 | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Oh, great--now Australians hate freedom, too... Dave! (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Richard explians all: (URL) A (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I do. But you now say "I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations" (...) It is you who said they were politically motivated, and now say "I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations"! (...) I'm just not clear on what the threat was. (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Now THERE is a peculiarly American point of view. On the basis that terrorists are those who forsake non-violent means of change, and violently target combatants and non-combatants alike to coerce changes in state policy, I'd have thought that (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) lol What are you talking about?? I thought you wanted to know if church leaders' comments were politically motivated? To which political comment of mine are you referring? As far as your question about church leaders' motivation-- I already (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I honestly don't know what you mean by that. What does that have to do with people who wish to kill you and will given the chance? Your statement is a feel-good non sequitur. JOHN (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Oh, give me a frelling break! The world is not coming to an end because 50% of marriages fail, and the world won't come to an end if gays are allowed to *marry*. The society is {not} based on marriage. The Nuclear Family is a farce and a (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) That's interesting, but it does not explain your "political" comment, nor does it answer my question. (...) What right did Bush have to threaten him? (...) Not everyone; was that not why Rumsfeld established is own little intelligence fiefdom? (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) That is where you and I differ. I believe in “Freedom”. Not just for me: I believe in freedom for everyone. Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Merely because I think I'm right doesn't make me narrow-minded or a bigot. You think that you're right and I'm wrong.... As far as accusing me of thinking that everybody else is wrong, well I think that you have me confused with Dave! :-) (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) That's precisely the problem. You are a bigot and narrow-minded, only, you can't understand that fact and therefore, you think you are not and that everyone else is wrong. You compare Gay marriages to brother-sister marriages and group (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I've got a bolo tie... (...) I read that too early in my life-- never got it. (...) lol Just rented that to watch with my son a while back (catching him up on all of the classics:-) (...) lol If you are going to lob a fat one over the plate, (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Works fine - actually, I had no idea what model it was until I just looked. I presumed it was some thing my grandfather got in the 60's - which he may have, but by it's serial number it is actually 100 years old (1904). Dang. Snickersnee? (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) lol, But -->Bruce<-- I would have expected a little snickersnee from you! Nonetheless, Kewl-- does it still fire, and more importantly: do your Liberal buddies know you own a gun;-) (...) lol I would have said Massachusetts, long before (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Yet. Courage is standing up for something you believe in the face of the consequences - that the other side has turned out too gutless to do anything about it doesn't change that. I (...) Let me introduce you to my counter-argument: Winchester (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Let me clarify: I believe it is totally appropriate to threaten any and all leaders of any nation who aid and abett terrorists who threaten our national security. (...) Against a greater threat, namely the USSR. (...) Against a greater threat, (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) What courage? Newsom hasn't even been arrested for disobeying the law! I think I might come to California and steal your LEGO Pirate collection and expect equal treatment Newsom is getting under the law-- namely the law looking the other way. (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) So you have no problem threatening our own leaders (watch it, with the Patriot Act, you might be locked up for life with no trial on this one...)? Our leaders supported the Taliban, after all... Our leaders supported SH, after all... (I'm too (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Here is his justification: (URL) I find this so disingenuous! "Pursuant to my sworn duty to uphold the California Constitution, including specifically its equal protection clause..." What about the rest of the CA Constitution? Upholding all of (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Which doesn't mean a thing if they are in violation of the constition. That's the whole point in doing this kind of thing - to test the law. Gotta admire their courage. (...) What a frivilous and idiotic misuse of the amendment process - just (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
