an open letter to BuzzClik

[Bad Dog]

Awwwww, Mongo straight!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28khv-BydeY[/youtube]

OK...OK just sniff the glove.

[docstew]

That's five questions, but who's counting? In order and renumbered:

1) The IRS by Congressional mandate

My question was not about the mechanism of taking money. The IRS didn't exist for the majority of our nation's history, so you can't claim that they are the authority. I am not even questioning the authority of the gov't to levy taxes, nor will any conservative. We know that there are LEGITIMATE purposes for the gov't to spend money. I am questioning the MORAL RIGHT that you leftists claim to other people's property. Or, to rephrase it, does the world owe you a living?

2) No.
3) No.
4) No.

So, you do admit that refusals of service occur and are not tied to hate, but to business principles. Would you also admit that people have a right to choose who they associate with?

5) No.

One word answers are not indicative of desire to engage in debate. It sounds like you're scared of saying the wrong thing. I'm sure everyone here would rather see the courage of your convictions than some mealy-mouthed response.

Next question: Do I have a right to demand a Jewish deli cater my event with cuban sandwiches and BLTs? Or force a halal butcher to sell me a pig carcass?

And followup: If I have to SUE a business to provide a service, what is their motivation to provide the best service possible? Another lawsuit? They would argue that they didn't want to do it in the first place, but the client was SO INSISTENT they sued, and I would find for the respondent if I were on that jury. Wouldn't you want the best service possible for a major event like a WEDDING?

[thundley4]

And followup: If I have to SUE a business to provide a service, what is their motivation to provide the best service possible? Another lawsuit? They would argue that they didn't want to do it in the first place, but the client was SO INSISTENT they sued, and I would find for the respondent if I were on that jury. Wouldn't you want the best service possible for a major event like a WEDDING?

They don't sue to force the businesses to provide a service. They file suit to force the business to go out of business or at least pay fines.  It's an attack on Christianity

[docstew]

They don't sue to force the businesses to provide a service. They file suit to force the business to go out of business or at least pay fines.  It's an attack on Christianity

Found an article today by a Christian baker. They state that they will serve gay weddings, but will donate 100% of the revenues (not profits, revenues) to a religious freedom non-profit, and want everyone to know that is their policy.

[Bad Dog]

Found an article today by a Christian baker. They state that they will serve gay weddings, but will donate 100% of the revenues (not profits, revenues) to a religious freedom non-profit, and want everyone to know that is their policy.

Better yet, go with an anti abortion group...Make their heads splode.

[txradioguy]

They don't sue to force the businesses to provide a service. They file suit to force the business to go out of business or at least pay fines.  It's an attack on Christianity

^^^

This

[Eupher]

They don't sue to force the businesses to provide a service. They file suit to force the business to go out of business or at least pay fines.  It's an attack on Christianity

It's all that, plus it's their attempt to force Christians to their knees, to bow not to the Lord Jesus Christ, but to the god of liberalism, the gay agenda, and any other complete vacuum of traditional values they can wangle.

It's anger, hatred, and bitterness and it eats them alive.

[Carl]

Just look how "brilliant" DUmbass buzzy really is.

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=101637.0

After getting his idiot ass handed to him over and over,he runs away.
Finally in the middle of last night he pops in to show us his response.
A DUmp thread where he is safely shielded from any of us.

Thanks for proving how idiotic and chicken shit you are buzzy.

[SVPete]

Just look how "brilliant" DUmbass buzzy really is.

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=101637.0

After getting his idiot ass handed to him over and over,he runs away.
Finally in the middle of last night he pops in to show us his response.
A DUmp thread where he is safely shielded from any of us.

Thanks for proving how idiotic and chicken shit you are buzzy.

Yeah, it's been a bit quiet on the buzz front. Works for me.

[BuzzClik]

Just look how "brilliant" DUmbass buzzy really is.

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=101637.0

After getting his idiot ass handed to him over and over,he runs away.
Finally in the middle of last night he pops in to show us his response.
A DUmp thread where he is safely shielded from any of us.

Thanks for proving how idiotic and chicken shit you are buzzy.

Today must be opposite day, Carl. Along with "Talk Like a Pirate Day", I just don't particpate.

After spending a few days of futility attempting to discuss a book and never getting a single response dealing with the content of the book or the author, Bad Dog decided to get nostalgic and bring up Climage Gate, the email scandal surrounding the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit. I told Bad Dog the issue was settled after multiple investigations, but he pleaded total ignorance to the investigations and that I was a liar. Rather than look up the information himself (or getting an assist from a small, cheering crowd), I relented and gave him two links to the panel results demonstrating full exoneration of all the scientific allegations. To which Wasp69 responded, "EAU's CRU was not exonerated of anything." This brought an orgasmic level of cheering from the adoring throng and prompted you to say, "Buzzy,you are so far in over your head and out of your league it is pathetic." Considering that Wasp69 admitted to spending all of 30 seconds examining the reports, and that he was wrong, I reluctantly re-read the reports and compiled a response outlining how I was completely correct and that Wasp69's declaration that CRU members"were found to have hidden data (by legal meas or otherwise), thwarted FOI requests, and sought to discredit those that they did not believe were going to advance their agenda" was wrong. Close on the FOIA issue, but not correct.

