| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 05:35:37 PM |
| Object: |
none |
"Reuters news agency this week headlined a story, "Critics Say Bush
Inaugural Too Lavish for Wartime," then quoted one "critic," Rep.
Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, who complained that the estimated
$40 million for the Bush-Cheney inauguration is extravagant.
The Associated Press moved a story that asked, "With that kind of
money, what could you buy?" The answer, the wire service said: "200
armored Humvees ... vaccinations and preventive health care for 22
million children ... and a down payment on the nation's deficit."
But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will
cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which
cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr.
Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25
percent.
According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the
equivalent of $49.5 in 2004."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm
FDR's inauguration, on the other hand, was the most extravagant.
Historian: FDR's Inauguration Was 'Extravagant'
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first inauguration, held during the worst days
of the Great Depression, was "the most lavish undoubtedly" of all the
presidential inaugural celebrations, according to Donald Kennon, chief
historian of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society.
Kennon tells Newsday that for FDR's big day "an exact replica of Federal
Hall in New York, costing $100,000 - an extravagant sum for the Depression
years - was built on the White House lawn for Roosevelt's use in reviewing
his parade."
Extravagant indeed, especially considering that in 1933, America was on the
brink of economic collapse - with 25 percent unemployment, bread lines
stretching around city street corners and formerly prosperous executives
reduced to selling apples from pushcarts.
What's more, Roosevelt's inaugural parade lasted a mind-numbing four hours,
twice the time President Bush's inaugural parade is expected to last on
Thursday.
Reporters of FDR's day, however, weren't complaining that he had misspent
precious dollars that could have relieved some of the economic misery
engulfing the nation - the way they are now about the costs Bush's
inauguration celebration.
Roosevelt's inaugural bash didn't stop with the parade. In fact, Warner
Brothers Studio shipped an entire trainload of its top stars to join in the
revelry.
The Hollywood celebs imbibed then-illegal bootleg booze during the trip and
partied inauguration night away to the music of orchestras led by two of
the nation's top bandleaders, Rudy Vallee and Guy Lombardo.
Roosevelt, however, didn't attend any of his inaugural parties. The media
of the day claimed that he wanted to get right to work that night on the
nation's banking crisis.
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 05:45:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
AH#49 writes wrote:
Al sure seems to support the "gay marrige" thing.
Why is that?
Perhaps, he simply wishes to see gays have the same rights and
privileges as heteros?
As am I.
No, you're lying. You don't want gays to have the right to marry the
consenting adult of their choice.
So again I ask, why can't a person fall in love with the
horse/dog/dolphin/etc.. of their choice, and legally "be married" to it?
Just because it's "different"?
Just because none of them can be competent to give consent.
Al said, and the government says, that they have issues with
human/animal couplings.
Of course it's odd and hardly normal... but so what?
So very few non-humans are competent to consent, and the VERY few who
were asked weren't interested.
So is two men being married and raising a small boy that they adopt,
and visa versa.
They're both competent adults - horses and dogs aren't. Some dolphins
have already indicated a desire to mate with human females, but the
women didn't seem too interested.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
04 Feb 2005 10:42:54 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
AH#49 writes wrote:
Al sure seems to support the "gay marrige" thing.
Why is that?
Perhaps, he simply wishes to see gays have the same rights and
privileges as heteros?
As am I.
No, you're lying. You don't want gays to have the right to marry the
consenting adult of their choice.
'Cause that's not a right they have, considering marriage is what I said
it was. The union of a Human Man and a Human Woman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
04 Feb 2005 04:23:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:42:54 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
As am I.
No, you're lying. You don't want gays to have the right to marry the
consenting adult of their choice.
'Cause that's not a right they have
But it's a right you have, so you're NOT in favor of giving them the
same rights you have. That makes you a liar for claiming that you are
in favor of giving them the same rights you have.
considering marriage is what I said
it was. The union of a Human Man and a Human Woman.
That's what you said. Your saying it doesn't make it so.
--
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
04 Feb 2005 05:02:22 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:42:54 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
As am I.
No, you're lying. You don't want gays to have the right to marry the
consenting adult of their choice.
'Cause that's not a right they have
But it's a right you have, so you're NOT in favor of giving them the
same rights you have.
