CX wrote:Guns are cool. (just saying...)
So are blades.
Interesting article
Moderators: justTripn, Elessar, dark_rain
-
blacknblue
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1679
- Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:54 am
Re: Interesting article
So are blades.
"When the legends die, the dreams end. When the dreams end, there is no more greatness."
--Tecumseh
"It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion."
--King Solomon the Wise
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Unless the few are armed.
--Tecumseh
"It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion."
--King Solomon the Wise
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Unless the few are armed.
-
enterprikayak
- Token Canadian
- Posts: 3324
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:40 pm
- Show On Map: No
- Location: Southwest Canada
- Contact:
Re: Interesting article
Now, as a lefty meself, I'm gonna make one (it turned out not-so-)quick opinion/observation here (just, y'know, to stir the soup) and drop away from the debate, as I get too enmired in these things, and I am quite, quite passionate about the opinions below, so I won't have my mind changed by debate anyhow.
*Note: use of "you" and "your" isn't to target anyone specifically....just instead of using "one" and "one's" which I find clunky.
I agree with Rigil there. And I think one of the reasons is that liberals are just that: liberal. We want to give everyone the freedom to do what they like as much as is reasonably possible as far as life choices go: single moms, homosexuality, birth-out-of-wedlock, gay marriage/parenting, artificial insemination/conception, etc. (And I won't mention abortion cause there's too many on both conserv/right and liberal/left on both sides of the abo. issue).
The Liberal position, in many cases, is held by people who hate the idea of people being forced to conform to someone else's idea of "right" or "normal". So when someone disagrees with that position, then the Liberal involved feels that the disagree-er is attacking the idea of tolerance. Whether this is what is happening or not. That's what it feels like to our hepped-up fire-in-the-pants Liberal. I think this is the phenomenon Rigil is noticing.
And you can be intolerant of murder, of pedophilia, of torture, of misogyny, totally INTOLERANT of all kinds of things, and still consider yourself a tolerant person. Because, Right or Left, there are a few things, like murder and torture, and the harming of innocent children, really have to go on the "Sadly I Cannot Tolerate This" List.
Because of course, to be totally tolerant or totally intolerant of ALL things in life would be to reduce the argument ad absurdum. We humans are not robots, and can discriminate in the moment, despite what our overarching opinions in general might be.
A tricky issue for this one as well, is the fact that many Liberals are INtolerant of guns and similar things. Many might say "well, how can you IMPOSE your idea of gunlessness on the others? How intolerant!" And here, I believe (since I do think guns are bad news) that what happens here in the Liberal mind, is that someone with a gun can go around imposing THEIR will in a horrible shoot-you-in-the-face kind of way on other citizens any old time they feel like it (remember the Sniper?), and they can cause murder and pain and suffering, so we Liberals often put easy-gun-ownership on the unfortunate, but necessary "Sadly I Cannot Tolerate This" List.
IMO: As for the argument: "what if A Man comes into my house with a gun? I must protect my family!" I say that is awful! A Man in your house with a gun! And I hope you get free and/or call 9-1-1 for some help. And I hope that The Man with the gun ISN'T the way you are destined to exit this world. But I personally feel that even if The Man in my house kills me and my husband and my daughter with his gun, my HAVING a gun of my own for "protection" wouldn't have necessarily prevented that at all. Not at all. It assumes I could get my hands on the gun, and operate it skilfully in the fear of the moment, and a lot of other things. Because of these reasons, I am positive that arming the nation is the wrong way to stop The Man from getting you with his gun. In fact, it is probably the reason The Man In Your House GOT a gun so easily. Those tolerant gun laws. And you're much more likely to die in your car. Gun or no.
And as for shooting deer and eating them, you just said how awful it was that a man came into your environment and tried to shoot your family with a gun and that it would be nice to be able to shoot back. Why should we enter the deer's environment and hurt and scare and murder them? Would it be fair if they had a shoot-back mechanism installed on them? If they did would you still hunt? And mostly....what's wrong with all the dead animals who are already dead down the street at the meat market. Why not eat them?*
(This does not apply to the fact that every now and again it IS necessary to "thin out thar numbers!" I klnow about the thinning. I'm talking about everyday recreational hunting only.)
*none of this hunting stuff applies, in my opinion, if you live in the woods or Africa or something and don't have access to easy, cheap, already-dead meat. But if you do....why go out into precious diminishing nature and destroy and cause agony and death?
