Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Seacrest
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=95965		 Page 1 of 6
Author:  Darkside [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Seacrest
This dude has been getting the living shit kicked out of him on the board for a good week or so and he just keeps taking more and more. Amazing. Admirable.
Author:  leashyourkids [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
25 completely nonsensical pages with at least 20 references to religious freedom.
Author:  Darkside [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
leashyourkids wrote:
25 completely nonsensical pages with at least 20 references to religious freedom.

Honestly though... how can anyone sound logical when discussing one of the world's most illogical topics... religion.
Author:  leashyourkids [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Darkside wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
25 completely nonsensical pages with at least 20 references to religious freedom.

Honestly though... how can anyone sound logical when discussing one of the world's most illogical topics... religion.


I feel that this is a rhetorical question (and it's correct).

I'll up it to 35.
Author:  SpiralStairs [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Darkside wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
25 completely nonsensical pages with at least 20 references to religious freedom.

Honestly though... how can anyone sound logical when discussing one of the world's most illogical topics... religion.


Clearly you are not intelligent enough to discuss the matter :lol: :lol: :lol:
Author:  Darkside [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
SpiralStairs wrote:
Darkside wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
25 completely nonsensical pages with at least 20 references to religious freedom.

Honestly though... how can anyone sound logical when discussing one of the world's most illogical topics... religion.


Clearly you are not intelligent enough to discuss the matter :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh good deal... I sincerely appreciate that man. 8)
Author:  sjboyd0137 [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
"God's" honest truth...I have a great deal of respect for Seacrest. Good guy...big heart. Family man. We don't see eye-to-eye on certain things, but I respect the way he posits his position. Also, he bought me a beer...and didn't freak out when Darko wanted to buy little 'Crest a churro. That's a win.
Author:  Darkside [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
sjboyd0137 wrote:
"God's" honest truth...I have a great deal of respect for Seacrest. Good guy...big heart. Family man. We don't see eye-to-eye on certain things, but I respect the way he posits his position. Also, he bought me a beer...and didn't freak out when Darko wanted to buy little 'Crest a churro. That's a win.

Yeah he's a decent enough fella IRL. Downright likable actually.
It is amazing though watching him take this beating this week. Mesmerizing. Fascinating. Titillating. Inspiring.
Author:  leashyourkids [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
It's truly amazing.
Author:  JORR [ Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
A Douchebagging disguised as a Shoutout. The genius of Darkside on display.
Author:  Darkside [ Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
A Douchebagging disguised as a Shoutout. The genius of Darkside on display.

I'm not surprised you're confused. I find his tenacity admirable. Like I said, I do find Seacrest quite likable. He's been getting whaled on pretty good and keeps coming back. Like Pedro Strop.
Author:  Douchebag [ Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
A Douchebagging disguised as a Shoutout. The genius of Darkside on display.

You don't understand the constitution.
Author:  Frank Coztansa [ Sun Sep 13, 2015 4:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
The Seacrest fridge has made it thru another summer keeping beer and other beverages in the garage ice cold.
Author:  Brick [ Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
I think he's a good guy he just needs to think for himself more when it comes to religion.

Most of the religious people I know are distancing themselves from the Kentucky clerk.
Author:  good dolphin [ Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Darkside wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
25 completely nonsensical pages with at least 20 references to religious freedom.

Honestly though... how can anyone sound logical when discussing one of the world's most illogical topics... religion.


It's understandable how a guy who finds himself in your position in life might not believe there is a higher being looking down favorably upon him.
Author:  Darkside [ Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
good dolphin wrote:
Darkside wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
25 completely nonsensical pages with at least 20 references to religious freedom.

Honestly though... how can anyone sound logical when discussing one of the world's most illogical topics... religion.


It's understandable how a guy who finds himself in your position in life might not believe there is a higher being looking down favorably upon him.

:lol:
Nice.
Author:  Seacrest [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Darkside wrote:
This dude has been getting the living shit kicked out of him on the board for a good week or so and he just keeps taking more and more. Amazing. Admirable.

Douchebag wrote:
You don't understand the constitution.


Image


Because I've been getting pummeled so badly and my eyes are full of blood, I can't read the board. So while I understand what was being posted before this vicious beating was laid upon me, I'm hoping that someone can point out the law that took away the clerk's rights under article 1 of the Constitution.
Author:  sjboyd0137 [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Seacrest wrote:
Darkside wrote:
This dude has been getting the living shit kicked out of him on the board for a good week or so and he just keeps taking more and more. Amazing. Admirable.