I'm not gay, you ***** loving liberal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
04 Feb 2005 05:18:22 PM |
|
|
In article <4203FEFE.3C1A46E7@BCComics.net> AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> writes:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:42:54 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
As am I.
No, you're lying. You don't want gays to have the right to marry the
consenting adult of their choice.
'Cause that's not a right they have
But it's a right you have, so you're NOT in favor of giving them the
same rights you have.
I'm not gay, you ***** loving liberal.
Are you saying Al is a homophiliac?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
04 Feb 2005 08:10:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:02:22 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:42:54 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
As am I.
No, you're lying. You don't want gays to have the right to marry the
consenting adult of their choice.
'Cause that's not a right they have
But it's a right you have, so you're NOT in favor of giving them the
same rights you have.
I'm not gay, you ***** loving liberal.
Non sequitur. Try addressing the issue - assuming you can understand
it.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 12:40:38 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
So again I ask, why can't a person fall in love with the
horse/dog/dolphin/etc.. of their choice, and legally "be married" to it?
Just because it's "different"?
Consent. Non-sentient beings cannot give consent. And legally it's never
been established that sentient non-humans can give consent, so if
that issue ever comes up it'll have to be resolved by the courts. Consent
is required for marriage, and for sexual relations. Therefore...no,
homosexual marriage does not mean that suddenly people would be allowed to
marry animals.
Or children either for that matter, as children are not
considered capable of giving consent either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 12:56:21 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
So again I ask, why can't a person fall in love with the
horse/dog/dolphin/etc.. of their choice, and legally "be married" to it?
Just because it's "different"?
Consent. Non-sentient beings cannot give consent.
As far as you know.
And legally it's never
been established that sentient non-humans can give consent, so if
that issue ever comes up it'll have to be resolved by the courts. Consent
is required for marriage, and for sexual relations. Therefore...no,
homosexual marriage does not mean that suddenly people would be allowed to
marry animals.
Only because we don't understand the animals language? :)
Oddly, I have seen some rather stange movie clips of animals that
appeared to be rather willing, enjoying, and in charge of the
"situation" when copulating with rather willing humans.
( I have some weird friends that occasionly send me some goofy stuff)
Or children either for that matter, as children are not
considered capable of giving consent either.
Thank you.
You basically proved my point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JEDIDIAH" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 12:54:11 PM |
|
|
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Liam Slider wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
So again I ask, why can't a person fall in love with the
horse/dog/dolphin/etc.. of their choice, and legally "be married" to it?
Just because it's "different"?
Consent. Non-sentient beings cannot give consent.
As far as you know.
As far as anyone knows. These things can be demonstrated in court.
It's not as if issues such as these have never come up before, even with
humans. None of this is happening in a vacuum. Issues of this nature just
didn't arise last year, or even 30 years ago.
[deletia]
Or children either for that matter, as children are not
considered capable of giving consent either.
Thank you.
You basically proved my point.
Not at all. There are objective standards involved and human
children can still have legal recourse in the courts to have themselves
declared competent to manage their own affairs.
You act as if you are the first person to ever think of these issues.
That's the height of hubris.
--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 01:19:06 PM |
|
|
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Liam Slider wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
So again I ask, why can't a person fall in love with the
horse/dog/dolphin/etc.. of their choice, and legally "be married" to it?
Just because it's "different"?
Consent. Non-sentient beings cannot give consent.
As far as you know.
As far as anyone knows.
You mean Dr. Doolittle is a fibber? :>
.
|
|
|
| User: "JEDIDIAH" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 01:18:56 PM |
|
|
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Liam Slider wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
So again I ask, why can't a person fall in love with the
horse/dog/dolphin/etc.. of their choice, and legally "be married" to it?
Just because it's "different"?
Consent. Non-sentient beings cannot give consent.
As far as you know.
As far as anyone knows.
You mean Dr. Doolittle is a fibber? :>
The most frightening aspect of this conversation is the fact
that people like you end up in juries.
--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 02:49:57 PM |
|
|
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Liam Slider wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
So again I ask, why can't a person fall in love with the
horse/dog/dolphin/etc.. of their choice, and legally "be married" to it?
Just because it's "different"?
Consent. Non-sentient beings cannot give consent.
As far as you know.
As far as anyone knows.
You mean Dr. Doolittle is a fibber? :>
The most frightening aspect of this conversation is the fact
that people like you end up in juries.
While instead you run away from your civic duties?
Well, I have to admit that I hated being on them at first.
But afterwords, I was glad that I did and personally had my voice in
sending a few crack dealers to prison.
Heck! I even wore my Harley vest and leathers, and didn't shave for two
months!
Both lawyers said "Perfect!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cole Firearms Inc." |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 01:42:03 PM |
|
|
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Liam Slider wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
So again I ask, why can't a person fall in love with the
horse/dog/dolphin/etc.. of their choice, and legally "be married" to it?
Just because it's "different"?
Consent. Non-sentient beings cannot give consent.
As far as you know.
As far as anyone knows.
You mean Dr. Doolittle is a fibber? :>
The most frightening aspect of this conversation is the fact
that people like you end up in juries.
You would think that even a lawyer could spot the retarded.
--
""Sic Semper Tyrannis" - Thus Always with Tyrants - John Wilkes Booth"
"Per ardua nec flectitur nec mutat. Confido,
est voluntas dei, invictus maneo. Addere leci justitiam
deo certavi et vici." - Rev. Shawn Cole, Cole Firearms Inc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 03:09:12 PM |
|
|
"Cole Firearms Inc." wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Liam Slider wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
So again I ask, why can't a person fall in love with the
horse/dog/dolphin/etc.. of their choice, and legally "be married" to it?
Just because it's "different"?
Consent. Non-sentient beings cannot give consent.
As far as you know.
As far as anyone knows.
You mean Dr. Doolittle is a fibber? :>
The most frightening aspect of this conversation is the fact
that people like you end up in juries.
You would think that even a lawyer could spot the retarded.
He can't think, and never will you be able to!
At least I can, have, and do serve on juries, Felony Boy Blunder!
Still getting ridiculed on RMH, Shawn?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JEDIDIAH" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 02:47:27 PM |
|
|
On 2005-02-03, Cole Firearms Inc. <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Liam Slider wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
So again I ask, why can't a person fall in love with the
horse/dog/dolphin/etc.. of their choice, and legally "be married" to it?
Just because it's "different"?
Consent. Non-sentient beings cannot give consent.
As far as you know.
As far as anyone knows.
You mean Dr. Doolittle is a fibber? :>
The most frightening aspect of this conversation is the fact
that people like you end up in juries.
You would think that even a lawyer could spot the retarded.
Are you kidding? Lawyers will kick you out if they think you have
half a brain. They don't really want you thinking for yourself.
--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 03:19:30 PM |
|
|
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-02-03, Cole Firearms Inc. <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-02-03, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Liam Slider wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
So again I ask, why can't a person fall in love with the
horse/dog/dolphin/etc.. of their choice, and legally "be married" to it?
Just because it's "different"?
Consent. Non-sentient beings cannot give consent.
As far as you know.
As far as anyone knows.
You mean Dr. Doolittle is a fibber? :>
The most frightening aspect of this conversation is the fact
that people like you end up in juries.
You would think that even a lawyer could spot the retarded.
Are you kidding? Lawyers will kick you out if they think you have
half a brain. They don't really want you thinking for yourself.
No WONDER you have never been on a jury!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JEDIDIAH" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 12:51:31 PM |
|
|
On 2005-02-03, Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:13 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
So again I ask, why can't a person fall in love with the
horse/dog/dolphin/etc.. of their choice, and legally "be married" to it?
Just because it's "different"?
Consent. Non-sentient beings cannot give consent. And legally it's never
been established that sentient non-humans can give consent, so if
that issue ever comes up it'll have to be resolved by the courts. Consent
is required for marriage, and for sexual relations. Therefore...no,
Consent is required for any contract. In some cultures, marriage
actually involves a formal contract.
homosexual marriage does not mean that suddenly people would be allowed to
marry animals.
Or children either for that matter, as children are not
considered capable of giving consent either.
--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
02 Feb 2005 06:21:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:01:02 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
I have none - I'm not gay. What's YOUR problem?
Al sure seems to support the "gay marrige" thing.
Why is that?
I support non-slavery and I'm not black. Why is that?
Maybe some of them are afraid that they might be. ;)
Some might.
But, being a normal male, I'm not afraid of being married to a woman.
No, but you're probably afraid that, somehow or other, you could
become, or be made to be, gay.
Or maybe you know, deep down inside, that you ARE gay but just won't
let yourself realize it.
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
02 Feb 2005 06:14:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:01:02 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
Al sure seems to support the "gay marrige" thing.
Why is that?
Maybe he's concerned about people having fair and equal treatment under
the law. Maybe he's believes that the dictates of one particular religon
should not be forced on everyone unfairly? Maybe he's concerned with the
Constitution of the United States of America.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morton Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
02 Feb 2005 07:42:45 PM |
|
|
"Liam Slider" <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.03.00.14.15.569716@NOSPAM.liamslider.com...
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:01:02 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
Al sure seems to support the "gay marrige" thing.
Why is that?
Maybe he's concerned about people having fair and equal treatment under
the law.
NOPE. He's helping bury the Democratic Party. If y'all'd just leave well
enough alone and let things ruin their course, Gay marriage will be accepted
within the next few decades. Keep going as you are now and you'll likely
never get it accepted.
Examine the history of interracial marriage. About 50 years ago iterracial
marriage was a jailable offense in several states and a lot of folk got beat
up or killed because of it.
Look around today.
-*MORT*-
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 11:18:46 AM |
|
|
Morton Davis wrote:
"Liam Slider" <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.03.00.14.15.569716@NOSPAM.liamslider.com...
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:01:02 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
Al sure seems to support the "gay marrige" thing.
Why is that?
Maybe he's concerned about people having fair and equal treatment under
the law.
NOPE. He's helping bury the Democratic Party. If y'all'd just leave well
enough alone and let things ruin their course, Gay marriage will be accepted
within the next few decades. Keep going as you are now and you'll likely
never get it accepted.
Examine the history of interracial marriage. About 50 years ago iterracial
marriage was a jailable offense in several states and a lot of folk got beat
up or killed because of it.
Look around today.
There was salt and pepper 40 years ago.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
02 Feb 2005 08:28:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:42:45 +0000, Morton Davis wrote:
Examine the history of interracial marriage. About 50 years ago iterracial
marriage was a jailable offense in several states and a lot of folk got beat
up or killed because of it.
There was also a massive civil rights movement behind a good chunk of that
change. And a push by the government to educate the people around those
idiotic prejudices...
What *you* propose is that the "civil rights advocates" shut up, and allow
the government to continue to make the situation worse, by passing ban
after ban.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 01:40:57 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:42:45 GMT, "Morton Davis" <anitkerry@go.com>
said in alt.atheism:
"Liam Slider" <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.03.00.14.15.569716@NOSPAM.liamslider.com...
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:01:02 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
Al sure seems to support the "gay marrige" thing.
Why is that?
Maybe he's concerned about people having fair and equal treatment under
the law.
NOPE. He's helping bury the Democratic Party. If y'all'd just leave well
enough alone and let things ruin their course, Gay marriage will be accepted
within the next few decades. Keep going as you are now and you'll likely
never get it accepted.
Examine the history of interracial marriage. About 50 years ago iterracial
marriage was a jailable offense in several states and a lot of folk got beat
up or killed because of it.
Look around today.
Look at WHY it's legal now. No one "left well enough alone".
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
03 Feb 2005 01:40:06 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:14:17 -0600, Liam Slider
<liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:01:02 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
Al sure seems to support the "gay marrige" thing.
Why is that?
Maybe he's concerned about people having fair and equal treatment under
the law. Maybe he's believes that the dictates of one particular religon
should not be forced on everyone unfairly? Maybe he's concerned with the
Constitution of the United States of America.
Stop reading my mind. :)
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
02 Feb 2005 06:19:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:49:22 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:31:43 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
What's yer hold up?
I have none - I'm not gay. What's YOUR problem?
Maybe some of them are afraid that they might be. ;)
That's one of the major causes of homophobia - fear that they are gay,
or fear that they could "become" gay. Intelligent people don't worry
about things like that.
--
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
31 Jan 2005 08:29:09 PM |
|
|
Al Klein, <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
I'm not gay.