You know to boil it down, my position is this:
ARE YOU HURTING ANYONE/ANYTHING BY YOUR ACTION? DON'T DO IT.
ARE YOU *NOT* HURTING ANYONE/ANYTHING BY YOUR ACTION? FILL YOUR BOOTS.
So there was my super-green Canadian west-coast hippie girl who lives on a hobby farm and hasn't eaten a scrap of even jell-o (hoof gel) or fish (mercury pie) in four years Rant, and I hope none o' your heads are exploding in your efforts to reply and rebut. As is your Earth-given right.
Hope y'all can still stand me.
*Note: use of "you" and "your" isn't to target anyone specifically....just instead of using "one" and "one's" which I find clunky.
in my experience, leftists are more intolerant toward someone who doesn't agree with them than any other individual
I agree with Rigil there. And I think one of the reasons is that liberals are just that: liberal. We want to give everyone the freedom to do what they like as much as is reasonably possible as far as life choices go: single moms, homosexuality, birth-out-of-wedlock, gay marriage/parenting, artificial insemination/conception, etc. (And I won't mention abortion cause there's too many on both conserv/right and liberal/left on both sides of the abo. issue).
The Liberal position, in many cases, is held by people who hate the idea of people being forced to conform to someone else's idea of "right" or "normal". So when someone disagrees with that position, then the Liberal involved feels that the disagree-er is attacking the idea of tolerance. Whether this is what is happening or not. That's what it feels like to our hepped-up fire-in-the-pants Liberal. I think this is the phenomenon Rigil is noticing.
And you can be intolerant of murder, of pedophilia, of torture, of misogyny, totally INTOLERANT of all kinds of things, and still consider yourself a tolerant person. Because, Right or Left, there are a few things, like murder and torture, and the harming of innocent children, really have to go on the "Sadly I Cannot Tolerate This" List.
Because of course, to be totally tolerant or totally intolerant of ALL things in life would be to reduce the argument ad absurdum. We humans are not robots, and can discriminate in the moment, despite what our overarching opinions in general might be.
A tricky issue for this one as well, is the fact that many Liberals are INtolerant of guns and similar things. Many might say "well, how can you IMPOSE your idea of gunlessness on the others? How intolerant!" And here, I believe (since I do think guns are bad news) that what happens here in the Liberal mind, is that someone with a gun can go around imposing THEIR will in a horrible shoot-you-in-the-face kind of way on other citizens any old time they feel like it (remember the Sniper?), and they can cause murder and pain and suffering, so we Liberals often put easy-gun-ownership on the unfortunate, but necessary "Sadly I Cannot Tolerate This" List.
IMO: As for the argument: "what if A Man comes into my house with a gun? I must protect my family!" I say that is awful! A Man in your house with a gun! And I hope you get free and/or call 9-1-1 for some help. And I hope that The Man with the gun ISN'T the way you are destined to exit this world. But I personally feel that even if The Man in my house kills me and my husband and my daughter with his gun, my HAVING a gun of my own for "protection" wouldn't have necessarily prevented that at all. Not at all. It assumes I could get my hands on the gun, and operate it skilfully in the fear of the moment, and a lot of other things. Because of these reasons, I am positive that arming the nation is the wrong way to stop The Man from getting you with his gun. In fact, it is probably the reason The Man In Your House GOT a gun so easily. Those tolerant gun laws. And you're much more likely to die in your car. Gun or no.
And as for shooting deer and eating them, you just said how awful it was that a man came into your environment and tried to shoot your family with a gun and that it would be nice to be able to shoot back. Why should we enter the deer's environment and hurt and scare and murder them? Would it be fair if they had a shoot-back mechanism installed on them? If they did would you still hunt? And mostly....what's wrong with all the dead animals who are already dead down the street at the meat market. Why not eat them?*
(This does not apply to the fact that every now and again it IS necessary to "thin out thar numbers!" I klnow about the thinning. I'm talking about everyday recreational hunting only.)
*none of this hunting stuff applies, in my opinion, if you live in the woods or Africa or something and don't have access to easy, cheap, already-dead meat. But if you do....why go out into precious diminishing nature and destroy and cause agony and death?
You know to boil it down, my position is this:
ARE YOU HURTING ANYONE/ANYTHING BY YOUR ACTION? DON'T DO IT.
ARE YOU *NOT* HURTING ANYONE/ANYTHING BY YOUR ACTION? FILL YOUR BOOTS.
