toldailytopic: Will you eat at Chick-fil-A knowing they support traditional marriage?

[noguru]

The way i recall is that i stopped responding when you kept insisting i was saying things i didnt, like you did in this thread. I had already made what i believe perfectly clear, even though you insist i had not.

Please feel free to correct me if I misrepresent you in the future. I'm not quite sure where I did that intentionally. A lot of times such miscommunication is because one or both parties is not making themselves clear. It is really not much of an issue if dealt with in an honest and courageous manner.

 

[WizardofOz]

And these folks want to eliminate the establishment clause? To be clear.

I dont know about A4T but Lighthouse wants a constitutional monarchy (see Enyart's Shadowgov) and alaCarteWarrior wants a theocracy. When you supplant our constitution, the establishment clause would undoubtedly go with it. Agreed?

Of course, you knew this and are playing dumb as usual.

 

[Angel4Truth]

OK well I thought your comments were rather vague at the time. That is why I asked you the question in that thread. But if you remember you did not answer, hence the continued ambiguity. I am glad you clarified, and also to know that you and I are on the same page here.

I do think the constitution is a solid valuable basis for our nation. And I do think that the current political system we use to elect government representatives has become very corrupt.

Though I do not agree that the supreme court fails to uphold the constitution on most issues. I do think the majority of problem is with the representative members of our government, not the appointed members of the supreme court. Supreme court judges have proven themselves with their prior careers, which is often a lot more than can be said in regard to elected officials.

Adressing your bolded words since you added that well after i responded.

Nowhere did i say anything about the supreme court, so please do not later add like you added that, that i said anything about it when i didnt.

Our current government violates the constitution all the time and most don't call them on it and it never even gets to the supreme court. Our current government needs to be scrapped. (not the constitution, and i said nothing about the supreme court)

Your addition and attempts at inferring that i said things i didnt, is noted.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Please feel free to correct me if I misrepresent you in the future. I'm not quite sure where I did that intentionally. A lot of times such miscommunication is because one or both parties is not making themselves clear. It is really not much of an issue if dealt with in an honest and courageous manner.

I just did, because you added to your earlier post, well after you even wrote this one.

 

[noguru]

Adressing your bolded words since you added that well after i responded.

Nowhere did i say anything about the supreme court, so please do not later add like you added that, that i said anything about it when i didnt.

Yes I added it afterwards. It was because I felt I left my comments on that specific subject (the supreme court) unclear. So I went back and clarified my position there. If you agree with that, then fine. What is the big problem there? I certainly don't expect all of us to have a clear understanding of each other on the first try every time. There is nothing wrong with clarifying earlier statements afterwards. We all are subject to some ambiguity upon our first attempts.

Our current government violates the constitution all the time and most don't call them on it and it never even gets to the supreme court. Our current government needs to be scrapped. (not the constitution, and i said nothing about the supreme court)

I agree. The supreme court is appointed by elected members of the corresponding government. I was not necessarily saying I was disagreeing with you on the supreme court issue. I just wanted to clarify that I disagreed that "the supreme court appointees are a problem as well", since they are appointed by the president.

I did not know if that was your position or not, because it was left with some ambiguity. Is that OK with you? Did you notice that I did not qualify my highlighted statement with "I do not agree with you"? I simply said "I do not agree" just in case that was implied in what you originally said.

Wow! just Wow!

Are you trying to give up coffee or something?

Your addition and attempts at inferring that i said things i didnt, is noted.

I think I have explained myself pretty clearly now. Let's see how long you keep making this an issue.