Posts made by raphjd

But you are at odds with your fellow liberals.

You and Brian are the only 2 to condemn the violence by liberals and look at how your fellow liberals treat you.    They view as a traitor because you disagreed with them on a single topic.  It reminds me of C.S. Lewis saying the worst thing a christian can do is disagree with another christian in front of a non christian.

You and Brian committed treason in the eyes of your fellow liberals.  I can tell you that no conservative down voted you when you guys condemned the violence.  It was all your fellow liberals.  I'm also seeing your fellow liberals down voting your comments without reading them.  If they are reading them, they ignore your pro liberal stance.

American "heroes" were treasonous as well.  Let's take down every picture and statue of them.

@aadam101:

Dude, just go get some penis enlargement pills or something.  I don't even believe it's as small as you think.

:police: Careful  :police:

Contracts can and are deemed unlawful by courts all the time.

You can not have a contract to be killed and eaten, as an example.

Like your complaint about a marriage certificate, you can only make a contract that allows you to do what is legal.

@mhorndisk:

@royalcrown89:

So, basically you want marriages to only be recognized if they are between a man and woman? There are very specific guarantees awarded to people who are in a recognized marriage, such as not being forced to testify against your spouse. If gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, then a man would be forced to testify against his husband in a trial or a woman would be forced to testify against her wife. The argument you're making is nowhere near as deep as you're trying to make it sound. You basically do not want gay marriages to be recognized as "legitimate" marriages. It's great that gays were able to get "married" prior to the SCOTUS ruling in 2015; however, those marriages weren't recognized as "legitimate" marriages and the spouses weren't really spouses because they had absolutely none of the rights that "legitimate" spouses were given. There was a woman (forgot her name) who was "married" to another woman prior to the SCOTUS ruling and her wife got seriously ill and she was banned from making any medical decisions for her wife all because their marriage wasn't recognized as a legitimate marriage by their state. Why should it be fair for a man and woman's marriage to be recognized as legitimate but not two married men or two married women?

Not the case at all. What I am saying is that the government has no say in what is a "legitimate marriage," because marriage is a religious institution. What people do not understand is that they can have a contract where you are the caretaker in case of tragic things like this, but the problem is that no one understands the law. Don't try to make me look bad just because of your ignorance of the law.

Actually, if you research it, marriage was a state thing before a religious thing.

While you can do legal documents that give another person SOME legal aspects over your life, like in marriage, you still do not get any of the right granted solely by the stats such as Marital Confidentiality.

Also, you need several documents for the various aspects, OR you only need the marriage certificate.

Any "pride" associated with the flag is by default, pride in white supremacy, given the social and historic associations with the flag, whether it's supports are willing to admit it or not.

My dad belonged to a motorcycle club when we lived in North Carolina.  It was mixed race since most of the people were military.  The "rebel flag" was part of their "colors".

The only thing these people were into was motorcycles and helping people.

Is that rule of no XXX pics still valid?

NO.

Just Curious, Can we post pics of ourselves with Porn stars we have met taken with our own camera?

YES, you can.

As it's a "selfie", you own the rights to it.

Only commercially produced photos are banned.

We all know that politics can get heated, so there is some leeway in the general rule regarding "polite disagreement".

Popping into a thread for the sole purpose to flame, is a NO NO.

Popping into a thread for the sole purpose to complain that the thread exists, is a NO NO.

Popping into a thread to complain that the POLITICS section exists, is a NO NO.

Making false reports about staff or another user, is a NO NO.   If you claim that someone called you a "faggot nigger", you had better have proof.  Remember, I can see the original posts and edited posts.

If you routinely post nothing but childish comments that do nothing to further the discussion, that is a NO NO.

If you can't or won't further the discussion, then ignore this section.

If you want to call your "enemy" a cunt or the like, take it elsewhere.

Don't be petty.  A disagreement here should not mean that you refuse to fulfill a re-seed request.   Nor should it mean you get into a flame fest in the cooking section.

NEITHER SIDE IS EXEMPT FROM THE RULES.

Don't expect me to see every offending post, use the report button.

My boy (not in a racist way, you race baiters) Terrence Williams preachin' some truth;

https://www.facebook.com/terrencewilliams.truizms/videos/10207685027158602/

YEP.

The leftist media hyped up the stories, then totally ignored them when they proved to be lies.

SHOCKINGLY, TYT was the only leftist "news" outlet to condemn the false flagging.  Their point was the same that I have been using for years, that false flags always hurt real victims of those crimes.    Fake rape claims do nothing but hurt real victims of rape, etc, etc, etc…........

@TheNewt:

No she's not, and Obama was one of the most conservative Presidents we have had in decades.

He was both the most liberal and the most conservative, depending on his mood and/or situation.

He was a massive race baiter, which is clearly a liberal thing.

Obama was a flip flop merchant when it came to gay equality.  He even to credit for things he had nothing to do with.

Oddly, I wanted Hillary over Obama.  At least at the start.

The more I saw/learned of Hillary, the more I ended up hating her.  Most of it came from her feminist crap, such as he saying that women are the true victims of war because men go off to fight.