So there was my super-green Canadian west-coast hippie girl who lives on a hobby farm and hasn't eaten a scrap of even jell-o (hoof gel) or fish (mercury pie) in four years Rant, and I hope none o' your heads are exploding in your efforts to reply and rebut. As is your Earth-given right.
Hope y'all can still stand me.
|||||||||enterpriseScrybe & enterpriseScrybe2 TrekVids||||||||| www.trekref.info|||||||||www.TriaxTpolitan.com|||||||||
"Let's be honest with ourselves: there's nothing easy about the life we've chosen. But we don't do it because it's easy, dammit!
We do it because the tits are big and the bat'leths are sharp and the ships are fast!"
-
Rigil Kent
- Fleet Captain
- Posts: 1656
- Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:32 am
- Show On Map: No
- Location: Elsewhere. Elsewhen.
- Contact:
Re: Interesting article
You don't know how much I want to reply to that in order to disagree vociferously ... but that would likely lead to harsh feelings and possible warnings being handed out, so I'm going to shake my head and say nothing, despite my general disagreement on pretty much every part of your post.
I'll only comment on the one thing whereas I am specifically referenced.
No, that's not what I'm talking about. The intolerance I've faced from leftists is not the shiny, happy intolerance that you're espousing. It's the angry, vitriolic intolerance that those of us on the right are so often accused of.
What I'm talking about are the people who insist that I bow down before the altar of political correctness and give up the antique musket that has been in my family since the 1700s because it's a firearm and the Nanny State has deemed it too dangerous for anyone but the all-knowing, all-powerful government to possess, despite the constitutional right for me to bear that weapon. What I'm talking about are the people who call me a homophobe and get violently angry when I state that I don't support gay marriage, and because they are angry, they stop listening and don't want to know why I happen to oppose it (this has happened more times than I care to consider, and has accomplished the task of really souring me on the idea of gay marriage, even more so than before). What I'm talking about are the people who call me a racist when I don't support a candidate just because of his skin color (which ignores the fact that, for me, what the person stands for is more important than what that person looks like). What I'm talking about are the people who call me mean-spirited because I happen to believe that I'm a better arbiter about how to spend my hard-earned money than the all-knowing Nanny State who want to waste funds on "Wars against Poverty", despite the incontrovertible proof that such "wars" don't work and won't work, or want to tax my earnings so much so that barely have enough to survive so they can divert that money to people who haven't done a damned thing to earn it. What I'm talking about are the people who seem to go out of their way to shackle freedom of speech when it happens to be something they don't want to hear (aka the birth of political correctness.) What I'm talking about are the people who seem intent on telling me how I should live my life for whatever reason, whether it's because I like food that isn't really good for me, or whether it's because I like to go to the gun range to blow off some steam, or whether it's because I happen to like driving my car for recreation. What I'm talking about are the people who let emotion dictate their decisions instead of logic. Too often, laws are passed because they make people feel good when anyone who looks at those laws without the blinders of touchy-feeliness can tell that they don't do anything.
And if God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.
No offense was intended to anyone, and I apologize in advance if someone was offended.
I'll only comment on the one thing whereas I am specifically referenced.
The Liberal position, in many cases, is held by people who hate the idea of people being forced to conform to someone else's idea of "right" or "normal". So when someone disagrees with that position, then the Liberal involved feels that the disagree-er is attacking the idea of tolerance. Whether this is what is happening or not. That's what it feels like to our hepped-up fire-in-the-pants Liberal. I think this is the phenomenon Rigil is noticing.
No, that's not what I'm talking about. The intolerance I've faced from leftists is not the shiny, happy intolerance that you're espousing. It's the angry, vitriolic intolerance that those of us on the right are so often accused of.
What I'm talking about are the people who insist that I bow down before the altar of political correctness and give up the antique musket that has been in my family since the 1700s because it's a firearm and the Nanny State has deemed it too dangerous for anyone but the all-knowing, all-powerful government to possess, despite the constitutional right for me to bear that weapon. What I'm talking about are the people who call me a homophobe and get violently angry when I state that I don't support gay marriage, and because they are angry, they stop listening and don't want to know why I happen to oppose it (this has happened more times than I care to consider, and has accomplished the task of really souring me on the idea of gay marriage, even more so than before). What I'm talking about are the people who call me a racist when I don't support a candidate just because of his skin color (which ignores the fact that, for me, what the person stands for is more important than what that person looks like). What I'm talking about are the people who call me mean-spirited because I happen to believe that I'm a better arbiter about how to spend my hard-earned money than the all-knowing Nanny State who want to waste funds on "Wars against Poverty", despite the incontrovertible proof that such "wars" don't work and won't work, or want to tax my earnings so much so that barely have enough to survive so they can divert that money to people who haven't done a damned thing to earn it. What I'm talking about are the people who seem to go out of their way to shackle freedom of speech when it happens to be something they don't want to hear (aka the birth of political correctness.) What I'm talking about are the people who seem intent on telling me how I should live my life for whatever reason, whether it's because I like food that isn't really good for me, or whether it's because I like to go to the gun range to blow off some steam, or whether it's because I happen to like driving my car for recreation. What I'm talking about are the people who let emotion dictate their decisions instead of logic. Too often, laws are passed because they make people feel good when anyone who looks at those laws without the blinders of touchy-feeliness can tell that they don't do anything.
