On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Sam wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 4:22 AM, denstar wrote: > >> Yeah, that's it. Because I'm anti-religion. Or something. > > You're afraid of it. You think Bush wanted to convert this country > into a government sponsored Christian nation. Though he didn't even > try you still blame him for thinking it, or something.
"Abstinence only" is just backwards, dude. And, yes, it is sad that Bush rode in on the Religious Right, and mostly just gave lip-service. There were a few things that were religiously motivated though, like the stem cell research, which is just *wrong*. Was it Kennedy who was like, "I'm a President before I'm a Catholic" or whatever? I like that idea. Doing what is right, even though you may not personally agree with it, is powerful stuff. >> No, he did say that. IIRC. Why bitch because it's the same people >> who were already doing it, and warrants and such are just a formality. >> That records of doing shit like that aren't so very important. > > You mean the listeners are suddenly corrupt when they don't have a > warrant first? Seems like we have other problems then don't you think? What? Warrants are a check on power, dude. Without checks, we have *lots* of other problems. >> "At the time", yadda yadda. Don't give me that crap. > > Go to you tube, people waterboard themselves to see what it's like. > Not saying I would. Most of them reckoned it was torture, right? But you don't care, so long as a lawyer tells you it's not. >> That this is the kind of America you want, is saddening. > > Is that why America sucks to you because we pored a little water up > same assholes nose? You really need to get over that. Damn it Sam, why do you talk so much shit? America ROCKS! Lots of places rock. I was born here, so I especially like it. ... > The guys that tackled the girl were doing there duty as citizens, are > you required by law to stop a crime if you see one happening and are > capable? What crime did she commit again? >> So what if someone in a position of authority is getting "incited"? >> Getting "baited" doesn't give you the right to respond. > > Actually I think it's required by law. I'm pretty sure you actually have to break the law first. =) Although you support "first strike", so maybe you don't see it that way? ;) >> Here you equate the destruction of one of the most awesomest things >> about America to "collateral damage". > > One of the most awesomest things about America is your ability to > whine about questioning a terrorist publicly. You're idea of "questioning" is obviously a bit different than mine. Remind me not to piss you off. =) ... >> Um, a warrant, for one? I assume all communication is recorded, but >> there is a Big Fucking Difference between recording shit, and >> *legally* recording shit. > > I'm confused, if you think everything is recorded legally what is your issue > :P Um... *scratches head* "Is this thing on?" *tap* *tap* >> Didn't you just instruct me about Big Sister? Why the fuck aren't >> *your* panties in a wad? > > They are, but you are more concerned with me thinking Obama is not > doing our economy justice. If you want I can start hitting the list > with BS big sister is doing that's way worse than anything the Bush > admin did. But you will say it's Bush's fault because he opened the > box. Do it! Don't give two shits about what I say. And I mean that. Maybe you'd see we strongly agree on some things. >>> I'm lost here. Do you think I want religion in government? >> >> I thought you saw things like removing the ten commandments from that >> courthouse as an attack on religion? Maybe that was Jerry B. > > Ah, yes, it's a start. An opening of the door. Kind of like Bush and > teh presidential powers. Once started there's no turning back. So I'm > not against them removing the Ten Commandments, I'm wondering why it > bothers them and what's next. I don't care too much, but I am tired of people pointing at that stuff and saying "See, we are a Christian Nation!". >> Zing! Abortion and the Death Penalty. =) > > I'm for the Death Penalty but only when absolutely positive. If it's > questionable leave them in jail. Too many people found innocent after > the fact. You believe our justice system is capable of being *absolutely* positive? >> I give you shit, sure, because you seem to do it opportunistically, >> and not really based on principle. The warrantless wiretaps, for >> instance, yet professing a fear of Big Sis, &c. > > So you decide when my bitching is worthy of your approval now? Who else? It's *my* approval, neh? And who cares what I approve of, or do not approve of? Don't let *me* stop you! >> It is fun. Though I wonder if we don't agree on more than we think. =) > > It's the minor detai :-) Happy Halloween! :Den -- Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:330715 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
