Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

Where would the government get the money from to do all of that?

How is the US supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?

How does the US not support women's rights to equal treatment?

Where the hell is this happening?

What does this mean?

 

I was asking about the legislation. I don't understand why you're not able to answer it. If you don't know, you can just tell me! Are you not even able to say if this exemption is only in certain states?

And this was a claim from who? The judge?

 

I really don't understand how you don't know the answer to this! Members of anti-gay hate groups are not
members of a protected class! Therefore, how could the gay baker (or any business owner) not legally refuse service?

 

I did.
Wasteful -
(of a person, action, or process) using or expending something of value carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.
synonyms: prodigal, profligate, uneconomical, inefficient, extravagant, lavish, excessive, imprudent, improvident, intemperate; thriftless, spendthrift; needless, useless

 

At times when they "can be" are you thinking of "liberal" as wasteful or as someone who is a liberal?

 

Or maybe one of the synonyms of wasteful.

 

Oh hell, not the bigot baker again. What I can’t get my head around is why any sane dyke or fairy would want to have their wedding cake made by someone who loathed them. On the other hand there’s a growing and very prosperous queer (I hate the term LGBT etc) wedding industry happy and able to provide everything from limousines to cakes.
As to the original question can one be Christian and Liberal at the same time, how long’s a piece of string? What kind of Christian? What kind of Liberal? Both terms need to have definitions agreed upon by those discussing the issue before we can begin to get anywhere.
Anyhow, even after the early church and later groups mistranslated, altered, added to, forged and redacted the scriptures a picture of Christ appears to emerge as a socialist of some kind.
American fundamentalists who equate wealth with God smiling on them avoid this idea like the plague. Are they denying Mark Ch 10:V 25?

 

Denying the fact that we have the wealth to do more is just not a supportable position.

Through our history, we've never been so focused on increasing the wealth of the wealthy.

It's purely a matter of what we think is important. Right now, we think the focus should be on billionaires and their need for more wealth - not on the fact that wage earners haven't seen noticeable rise in buying power for decades.

The US gives MASSIVE aid to Israel. Every other nation agrees with putting pressure on Israel to stop bulldozing Palestinian homes, stealing their land and water rights, allowing Palestinian government, and ending its assault on the Palestinian economy.

The US blocks efforts by other nations to put pressure on Israel to stop their ethnic cleansing.

Ask Dr. Ford. She and her parents have had to leave their homes due to the massive number of threats on their safety.

THAT is our response when a woman reports events.

Trump ordered that babies be taken away from immigrant families.

There was NO PLAN to reunite the families, and now even under court order the administration has FAILED to reunite those families.

We can't claim to respect the contribution of wage earners when their buying power hasn't increased for decades.

 

Look, I'm not here to explain our system and walk you through each case.

If you aren't interested enough to read the oral argument, that's find.

But, I'm not going to copy/paste it to this thread so you can ignore it here, too.

 

.

 

I did read about the Kern County case. The judge said, "A wedding cake is not just a cake in free speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct." https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/08/us/wedding-cake-ruling-trnd/index.html

Do you disagree with the judge?

 

I thought that you might have been talking about taxing the rich more to give to the less rich. You don't mean medicare for all do you?

And are these other nations in agreement with the joke UN?

What other nations?

"OUR response?" Who is "our?" The entire nation? Or just a few pieces of sh*t. Surely you aren't letting the few tar the majority.

Where should they have gone instead? Into prison with their parents?

Contribution as in tax?

 

ِAbsolutely I do.

The baker isn't the one making the speech. It's the couple getting married. They are the ones who specified the cake. The event is for the purpose of celebrating their marriage. In every one of the many weddings I've attended the baker of the cake was not even known. And, that goes for the flower arranger, the florist who made the boutineers and corsages, the chef who cooked the food, the supplier who provided the (necessary) alcohol, the tux shop and everyone else. Suggesting all these folks were "speaking" is ridiculous.

Plus, I believe it was the Kern County judge who said it would be a whole different matter if the cake were off the shelf. But, NOBODY other than the couple and the baker could know whether or not the cake is off the shelf.

The idea that it is the BAKER speaking is just nonsense.

I know Kern County. I lived in Kernville and Lake Isabella for a while. And, let's just say it's no surprise to me that there are crazy judges there.

 

That only addresses the one issue. Of course we need a single payer solution - it's cheaper and covers everyone. All other industrialized nations have proven that.

But, it goes way farther than that.

For example, workers are seeing their incomes flatline and their bargaining power eliminated. Our economy is changing such that more education is required, yet we're moving the cost of education onto the student - making it dramatically more difficult for children who have little parental financial support to become a competitive contributor in our economy.

Our AMERICAN response to violence against women is to deny the evidence and protect the criminal.

Dr. Ford was only one individual out of our full complement of citizens. But, she has been forced out of her home due to the volume of death threats.

There was no need to change the established policy that has been used for many years.

AND, the FACT that there was no plan for reuniting the families is CRIMINAL. In fact, there was SERIOUS RESISTANCE to reuniting the families. Some of the kids were even being adopted out without bothering even to NOTIFY the parents that their children were being stolen by the government.

There is NO excuse.

OK, let's be serious. When I say, "We can't claim to respect the contribution of wage earners when their buying power hasn't increased for decades." it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that I'm talking about the contribution of wage earners.

 

We have 21,000 border patrol agents and most of that number were added under the Obama administration.

 

Yet illegal aliens continue to flow in-and-out of our country unchecked and unregulated.

 

And always will.

 

For many years, the UNSC and the UN as a whole has worked for Israel to cease it's criminal activity in Palestine.

The UN is structured such that the USA has a veto in the UNSC, and the USA has vetoed these efforts.

There is no veto in the UN general assembly, so that body has granted the nation of Palestine all rights and privileges available to nations that are not full members - a status that can only be conferred by the UNSC.

The UNSC has long had a majority that recognize Palestine. The independent examination of Palestine that is carried out on every proposed new member has certified Palestine as having a government and related institutions (banking, etc.) adequate for nationhood. But, the USA has consistently vetoed Palestine's applications.

More than 135 countries recognize Palestine as a full fledged state, even with full US efforts to prevent that.

 

Are you saying that the American people cannot put the brakes on people coming and going from our country unchecked and unregulated?

 

The extra measure we have implememted are "brakes". I acknowledge the factual existence of these things. Therefore, no, I am not saying that.

 

You probably should look at the numbers under Obama.

 

For a Democrat, Obama took a fairly tough stance, particularly early in his presidency, toward undocumented immigrants. In March 2014, Janet Murguía, president of the National Council on La Raza, a Latino advocacy group, called Obama “the deporter-in-chief.”

continued

https://www.newsweek.com/illegal-immigration-undocumented-migrants-obama-trump-585726

It was a criticism that activists leveled at Obama throughout his presidency. From 2009 to 2016, his administration oversaw the forcible removal of more than 3 million undocumented immigrants—most of whom were sent back to Mexico. Neither Bill Clinton, nor George W. Bush, Obama’s two predecessors, came close in reaching his tally over their two terms

 

Why we need a wall.

 

Not really. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/

 

Exactly why we don't need a wall.