And if God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.
No offense was intended to anyone, and I apologize in advance if someone was offended.
"Go, and find the pit where these snakes hide. And be merciless." - Lorenzo de'Medici, Assassin's Creed: Lineage
Sig by Chrisis1033.
Sig by Chrisis1033.
-
blacknblue
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1679
- Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:54 am
Re: Interesting article
enterprikayak wrote:And as for shooting deer and eating them, you just said how awful it was that a man came into your environment and tried to shoot your family with a gun and that it would be nice to be able to shoot back. Why should we enter the deer's environment and hurt and scare and murder them? Would it be fair if they had a shoot-back mechanism installed on them? If they did would you still hunt? And mostly....what's wrong with all the dead animals who are already dead down the street at the meat market. Why not eat them?*
(This does not apply to the fact that every now and again it IS necessary to "thin out thar numbers!" I klnow about the thinning. I'm talking about everyday recreational hunting only.)
*none of this hunting stuff applies, in my opinion, if you live in the woods or Africa or something and don't have access to easy, cheap, already-dead meat. But if you do....why go out into precious diminishing nature and destroy and cause agony and death?
You know to boil it down, my position is this:
ARE YOU HURTING ANYONE/ANYTHING BY YOUR ACTION? DON'T DO IT.
ARE YOU *NOT* HURTING ANYONE/ANYTHING BY YOUR ACTION? FILL YOUR BOOTS.
So there was my super-green Canadian west-coast hippie girl who lives on a hobby farm and hasn't eaten a scrap of even jell-o (hoof gel) or fish (mercury pie) in four years Rant, and I hope none o' your heads are exploding in your efforts to reply and rebut. As is your Earth-given right.
Hope y'all can still stand me.
Sure, we can stand you. We have so far haven't we?
But I beg most humbly to point something out.
And mostly....what's wrong with all the dead animals who are already dead down the street at the meat market. Why not eat them?*
That meat wasn't born dead ma'am. Somebody had to kill it. Probably somebody like Mitchell raised it. Then he loaded it onto a truck and hauled it to a stockyard where it was sold at auction to a slaughterhouse. Where they ran it through a chute and killed it. Then they hung it by the heels and peeled the skin off it. Then they opened up the belly and yanked out the guts. Then they chopped off the limbs. Then the cut the back and ribs into sections and took off the head. Then they wrapped it all neatly into packages and shipped it to the supermarket. But it was once a breathing critter. Just like that deer.
And at least the deer had a taste of freedom. Nobody ever pinned that deer into a headcatcher shortly after birth and cut its testicles off in order to keep its meat from tasting too rank.
"When the legends die, the dreams end. When the dreams end, there is no more greatness."
--Tecumseh
"It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion."
--King Solomon the Wise
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Unless the few are armed.
--Tecumseh
"It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion."
--King Solomon the Wise
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Unless the few are armed.
Re: Interesting article
You realize I was just being fececious in my last post right? Wasn't trying to start off another gun debate, we already had one of those here.
-
CoffeeCat
- Fleet Captain
- Posts: 1318
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:57 am
- Show On Map: No
- Location: Gill, MA
Re: Interesting article
enterprikayak wrote:IMO: As for the argument: "what if A Man comes into my house with a gun? I must protect my family!" I say that is awful! A Man in your house with a gun! And I hope you get free and/or call 9-1-1 for some help. And I hope that The Man with the gun ISN'T the way you are destined to exit this world. But I personally feel that even if The Man in my house kills me and my husband and my daughter with his gun, my HAVING a gun of my own for "protection" wouldn't have necessarily prevented that at all. Not at all. It assumes I could get my hands on the gun, and operate it skilfully in the fear of the moment, and a lot of other things. Because of these reasons, I am positive that arming the nation is the wrong way to stop The Man from getting you with his gun. In fact, it is probably the reason The Man In Your House GOT a gun so easily. Those tolerant gun laws. And you're much more likely to die in your car. Gun or no.
