Today is “National Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.”

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by piney

Nice backtrack


Woah. You mean the largest demographic also gives the most? That's crazy. Is that per capita?




So then I will find photos of lines of people spilling out on the street trying to get into church and do some charity work? Please share those if you have them. Thanks.

I see you refuse to do the research and just make ridiculous assumptions based solely on what you want to believe.

Standard issue.

[piney]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

I see you refuse to do the research and just make ridiculous assumptions based solely on what you want to believe.

Standard issue.

Hey. I get it. You know exactly what I am talking about, or what I gleaned from my conversation with a priest, yet you have to fight with me about it because...liberals. Or communism. Something like that. Right?

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by piney

Hey. I get it. You know exactly what I am talking about, or what I gleaned from my conversation with a priest, yet you have to fight with me about it because...liberals. Or communism. Something like that. Right?

By all means, make assumptions based on your conversation with one priest.

Feel free to put words in my mouth, too.

Like I said, standard issue for people like you. Left or right. A prefect reflection of the sad state of affairs we're in and how we got here.

[piney]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

By all means, make assumptions based on your conversation with one priest.

Feel free to put words in my mouth, too.

Like I said, standard issue for people like you. Left or right. A prefect reflection of the sad state of affairs we're in and how we got here.

Hmm. Now I made assumptions. I guess I will try to follow your example when it comes to political discourse because you're the shining beacon of the JI Poli forum.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

The State has the right to regulate marriage. You don't have a constitutional right to marry a same sex partner.

Race unlike gender is specifically protected in the Constitution. The inter-racial marriage argument doesn't make a Constitutional argumement that protects gay marriage.

There is no seperate but equal issue here.

You can argue that their should be same sex marriage and I agree but it is most certainly a ballot box issue not a protected Constitutional rights issue.

Fair enough.

Then my question is this; based on how the Constitution was written, was it reasonable for females to demand/expect the right to vote?

[Frequent Flyer]

Originally Posted by piney

I wonder if we will see this many Christians lining up outside their churches to do charity work like they did to buy fried chicken patties.

I see you got your talking points and marching orders.

The other poli MB's I post on, all the leftist drones are posting the same thing.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Fair enough.

Then my question is this; based on how the Constitution was written, was it reasonable for females to demand/expect the right to vote?

Of course, they had free speech and the right to assemble and were able to amend the Constitution. No different then the rights gays have today.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Of course, they had free speech and the right to assemble and were able to amend the Constitution. No different then the rights gays have today.

But do you think that women had a constitutionally protected right to vote based on the language of the Constitution?

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

But do you think that women had a constitutionally protected right to vote based on the language of the Constitution?

Not according to the bible.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

But do you think that women had a constitutionally protected right to vote based on the language of the Constitution?

No it was up to the States.

[Warfish]

There seems to be an undercurrent from some of the idea that those people in our past who made some mistakes (like not freeing slaves or giving woman sufferage) couldn't, therefore, have gotten ANYTHING right, thus casting al their form as founders into doubt regarding their wisdom and validity.

I think this woefully simplifies the realities of that age into an easy to digest good/bad paradigm that does not aactually represent the facts of the time.

I'd say the best thing the founders did was to realize their own temporal imperfections and limitations, and to leave open a mechanic to adjust the system on the fly in the future as circumstances and advancement warrants.

If anything, our biggest failing as a culture is our rejection of amending the Constitution to suit us today, and instead simply ignoring it or going around it to get what we want, because thats the easy route.

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

The State has the right to regulate marriage. You don't have a constitutional right to marry a same sex partner.

Race unlike gender is specifically protected in the Constitution. The inter-racial marriage argument doesn't make a Constitutional argumement that protects gay marriage.

There is no seperate but equal issue here.

You can argue that their should be same sex marriage and I agree but it is most certainly a ballot box issue not a protected Constitutional rights issue.

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Fair enough.

IJF, I said as much a couple of pages back and you argued that it applied through a "prism of an equal rights issue". Stop being so damn confounding, man!!!!