Oh **** you Kansas`

[molly bloom]

If you're flattered you're doubly stupid. We they communists or not?

You must be triply stupid to imagine I 'd be flattered by your pale imitation. You might want to check that elephantine ego in at the front desk...

[molly bloom]

trolls aren't nearly as entertaining when you respond to them

Sava, I've once before picked you up on the 'inbred islanders' routine you do.

I find your baiting of knee-jerk conservatives genuinely amusing, but a poor troll is a poor troll. A good troll has a nugget of truth in it, like sweetcorn in your poop.

[molly bloom]

Re: What's the Matter with Kansas?, I haven't read it, but I have run into the standard conservative retort: when wealthy liberals choose their values over their economic self-interest, it's considered admirable. When poor conservatives choose their values over their economic self-interest, they clearly must be idiotic dupes being led by the nose. They couldn't possibly decide for themselves what's most important to them, after all.

So they say. Maybe the book anticipates and addresses this point though, IDK.

I think you would enjoy the book- well written and amusing and informative- who could ask for anything more ?

[MrFun]

Anyway, with Tennessee and Idaho now aping Kansas in looking to pass similar state-sanctioned bigotry laws, why only single out gay people when just about everyone is a sinner in one way or another?

Let's enact state-sanctioned discrimination against all types of sinners (100 percent of state's population).

[Sava]

aping? more like gaping

AMIRITE?!? LOOOL

[MrFun]

Seriously. If the principle of this whole bigoted nonsense is so-called "religious freedom," why not enact anti-sinner laws in states and not just anti-gay laws?

If a police officer wants to refuse to provide necessary service to someone that he knows is a sinner in some way (eats shellfish, wears clothing of mixed fibers, works on Sabbath, or something else) the police officer should be able to exercise his "religious freedom."

[Ben Kenobi]

This blog/article makes the argument that Kansas's new bill, if passed and signed, will become the next-generation Jim Crow example of state-sanctioned bigotry.

Right. Protecting religious freedom is equivalent to Jim Crow. In actuality, we are already seeing Jim Crow laws stripping Christians of their religious protections with nary a word from you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Seriously. If the principle of this whole bigoted nonsense is so-called "religious freedom," why not enact anti-sinner laws in states and not just anti-gay laws?

If a police officer wants to refuse to provide necessary service to someone that he knows is a sinner in some way (eats shellfish, wears clothing of mixed fibers, works on Sabbath, or something else) the police officer should be able to exercise his "religious freedom."

The state has the right to regulate marriage per English Common Law. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand. You're arguing in favor of state recognition. If the state has the right to decide, then the state has the right to make this decision. If you want the state out of marriage, then you should want to see the Feds out of Kansas.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's no "shutting him up against his will." Just everyone collectively giving him the cold shoulder, so it doesn't matter whether he stays or goes. The OT was a nicer, saner place for the six months he was banned. I'd love to go back to that.

Perhaps we should have separate but equal forums so that you aren't confronted with opinions that you despise.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK spews an endless stream of lies, many of them derogatory.

Well, then the onus is on you to prove that I'm lying. Merely asserting that you find my opinion offensive means very little.

Especially when, with only a few more people ignoring him, we could cut him off and make him effectively lose all influence?

One would think that if truth were on your side of the line, that you wouldn't need this appeal.

[Ming]

Well, then the onus is on you to prove that I'm lying.

It's been proven many times.
Much of the crap you post is simply lies. But when you are confronted with the truth, you either:
Ignore it...
Change the argument...
Stop posting in the thread...
Keep repeating the same lie...
or come up with even more lies...

The truth is rarely on your side.

[Sava]

if religionistas were really so concerned with making everyone conform to their levitican beliefs, they'd be protesting shellfish, shaved faces, and mixed fiber clothing

hypocrites

[molly bloom]

Well, then the onus is on you to prove that I'm lying. .

That's never been exactly hard with you.

As well as outright lies, you also continually misrepresent your favourite causes- the Canadian teacher supposedly sacked for simply writing a letter to the editor for instance.

Then there are the occasions where you simply seem to choose not to understand English- the meaning of heir apparent, the verb 'to cite', a review of a book not being the same as the book itself...

ring any bells, sweet'ums ?

[MrFun]

God, I love that quotes of an Ignored person are blocked now.

[MrFun]

But anyway, Arizona wants to copy this type of state-sanctioned bigotry law too.

Why shouldn't a police officer be allowed to deny any type of service to someone, say, a woman who had committed sin by having had pre-marital sex?