Screw the man in the house argument - I'm talking about thwarting invasion and preventing tptb from setting up concentration camps and rounding up citizens like cattle. I mean - that is what the 2nd amendment was set up to protect against. I'm 100 percent for the 2nd amendment.
Writing as TrekPyro.
-
enterprikayak
- Token Canadian
- Posts: 3324
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:40 pm
- Show On Map: No
- Location: Southwest Canada
- Contact:
Re: Interesting article
As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. But I do love reading everyone's opinions!
.......It takes all kinds huh?.........
(BnB: I know the meat at the store was killed by Mitchell....that's why I say it's dead *already*, so go eat *that* meat, if you must. Don't go interfering with happy, free animals unless you must for some reason to feed your family. That's my point.) Anyhow.... again: agreeing to disagree.
edit: thinking about various vociferous family dinners I've had, I imagined for a moment what Thanksgiving would be like if WE were all at one long table together. Us mixed bag o' Tuckerites. Hmmmmm........so many possible conversations. So many possible outcomes. So many possible injuries.....
.......It takes all kinds huh?.........
(BnB: I know the meat at the store was killed by Mitchell....that's why I say it's dead *already*, so go eat *that* meat, if you must. Don't go interfering with happy, free animals unless you must for some reason to feed your family. That's my point.) Anyhow.... again: agreeing to disagree.
edit: thinking about various vociferous family dinners I've had, I imagined for a moment what Thanksgiving would be like if WE were all at one long table together. Us mixed bag o' Tuckerites. Hmmmmm........so many possible conversations. So many possible outcomes. So many possible injuries.....
|||||||||enterpriseScrybe & enterpriseScrybe2 TrekVids||||||||| www.trekref.info|||||||||www.TriaxTpolitan.com|||||||||
"Let's be honest with ourselves: there's nothing easy about the life we've chosen. But we don't do it because it's easy, dammit!
We do it because the tits are big and the bat'leths are sharp and the ships are fast!"
-
TSara
- Captain
- Posts: 508
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 11:43 pm
- Show On Map: No
- Location: outside of Baltimore/ Washington DC
- Contact:
Re: Interesting article
I too can be fairly liberal when it comes to certain things....but compared to my husband I am a moderate so go figure. I don't care what religion you are, what sex you prefer, what race you are....I have many friends who run both sides of the political scale. I have friends who are straight out hippy's and friends that are far far far right as well. Not to toot my own horn here but I am probably one of the most open minded...tolerant persons you will ever meet. Why....because I just don't care.....you don't mess with my way of life and I wont mess with yours. *nods*
However.....I am all for the 2nd amendment right to bear arms if I so desire.
I have been trained in the use of a firearm.....and I can fire one under pressure....so for myself I like having the freedom to arm myself if necessarily.
However.....I am all for the 2nd amendment right to bear arms if I so desire.
I have been trained in the use of a firearm.....and I can fire one under pressure....so for myself I like having the freedom to arm myself if necessarily.
"It can giggle all it wants, but the galaxy isn't gettin' any of our bourbon." -Trip to Malcolm Shuttlepod One
Archer: You missed T'Pol's latest bout with chopsticks.
Trip: Damn, dinner and a show.- Silent Enemy
http://www.myspace.com/hylndlas
http://tsara80.livejournal.com/
Archer: You missed T'Pol's latest bout with chopsticks.
Trip: Damn, dinner and a show.- Silent Enemy
http://www.myspace.com/hylndlas
http://tsara80.livejournal.com/
Re: Interesting article
If you want to talk about gun control, see new thread.
It would behoove you all to take my advice.
And yes I deleted the last two posts, first of all because they proceeded off topic after it was announced that the Gun debate be moved, and secondly because they were intentionally trollish.
It would behoove you all to take my advice.
And yes I deleted the last two posts, first of all because they proceeded off topic after it was announced that the Gun debate be moved, and secondly because they were intentionally trollish.
"I call shotgun!"
"I call nine millimeter." - John and Cameron
Favorites:
Vulcan For...
Your Mom n' Me
"I call nine millimeter." - John and Cameron
Favorites:
Vulcan For...
