing in the rest of the bill can change what he said in that one line or even mitigate it. in fact, i am looking forward to all the other goodies in that bill, as it was called the 'family protection act'. gotta protect those families fro wild packs of barbarian gays who wish them harm. LOL!


EXCEPT THEAT YOU ARE MISQUOTING THE BILL, AND THE FEDERAL INTERVENTIONS ARE WHAT HAVE CLOSED MOST OF THE CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDED THAT FREE AND AT COST HEALTHCARE YOU CLAIM TO SUPPORT,

 

[Prefontaine]

google "hr 7955 ron paul"

a few websites all have the exact same fucking text.

That's how i know.

once again you state that you rely on the misinformation of others rather than thinking for yourself.

 

[Prefontaine]

Hey uncle buck notice how quick duke anthony and your other cronies got out when they saw the water heating up, yeah its because your lot are to lazy to research for yourself

 

[UncleBuck]

ya know, pefonataine, you have to be at least 18 years old to use this site.

 

[Prefontaine]

should i publish your pms as well?

How about the one where you claim the line we are arguing about was taken out of context, while admitting that you have never read the full text?

Question for you: How is it even possible to tell if something was taken out of context, hen you don't have the context?




Have fun answering that one.

how is it even possible for you to come to such a steadfast opinion on a bill youve never read just cause thats the opinion that was expressed when you googled it.

Oh and yeah publish my pms, i was hoping i could publish the whole conversation to drag your face in your own shit so to speak, but *shrug

also its interesting that out of all the bills ron paul has presented you just keep returning to one sentence, which doesnt back up your claim unless you misquote it.

 

[UncleBuck]

how is it even possible for you to come to such a steadfast opinion on a bill youve never read just cause thats the opinion that was expressed when you googled it.

Oh and yeah publish my pms, i was hoping i could publish the whole conversation to drag your face in your own shit so to speak, but *shrug

also its interesting that out of all the bills ron paul has presented you just keep returning to one sentence, which doesnt back up your claim unless you misquote it.

how am i misquoting anything?

ron paul wrote a bill that singles out gays as having an unacceptable lifestyle. it is straightforward, in black and white.

no matter what is in the rest of the "family protection act", aka HR 7955, he made sure to include that it is OK to teach anti-gay stuff and receive federal funding for it, but not so for teaching that being gay is an acceptable lifestyle.

notice how i "liked" all the private messages you posted? that is because they make you look foolish.

and for your edification, you can post the entire exchange simply by taking screenshots or clicking "reply with quote" each time.

fucking amateur.

 

[Prefontaine]

Originally Posted by Prefontaine
“Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.”

YOU SEE IT SAYS PROHIBITS THE FEDERAL FUNDS FROM FUNDING ORGANIZATION THAT PRESENT MALE OR FEMALE HOMOSEXUALITY AND ACCEPTABLE OR THAT SUGGEST IT AS AN ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE,

SINCE WHEN IS IT THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO FUND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS WHICH USE THOSE FUND TO PROMOTE RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL IDEAS?
if ron paul wanted to exclude the government from providing funding to promote ALL religious/political ideas, why did he not write it that way?

why did he single out only teaching that homosexuality can be an acceptable lifestyle?

riddle me that, junior.

protip: the caps lock does not make your pathetic case any stronger.




response:
because most bills are written in response to a single issue, when that single issue involves a greater trend, like government overstepping its role in our society, then your stance on that individual issue must reflect your overall stance otherwise you are a hypocrite like OBAMA,

OH AND A PROTIP: IF YOU CAPITALIZE IT DRAWS THE READERS ATTENTION TO THAT SPECIFIC TEXT. which can be very effective in making a point,

also why do you single out only one bill in a stream of bills, one of which specified that the federal government should not fund the adoption of children for either gay or straight couples, or when he publicly stated that gays in the military should be treated just as any other soldier, or any of the many other points i have made, which you didnt read just like you didnt read the bill your stuck on, now if you where making points about ron pauls many other legislative contributions then you would be providing an actual basis for argument but as is you are simply regurgitating what you heard about a single bill , one of many that reflects a trend in ron pauls votes to limit federal interfference and you are twisting it out of context because you are to lazy to go and find any real argument of your own.

thats called BITCH SLAP, BITCH oh and if i was 18 id have better ways to spend a sautrday afternoon than schooling some dumbass online

 

[hazyintentions]

how is it even possible for you to come to such a steadfast opinion on a bill youve never read just cause thats the opinion that was expressed when you googled it.

Oh and yeah publish my pms, i was hoping i could publish the whole conversation to drag your face in your own shit so to speak, but *shrug

also its interesting that out of all the bills ron paul has presented you just keep returning to one sentence, which doesnt back up your claim unless you misquote it.

Hey, how about I go and google every bill Obama ever was part of, introduced, or signed and pull out all the parts of it that cast Obama in a harmful, controversial or otherwise negative light ?

I'm sure you'd love that right UB?