Douchebag wrote:
You don't understand the constitution.


Image


Because I've been getting pummeled so badly and my eyes are full of blood, I can't read the board. So while I understand what was being posted before this vicious beating was laid upon me, I'm hoping that someone can point out the law that took away the clerk's rights under article 1 of the Constitution.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Quote:
The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.
Author:  IMU [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Image
Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Asked and answered.
Author:  Seacrest [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
sjboyd0137 wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Darkside wrote:
This dude has been getting the living shit kicked out of him on the board for a good week or so and he just keeps taking more and more. Amazing. Admirable.

Douchebag wrote:
You don't understand the constitution.


Image


Because I've been getting pummeled so badly and my eyes are full of blood, I can't read the board. So while I understand what was being posted before this vicious beating was laid upon me, I'm hoping that someone can point out the law that took away the clerk's rights under article 1 of the Constitution.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Quote:
The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.



Sorry, that doesn't refer to, nor mention, the ability of federal courts to exclude or deny, her free exercise of religion.
Author:  Seacrest [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Asked and answered.


:lol: :lol:
Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Image
Author:  Douchebag [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Seacrest wrote:

Sorry, that doesn't refer to, nor mention, the ability of federal courts to exclude or deny, her free exercise of religion.

Seacrest is arguing in favor of Sharia Law. Interesting.
Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Douchebag wrote:
Seacrest wrote:

Sorry, that doesn't refer to, nor mention, the ability of federal courts to exclude or deny, her free exercise of religion.

Seacrest is arguing in favor of Sharia Law. Interesting.


Why doesn't anyone ever argue in favor of Shakira Law?
Author:  Chus [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Seacrest wrote:

Sorry, that doesn't refer to, nor mention, the ability of federal courts to exclude or deny, her free exercise of religion.

Seacrest is arguing in favor of Sharia Law. Interesting.


Why doesn't anyone ever argue in favor of Shakira Law?


I'm down. Mark me down.

Image
Author:  Seacrest [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Douchebag wrote:
Seacrest wrote:

Sorry, that doesn't refer to, nor mention, the ability of federal courts to exclude or deny, her free exercise of religion.

Seacrest is arguing in favor of Sharia Law. Interesting.



I understand the position of you and many others, but it contradicts the free exercise clause guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

So...change the Constitution, or just sit back and aceept whatever we end up with when decisions are made without respect to the rights of others.

Eventually, you may very well end up with Sharia law. But it won't be because of my position on this.
Author:  IMU [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Seacrest wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Seacrest wrote:

Sorry, that doesn't refer to, nor mention, the ability of federal courts to exclude or deny, her free exercise of religion.

Seacrest is arguing in favor of Sharia Law. Interesting.



I understand the position of you and many others, but it contradicts the free exercise clause guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

So...change the Constitution, or just sit back and aceept whatever we end up with when decisions are made without respect to the rights of others.

Eventually, you may very well end up with Sharia law. But it won't be because of my position on this.

She is denying gays' rights to practice their religion (or freedom FROM religion, as the case may be) AND she is not following federal law.

She is doing two things wrong. According to you, gays are only doing one thing wrong.

Gays win.
Author:  Darkside [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Seacrest wrote:


Sorry, that doesn't refer to, nor mention, the ability of federal courts to exclude or deny, her free exercise of religion.

How the fuck do you STILL NOT GET THIS? Good god man.
Author:  Darkside [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Seacrest
Seacrest wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Seacrest wrote:

Sorry, that doesn't refer to, nor mention, the ability of federal courts to exclude or deny, her free exercise of religion.

Seacrest is arguing in favor of Sharia Law. Interesting.



I understand the position of you and many others, but it contradicts the free exercise clause guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

So...change the Constitution, or just sit back and aceept whatever we end up with when decisions are made without respect to the rights of others.

Eventually, you may very well end up with Sharia law. But it won't be because of my position on this.

You dumb bastard. No one is telling her she cannot practice her religion, or should I say, the portions of it that she chooses to practice while completely ignoring other parts of the same religion.

I don't get how you don't understand this. You're no dumbass. I know this. We've spoken in person. I know you're a reasonably intelligent person. How can you be so dumb as shit when it comes to this?

No one is forbidding her being a practicing whatever she claims to be.
Just like when you get fired for calling your boss a cocksucker it's not protected speech.

But we knew that didn't we?
Page 1 of 6 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/