Your Mom n' Me
Re: Interesting article
"Screw the man in the house argument - I'm talking about thwarting invasion and preventing tptb from setting up concentration camps and rounding up citizens like cattle. I mean - that is what the 2nd amendment was set up to protect against. I'm 100 percent for the 2nd amendment."
This quote from CoffeeCat reminds me of the terrible wound of the interment of the Japanese Americans.
Perhaps such lively debate will help prevent future horrors.
On a lighter note, (I guess) and intending no direct paralell, it also reminds me of a time in the late 70's when a prominent television actress of the time said she though people like me should be rounded up and sent to camps.
This quote from CoffeeCat reminds me of the terrible wound of the interment of the Japanese Americans.
Perhaps such lively debate will help prevent future horrors.
On a lighter note, (I guess) and intending no direct paralell, it also reminds me of a time in the late 70's when a prominent television actress of the time said she though people like me should be rounded up and sent to camps.
Last edited by evcake on Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
It's flavored with passionfruit
an appropriate ingredient, don't you think?
Banner by JadziaKathryn
Re: Interesting article
Speaking of deviant sexual behavior, this is still a little OT but closer than Gun Laws:
http://www.syfyportal.com/news423777.html
Cain and Six got it on. I'm not joking. Spoiler warning for BSG: Razor.
http://www.syfyportal.com/news423777.html
Cain and Six got it on. I'm not joking. Spoiler warning for BSG: Razor.
"I call shotgun!"
"I call nine millimeter." - John and Cameron
Favorites:
Vulcan For...
Your Mom n' Me
"I call nine millimeter." - John and Cameron
Favorites:
Vulcan For...
Your Mom n' Me
-
enterprikayak
- Token Canadian
- Posts: 3324
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:40 pm
- Show On Map: No
- Location: Southwest Canada
- Contact:
Re: Interesting article
"intentionally trollish."
Man, you log off for two minutes to have a nap and y'miss all the troll posts! Durn it! Ah well, I'll read 'em next time (if I'm quick enough). John, I must commend you on a spick and span board.
I like your BSG article. Interesting.
Man, you log off for two minutes to have a nap and y'miss all the troll posts! Durn it!
Ah well, I'll read 'em next time (if I'm quick enough). John, I must commend you on a spick and span board.I like your BSG article. Interesting.
|||||||||enterpriseScrybe & enterpriseScrybe2 TrekVids||||||||| www.trekref.info|||||||||www.TriaxTpolitan.com|||||||||
"Let's be honest with ourselves: there's nothing easy about the life we've chosen. But we don't do it because it's easy, dammit!
We do it because the tits are big and the bat'leths are sharp and the ships are fast!"
Re: Interesting article
What she said. 
Nap, hell...I think it happened while I was in edit correcting my spelling.
Nap, hell...I think it happened while I was in edit correcting my spelling. It's flavored with passionfruit
an appropriate ingredient, don't you think?
Banner by JadziaKathryn
Re: Interesting article
rigil said..
but, are you not doing the same thing by being opposed to gay marriage????
telling a couple who may have been together for years they cant have certain legal protections and other benefits a married couple have.
and what i told was what i saw happen to people in my neighborhood not just some anecdote.
What I'm talking about are the people who seem intent on telling me how I should live my life for whatever reason
but, are you not doing the same thing by being opposed to gay marriage????
telling a couple who may have been together for years they cant have certain legal protections and other benefits a married couple have.
and what i told was what i saw happen to people in my neighborhood not just some anecdote.
-
Mitchell
- Commander
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:33 am
- Show On Map: No
- Location: Tioga county PA. USA.
Re: Interesting article
For the record--- No bovine I have ever killed has ever ended up on a store shelf. An trust me you dont want that beef on the store shelf. Eating sick dieing cows, Not such a good Idea. pookha Im pretty sure that Rigil stated that the reason he dosnt support the goverment legalisin Gay marriage, is cause Marriage is a Religous institution, AN the Government has no bussiness telling any Relious group who they can an cant allow to marry.
I think thats what he ment anyway.
An I agree with him. Marriage is, an has been a Religous Thing, Long before any governments got mixxed up in it. An thuse the Government IMO also has no frakkin bussiness Legalising Gay marriage. Its ultimatly up to each an every single Religon. Not to Big brother. Seperation of Church an State, An Marriage is squarely in the Church's domain. Not the Governments.
even though teh Government seems to think it is within their right. Ok its just part of the reason I dont support Homosexual marriage.
TnT I love em.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests