Headline, date, link, article. Nicely done, I think.

quote:

Originally posted by Pavilion:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Pavilion:
TOMORROW, I will deliver oral arguments ...

Pavilion, are you the “I” who will be giving the arguments in court?

What do you think? Quick to criticize as you did before. But I guess that’s what people do best on social media.

Farewell.

When challenged, just delete the post, then criticize.

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:


Headline, date, link, article. Nicely done, I think.

Thanks. I confess I’m not up to speed on editing rules.

Have a great rest of the day.

[/QUOTE]


What do you think? Quick to criticize as you did before. But I guess that’s what people do best on social media.

Farewell.[/QUOTE]



When challenged, just delete the post, then criticize. [/QUOTE]


There's a few here that specialize in that...

OK, gentlemen. Manners. Is it really necessary to give a new member a hard time over trivialities?

If you wish to offer guidance, do so in a manner of which you, yourself would be receptive.

Let's move on.

quote:

Originally posted by Pavilion:
What do you think?

I didn’t know what to think after you posted a statement that “I” would be arguing a case. I have no idea what your real name is or anything else about you and therefore it was not impossible that you could have been the person whom the “I” referred to. If you had been, that would have increased my interest in the matter. You have become very active here, and it’s always good to learn what forum members do in the real world.

Cut it out

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Cut it out

If that was addressed to me, and specifically my second, now deleted paragraph from the previous post, I intended it to be a bit of humor to lighten the tone of my comments. I realized, however, that despite the wink it could be misinterpreted and therefore that’s why I deleted it.

The original question that was taken for criticism for some reason was a legitimate query for the reason I explained, and not intended as anything else.

If that was addressed to you? Who else would I be addressing? You're the only member who decided to come back for more after I interceded.

The balls on you! Everyone - including me- who read that post from you knew what you meant and what you were doing, and don't you dare try to tell me otherwise, because it was obvious.

Now, I said let's move on and you Goddamned well know exactly what that means.

Put on your big boy pants and take the admonishment.

quote:

Originally posted by Pavilion:

Thanks. I confess I’m not up to speed on editing rules.

Suggestions:

• When posting copied text, always include a link to the source.
  
  
• Don't just copy-and-paste. If it's a long article, preface it with a short summary, a sentence or three. Include your comment(s), tell us why you're posting this, or what you think about it. Humor is always appreciated.
  
  
• Consider just posting extracts from a long article, with the salient points. Anyone who is interested can follow the link that you provided, in order to see the entire article.
  
  
• Take a look at the quoting format that the forum provides, it is often useful.

If you have any questions, you could post them, or feel free to use the email address in my profile.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by Pavilion:

Thanks. I confess I’m not up to speed on editing rules.

Suggestions:

• When posting copied text, always include a link to the source.
  
  
• Don't just copy-and-paste. If it's a long article, preface it with a short summary, a sentence or three. Include your comment(s), tell us why you're posting this, or what you think about it. Humor is always appreciated.
  
  
• Consider just posting extracts from a long article, with the salient points. Anyone who is interested can follow the link that you provided, in order to see the entire article.
  
  
• Take a look at the quoting format that the forum provides, it is often useful.

If you have any questions, you could post them, or feel free to use the email address in my profile.

Thank you Sir,

I appreciate your instruction.

Have a great rest of the day.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

Consider just posting extracts from a long article, with the salient points. Anyone who is interested can follow the link that you provided, in order to see the entire article.

I agree with this approach to posting articles from sources, along with links. At times, especially with long articles, it is easier to read from the original link than a copy and paste job. Of course preceded by a personal observation from the poster.

Reporter Andy Ngo's name should be familiar to those who have followed any reporting on Antifa and BLM. His reports have been informative, fair and lack any type of sensationalism. I would not have given much credit to this story if it was not Andy but some other independent reporter.

His report stated the 2 suspectes involved in Border Patrol Agent David Maland's murder are part of a trans cult called Ziz. Members are persons of interested in at least 3 other murders - a Penn couple and a man in CA. Links to video interview as with further links to Andy's website and court filing to deny bail with further info.

This is like a crazy, trans Charles Manson story.

Post Millennial Link 1

Post Millennial Link 2

A) Fairly large gay community in Miami Beach. As a rule, they were not pro trans, and thought they were preying on young gays.

B) The woman who refused to issue marriage licenses is almost guaranteed to lose. She took a state office, and is refusing to fulfill those obligations. Some of the confusion is, probably, because we call civil unions, marriages.

Marriage, as far as I know, is a religious rite. In the UK, where the state is also the religion, I suppose there is no difference.

The US is not a secular state, but without an official religion, I don't see how it could be held to issue marriages.

(My wife & I were married in the LCMS church. I'm sure many churches recognize our marriage, but some may not - but I am quite certain that all of them have different requirements for marriage.)

I'm not exactly a constitutional scholar so forgive my ignorance... Could gay marriage be repealed with a majority vote? I feel like that decision more than any other emboldened these people.

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
I'm not exactly a constitutional scholar so forgive my ignorance... Could gay marriage be repealed with a majority vote? I feel like that decision more than any other emboldened these people.

No. See Obergfell.

The majority cannot amend the Constitution. In Obergfell, a conservative Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not permit banning same-sex marriage.

Think of it like this: It would be like passing a law which required all Americans to become Muslims. It is Constitutionally impermissible.

The Constitution would have to be amended, which is a very difficult thing to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:

Marriage, as far as I know, is a religious rite.

It is. I’ve always been baffled at all these people who get “married” who don’t even believe in God or religion. Yet they spend $10k+ on a rock for this “event”. Another $20k+ on a wedding. Then another $10k+ on a honeymoon and God only knows what else. You just spent $40,000 or more on something you could have done for fifty bucks, and a pen at the courthouse if doing it for legal purposes, taxes, property ownership, etc. Why do all the fake bullshit part of it when you don’t even believe in the first place? I will never understand.

If government is going to be involved in marriage and we have the 14th amendment, then all who are adults are allowed to be married. That is my secular view. Religiously, I don’t think God recognizes those marriages. That’s my speculation.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:

Marriage, as far as I know, is a religious rite.

It is to me. It's a sacrament. It's a sacred union.

However, when the State sanctions "marriage" the State can define it. But to me, the State cannot define my marriage and that's what really pisses off the left. I can recognize a government defined "civil union" but I don't call it marriage. The Church, not the State, defines marriage for me.