Search results

i just love your little "aha" moments. it's as if you actually believe your own hype. a more truthful assessment would be, "sarcasm, the last resort of the man who realizes he is arguing with the terminally obtuse", but i understand that honesty isn't your strong suit. after explaining this...

buck, i can only conclude that you are functionally illiterate and whoever it is that reads these posts to you is off today. when they get back you might have them read the bill to you and you will find out that nowhere in it is there any reference to "non-forcible rape". i'm not even sure...

did you even read the definition i gave you? the definition of forcible rape is essentially anything that we commonly consider rape. you're splitting nonexistent hairs. here, i'll even repost the damn definition: anything outside of the bounds of this definition would have to be considered...

aside from the usual liberal drivel about how conservative elements are all about religion and the need for constantly increasing taxes to support an ever more invasive government, there were only two really pertinent sentences in that whole post. the first is this histrionic accusation that...

finally someone with a legitimate objection. i'm kind of wondering how they propose to get past this too, since government's incompetence extends to the court system as well. abortion is a time sensitive issue and i suppose quite a few false allegations would have to be would have to be sorted...

keep drinkin' that kool aid, eventually it will kill of that last braincell and you too will be on the government dole. i suppose you like having government sticking its nose up your ass. well - different strokes for different folks, but i don't see why the rest of us should have to engage in...

nice try buck. another sad attempt to warp meanings for your own ends, just what we've come to expect from liberal talking points. below i give you the definition of "forcible rape": i'm no legal eagle, but that would seem to include rape through means of drugging or coercing the victim. as...

pad, first i want to apologize for the perceived insult of allowing you to believe that my post was aimed exclusively at you. even though i used a quote from your post, i figured that by leading off with "y'all" you would understand that the following "you"s were to be taken in the general...

don't get to feelin' special. i think med has threatened just about everyone who doesn't embrace his rather perverted outlook.:bigjoint:

so just how does that work, how do the wealthy control government? do they make them an offer they can't refuse? do the rich threaten our representative's families? maybe they just walk into congress, put a gun to each senator's head and demand they legislate in their favor. in case you...

hell no, i can't think of a nation that does. everyone in government is beholden to someone and everyone is washing everyone else's back. even opposing forces usually maintain a tacit agreement that the chain of power must remain unbroken. even party allegiance is secondary to maintaining the...

no, i think you're the one who's confused. liberalism has become concerned only with forcing others to help the poor. it's all about the force. what you consider hording, rational people consider keeping what you earn. you are right about the liberal desire to see more people with less money...

it took you a year to come back with this?:rolleyes:

there will always be folks who will vote for the liberal agenda. even if every last person in the country were to attain enough wealth to easily support themselves and their families, the call of its authoritarian roots is just too tempting. it is a philosophy of statism that appeals to those...

but that is what it's all about, at least to the liberal mind. it's about punishing those who dare to flourish as their neighbors fail. how many times have we heard these sheep bleating about the "unfairness" of wealth in the hands of the few? it doesn't matter how much those few may give or...

for the people, lotteries are a rip-off. they feed off of and into the something for nothing dreams that drive our entitlement mentality. for the state, they are a windfall. millions of poor folks plunking down their dollar here, dollar there and not even asking for anything in return. they...

i realize this is a futile exercise because, whether you want to admit it or not, you already know the answer, but here goes. in case you haven't noticed, we've been having some economic troubles lately. a bursting housing bubble, wall street in disarray and most every industry scrambling...

by only the most twisted logic does a "fundamental sense of fairness" advocate the direct use of force for anything but opposing the use of direct force. where is the force in merely attaining wealth? all of your rationalizations merely attempt to cover up the desire to forcibly redistribute...

i think y'all have more than answered my original question. the hatred aimed at religion in general and christianity in particular is the result of the same ignorance and intolerance that you claim are the great sins of organized religion. instead of recognizing ignorance as the natural state...

even if that were the case, as history shows us it most certainly is not, the fact that it would be a matter of civil war should be taken into account. what percentage of the military do you suppose would choose to support an armed rebellion against a tyrannical government? the first blows in...