 

[UncleBuck]

Hey, how about I go and google every bill Obama ever was part of, introduced, or signed and pull out all the parts of it that cast Obama in a harmful, controversial or otherwise negative light ?

I'm sure you'd love that right UB?

go for it, chief. obama is not on trial here. this is about ron paul and his "gays are unacceptable" bill.

trying to change the subject would be like you saying "i give up".

i take this as meaning you have given up defending this particular gay bashing legislation introduced by the old turtle fucker.

 

[UncleBuck]

i am a 17 year old neo-nazi

i'm glad you finally figured it out, chief.

you do need to be older than 18 to be a member, though.

 

[Prefontaine]

Originally Posted by Prefontaine
because most bills are written in response to a single issue, when that single issue involves a greater trend, like government overstepping its role in our society, then your stance on that individual issue must reflect your overall stance otherwise you are a hypocrite like OBAMA,

OH AND A PROTIP: IF YOU CAPITALIZE IT DRAWS THE READERS ATTENTION TO THAT SPECIFIC TEXT. which can be very effective in making a point,

also why do you single out only one bill in a stream of bills, one of which specified that the federal government should not fund the adoption of children for either gay or straight couples, or when he publicly stated that gays in the military should be treated just as any other soldier, or any of the many other points i have made, which you didnt read just like you didnt read the bill your stuck on, now if you where making points about ron pauls many other legislative contributions then you would be providing an actual basis for argument but as is you are simply regurgitating what you heard about a single bill , one of many that reflects a trend in ron pauls votes to limit federal interfference and you are twisting it out of context because you are to lazy to go and find any real argument of your own.

thats called BITCH SLAP, BITCH oh and if i was 18 id have better ways to spend a sautrday afternoon than schooling some dumbass online
ron paul only cares about keeping the federal government from interfering when they might fund an organization that teaches that being gay is acceptable. that's what he wrote into the bill.

and again, asserting that you have won the argument is a good indicator that you have done anything but

keep flailing. this is amusing. i'm going to get some more beer and enjoy a few more laughs at your expense.

 

[Prefontaine]

go for it, chief. obama is not on trial here. this is about ron paul and his "gays are unacceptable" bill.

trying to change the subject would be like you saying "i give up".

i take this as meaning you have given up defending this particular gay bashing legislation introduced by the old turtle fucker.

once again your talking about a bill you never read, have admitted to never reading,

 

[Prefontaine]

i'm glad you finally figured it out, chief.

you do need to be older than 18 to be a member, though.

oh look unclebuck gets so mad when you prove him wrong he has to resort to flat out defamation of character and slander

 

[Prefontaine]

how am i misquoting anything?

ron paul wrote a bill that singles out gays as having an unacceptable lifestyle. it is straightforward, in black and white.

no matter what is in the rest of the "family protection act", aka HR 7955, he made sure to include that it is OK to teach anti-gay stuff and receive federal funding for it, but not so for teaching that being gay is an acceptable lifestyle.

notice how i "liked" all the private messages you posted? that is because they make you look foolish.

and for your edification, you can post the entire exchange simply by taking screenshots or clicking "reply with quote" each time.

fucking amateur.

the bill specifically prevents the federal government from funding groups which would use that money to further religious/political views, you see when the government uses money to further the goals of any group, it is infringing on the rights of the tax payers.

you cant make me buy health insurance and you cant make me pay for TV adds that promote your lifestyle.

 

[Carthoris]

I am pointing out that he says a lot of shit like like the stuff here. If you were one of his contemporaries, hearing him speak must be an exercise in patience. I can easily grasp how you some may not understand this, it requires some degree of objectivity.

Exactly what, in that list of things, is wrong?

 

[UncleBuck]

the bill specifically prevents the federal government from funding groups which would use that money to further religious/political views, you see when the government uses money to further the goals of any group, it is infringing on the rights of the tax payers.

if he is against fed funding for ALL furthering of religious/political views, then why did he only include one side and not the other?

why did he make sure to say that fed funds can't go to groups that teach that being gay is acceptable, but not groups that teach that being gay is unacceptable?

do you not get this simple precept?

you cant make me buy health insurance and you cant make me pay for TV adds that promote your lifestyle.

so when you visit the ER and can't foot the enormous bill, i guess you'll just shove your costs onto the rest of society.

jerk.

 

[Prefontaine]

if he is against fed funding for ALL furthering of religious/political views, then why did he only include one side and not the other?

why did he make sure to say that fed funds can't go to groups that teach that being gay is acceptable, but not groups that teach that being gay is unacceptable?

do you not get this simple precept?





so when you visit the ER and can't foot the enormous bill, i guess you'll just shove your costs onto the rest of society.

jerk.

first id like to bring your attention to the fact that you are continuing to argue based on a bill which you have not read, ever and are using that one bill as your entire platform, you deserve a "special" hat, oh and when i need medical attention and ron paul is president ill be able to go to one of the many free clinics or shriner hospitals that will pop up when government regulations no longer prevent those facilities from being available, and in fact ill probably be treated by a young ron paul working for near volunteer wages, to help his community.