Knowing full well that any attempt to settle the issue here was a waste of time, I posted it at DU. You've already linked my DU posting here and in the Science Club, so you've already been to DU. Feel free to flex that intellect and take me to task. You'll note that I made no reference to our debate over here, and I will not out you or anyone else who chooses to debate the subject. Of course, you'll be unable to call me a knob gobbler or a chicken shit. Are you game or will you continue with your present approach of yelling at clouds?

[Carl]

Today must be opposite day, Carl. Along with "Talk Like a Pirate Day", I just don't particpate.

After spending a few days of futility attempting to discuss a book and never getting a single response dealing with the content of the book or the author, Bad Dog decided to get nostalgic and bring up Climage Gate, the email scandal surrounding the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit. I told Bad Dog the issue was settled after multiple investigations, but he pleaded total ignorance to the investigations and that I was a liar. Rather than look up the information himself (or getting an assist from a small, cheering crowd), I relented and gave him two links to the panel results demonstrating full exoneration of all the scientific allegations. To which Wasp69 responded, "EAU's CRU was not exonerated of anything." This brought an orgasmic level of cheering from the adoring throng and prompted you to say, "Buzzy,you are so far in over your head and out of your league it is pathetic." Considering that Wasp69 admitted to spending all of 30 seconds examining the reports, and that he was wrong, I reluctantly re-read the reports and compiled a response outlining how I was completely correct and that Wasp69's declaration that CRU members"were found to have hidden data (by legal meas or otherwise), thwarted FOI requests, and sought to discredit those that they did not believe were going to advance their agenda" was wrong. Close on the FOIA issue, but not correct.

Knowing full well that any attempt to settle the issue here was a waste of time, I posted it at DU. You've already linked my DU posting here and in the Science Club, so you've already been to DU. Feel free to flex that intellect and take me to task. You'll note that I made no reference to our debate over here, and I will not out you or anyone else who chooses to debate the subject. Of course, you'll be unable to call me a knob gobbler or a chicken shit. Are you game or will you continue with your present approach of yelling at clouds?

Nice try for a mole trap while you hide behind skinners skirt.
No you jackass,you post your drivel here and defend it here if you have the balls or shut the **** up.

[Carl]

Notice also buzzy that you are still allowed here,you have not been banned despite your own antics.
Pretty ironic that your reaction is to say "oh,come to the DUmp to talk",a place that any of us would be banned in one post.

Thanks for showing us all first hand what a typically ignorant joke a leftist is.

[Eupher]

Buzzy drivel snipped... This brought an orgasmic level of cheering from the adoring throng..." more Buzzy drivel snipped

Jeez, Buzzy, I read all of that and your DU screed and I never got hard once. Or heard any orgasmic cheering.

That isn't the fault of my equipment. My johnson works just fine.

Must be more of your lies again...

[wasp69]

Notice also buzzy that you are still allowed here,you have not been banned despite your own antics.
Pretty ironic that your reaction is to say "oh,come to the DUmp to talk",a place that any of us would be banned in one post.

Pretty typical behavior for these brave intellectuals, though, isn't it?  Buzzy proves, once again, how none of them survive outside of the collective...

[Carl]

Pretty typical behavior for these brave intellectuals, though, isn't it?  Buzzy proves, once again, how none of them survive outside of the collective...

Then will run around screaming "Boy,I sure showed them!!!!!  "

I think this http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=101690.0 is very profound and why they need their endless bouncies.

[docstew]

Quote from: BuzzClik on April 05, 2015, 12:53:20 PM

That's five questions, but who's counting? In order and renumbered:

1) The IRS by Congressional mandate

My question was not about the mechanism of taking money. The IRS didn't exist for the majority of our nation's history, so you can't claim that they are the authority. I am not even questioning the authority of the gov't to levy taxes, nor will any conservative. We know that there are LEGITIMATE purposes for the gov't to spend money. I am questioning the MORAL RIGHT that you leftists claim to other people's property. Or, to rephrase it, does the world owe you a living?

2) No.
3) No.
4) No.

So, you do admit that refusals of service occur and are not tied to hate, but to business principles. Would you also admit that people have a right to choose who they associate with?

5) No.

One word answers are not indicative of desire to engage in debate. It sounds like you're scared of saying the wrong thing. I'm sure everyone here would rather see the courage of your convictions than some mealy-mouthed response.





Next question: Do I have a right to demand a Jewish deli cater my event with cuban sandwiches and BLTs? Or force a halal butcher to sell me a pig carcass?

And followup: If I have to SUE a business to provide a service, what is their motivation to provide the best service possible? Another lawsuit? They would argue that they didn't want to do it in the first place, but the client was SO INSISTENT they sued, and I would find for the respondent if I were on that jury. Wouldn't you want the best service possible for a major event like a WEDDING?

Buzz is still hiding. Refusing to engage in a debate generally means you know your arguments are weak.

Put up or shut up, Buzz. You want a debate? I'm your huckleberry...

[Bad Dog]

Buzz is still hiding. Refusing to engage in a debate generally means you know your arguments are weak.

Put up or shut up, Buzz. You want a debate? I'm your huckleberry...

His problem is that he is pretty much incompetent on any subject he tries to debate.  Granted, the DUmp isn't noted for it's intellectual prowess but, you would think they could do better than this simpering failure.