Outside of religion, you can argue that "laws" are societal constructs.

Anarchists/communists doing a lot of the rioting the last few months say that nothing can be owned.  Therefore they are not doing anything wrong with their riots.  Oddly, their possessions are sacrosanct.

Depending on where you are in the world and/or your religion, there may or may not be any such thing as "marital rape".

Muslims don't think rape is wrong, if the women is deemed a whore; ie not covering her head.

You sound like me three or so years ago, about when I became conservative myself.  I saw our "side" being incredibly shitty, our side denying it and covering it up and accusing people who disagreed with all the usual -isms and -phobias.  This gave me pause, and I started to question some of my previously held beliefs.  Good luck on your journey.

Bill Clinton got me to start questioning my being a liberal, with DOMA and DA,DT.    I stopped giving money to HRC because they were praising Clinton for those 2 things.

I wanted to clear this bit up;

Let a conservative do the slightest bit of violence, even in self defense, and the liberals scream like bitches blaming ALL conservatives.  Oh but wait, when liberals do violence, it's not actually liberals doing it, but individuals or some fucked up "logic".

In another current/recent thread, a liberal said that liberals aren't committing acts of violence.  NOPE, it's individuals who are committing the acts of violence.

Clearly he's trying to separate liberals from their acts of violence.

Of course he ignores that groups like BAMN exist.  They are nothing but liberals who view violence as the best way to make their point.   TYT and many other liberals activeley praise the use of violence by liberals.

Many of the rights/privileges granted under marriage can only be granted by the state, not a contract between 2 parties; such as the "marital confidentiality" clause in most states and federal government.

The UK has that also, but only for marriage.  Not even civil partnership had it because it's a marriage only right.

@hunk7778:

You know what? I had enough. tlf1989 is a homophobic troll. please ban him.

:police:  Sorry, but you are on the chopping block because of your language.  Either tone down the language or be prepared to get muted on the forums.  You can disagree all you want.  :police:

My guess is you are getting down voted because you aren't in reality.

You tried to deflect by doing the  NO TRUE SCOTSMAN on who are liberals.  Liberals didn't down vote you because, while you claimed they aren't real liberals, you still side with them.  It's like several years ago in the UK when the Prisons Minister said that sending women to prison violated their human right to shop and no feminists got butt hurt and screechy because they support the idea of never sending women to prison.

Considering that only 2 liberals have condemned the violence, out of how many, it's pretty clear that liberals have no problem with the violence.  Top that off with liberals down voting those posts condemning the violence, it's completely clear that liberals love the violence.

Civil marriage has always been a 3 party contract.    Religious marriage has even more parties because you have god, the church and the people.

You could make the case that marriage is bad for everyone, but to say it's bad for gays isn't true as we would lose out on over 1,400 rights/privileges granted by the various levels of government in the US.

Common Law Marriages are treated like civil marriages in several states.  You'll still have to go through the divorce court system.  Several states have "palimony" for simply shacking up.

In the UK, civil partnerships were business contracts that had to use the costly divorce court system.  It was only "somewhat equal" to marriage in the rights/privileges it grants

This thread was about the people here; GT.ru.

Only 2 liberals here have condemned the violence.   They got down voted, not by conservatives, but by their fellow liberals when they did it.

If we want to look at outside of GT.ru, then we can look at TYT who fully support the violence.

CNN loves to downplay the wrongs by the left. They desperately tried to ignore the Chicago kidnapping, but once they did cover it, they refused to call it a hate crime, despite the confessions of the 4 kidnappers.   CNN also portrayed Mouldylocks as purely a victim, despite her tweets before and actions during the riot.   Raw footage shows her throwing a wine bottle about a minute before she got punched.  The still shot from that on CNN had the wine bottle edited out.

YouTube is great because you get to see videos from around the world.   This includes stuff mass media wish would die, such as Simone Sanders ridiculing white victims of black race based crime, such as the white guy who was beat up and had is car stolen because obviously a white guy had to vote for Trump or "there's a white guy, get 'im".   She also still claims that "hands up, don't shoot" is real despite Obama sending 100 FBI agents and them proving that it was totally false.

There are countless videos of liberals praising the "punch a Nazi" narrative.

Hell, liberals even have BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) who openly and publicly advocate for violence against conservatives.   The 2 women that head it have become media darlings, especially the school teacher.   Even the mayor of Berkeley is a member, which explains quite a few things.   We have 4Chan and Anonymous to thank for outing his ass on that.

The Mayor of Berkeley being a member of BAMN explains why "whites go around" was protected and white students who objected were arrested.  Doesn't the dictionary fallacy definition of racism say that racism must be institutional for it to be actual racism?   How much more institutional do you get that the full support of the mayor and police.

The difference is; liberals advocate for and use violence to prevent free speech, while conservatives simply protest.

Sure, now you are seeing counter protests by conservatives where things are getting violent.  However, you have to consider that there would be no violence if the liberals weren't doing their bullshit.    Portland OR has had violent clashes because conservatives are trying to keep traffic moving, while liberals are trying to shut down the city.