Results 1 - 10 of 55 for "I'm not gay" "Al Klein". (0.22 seconds)
In this therapy session, Al, I want you to concentrate on the
following list of words. Your job is to describe what comes to
mind when you read the words:
Sexual anxiety
*****
Willy
Pink pencil
Penis
Mother
Trauma
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Harvie Wahl-Banghor" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
31 Jan 2005 08:42:50 PM |
|
|
I was walking down the street, minding my own business, when on Tue,
01 Feb 2005 08:14:09 +0545, Kadaitcha Man
<nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> screamed from behind the mulberry bush:
Al Klein, <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
I'm not gay.
Results 1 - 10 of 55 for "I'm not gay" "Al Klein". (0.22 seconds)
In this therapy session, Al, I want you to concentrate on the
following list of words. Your job is to describe what comes to
mind when you read the words:
Sexual anxiety
*****
Willy
Pink pencil
Penis
Mother
Trauma
*****, Kabitchy, it reads like a laundry list of your psychosis. You
should use Google more often.
---
"I think you need to get bent, *****. Bend over and let me shove a
vibrating ***** up your ***** and give you a *****. You need to learn
how to shut up, assballs"
Zittmutter AKA Dr Zonk offers McDougal some oral carnal knowledge in Message-ID: <sst370lo0ro895sm7a88u9euuo0vihjter@4ax.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
31 Jan 2005 08:49:19 PM |
|
|
Dr. Harvie Wahl-Banghor, <harvie_wahl-bangor@mindless.com> wrote:
I was walking down the street, minding my own business, when on Tue,
01 Feb 2005 08:14:09 +0545, Kadaitcha Man
<nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> screamed from behind the mulberry bush:
Al Klein, <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
I'm not gay.
Results 1 - 10 of 55 for "I'm not gay" "Al Klein". (0.22 seconds)
In this therapy session, Al, I want you to concentrate on the
following list of words. Your job is to describe what comes to
mind when you read the words:
Sexual anxiety
*****
Willy
Pink pencil
Penis
Mother
Trauma
*****, Kabitchy, it reads like a laundry list of your
#9.
IKYABWAI by proxy. "Everything you say bounces off him and back to you"
psychosis. You should use Google more often.
#1.
Your lame score so far:
##### 1. spnak! nice backpedal! You replied so I win.
# (dance, owned etc.) You are my *****. Spank.
You are my toy. You are delusional. You love me.
You are jealous. You follow me around. You are
obsessed. YHBT.
2. Slurp! Get a room. etc.
## 3. My rules count. I won't reply anymore therefore
I win. Post edit, context snip, etc. I knew all along.
That was my intention.
### 4. Fag, native, ***** your mother,
sister, brother, father. ***** sucker,
*****, brain damaged, retard, jackass,
newbie, incompetent, monkey, boring, asswipe,
loser, child, village idiot, immature, necrophile,
paedophile, head - groin, ***** you, *****,
geriatric, amateur, *****, inmate, bestiality
etc.
## 5. Testicles, *****, penis, faecal matter, urine,
vagina, bodily excretions, masturbation etc.
6. blink (clueless)
# 7. MEOW, repeat, same old ... etc.
8. Typo, spelling, grammar, punctuation,
comprehension lame, plagiarism.
### 9. I'm rubber, you're glue! IKYABWAI, lame by
proxy, truth hurts, takes one to know one.
So you don't know the answer then? Get a
life. That proves my point. You remind me of, etc.
# 10. Whine/pout/flip-flop, FOOM self-nuke.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
31 Jan 2005 02:07:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:31:43 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
If you want your boyfriend to be the one in your will, you're allowed.
Not in Virginia
If you want your boyfriend to be a dependent so as to save on taxes, you
can.
Not in Virginia.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
31 Jan 2005 02:24:17 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:31:43 -0500, AH#49 writes wrote:
If you want your boyfriend to be the one in your will, you're allowed.
Not in Virginia
If you want your boyfriend to be a dependent so as to save on taxes, you
can.
Not in Virginia.
Show the legislation(s) that says otherwise.
Show ANYWHERE where it says, even in Virginia, where it says a person in
Virgina can't not make a will and leave their stuff uncontested to the
person(s) of their choice.
When you provide that information, I will gladly say "Sorry. I was
wrong."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
