strickj

Entrapment? Did the cops give him the gun and induce his actions?

Yes, there is a big difference between those. The government can recognize marriage all it want's. The problem is that the government is favoring one religious belief over others by the legislation and restrictions that are currently in place. I have no idea is there is an increase in "gayness". Do you think that it might just be that we're just more accepting now then before? People have been having premarital sex since the beginning. Says so right there in the bible. But a hundred years ago people were not willing to talk openly about it. Today they are. The amount of people having premarital sex hasn't changed, just the openness to it has changed.... therefore, we "see" it more. Far as the "why now" comment; Slavery went on for ~200 years (before this country was actually a country) before it was an issue, right? Even after it ended, there was still another couple hundred before black rights was an issue. Similar for womens rights. Similar for disabled rights.

Oh, I see. If you don't accept the words of an accredited school, you'll just say that Christians started higher education. the same education system you recently bad-mouthed because they teach blasphemy science But let me try to explain this to you again. There are two parts (or two clauses). The first clause is about state sponsored and/or mandated religion. The second part, the Establishment Clause, is the part that you are ignoring. Bold XL emphasis for your viewing pleasure. Now, which part is so hard to comprehend? The part about laws that favor one religion over others, or the part about laws that favor religion over non-religion?

WTF are you talking about?Your religious tradition is law now. How does removing your religious tradition from law affect your tradition? And I posted this earlier. You ignored it. Actual text: What each "clause" means: http://www.law.corne...lishment_clauseBold emphasis is the part that you are ignoring. You will find the same explanation from every legal expert, accredited school and in case law. You will only find your excuse within religious institutions.

Exactly. A religious tradition. I'll ask again. Why do you feel the need to legislate your religious traditions? And it has absolutely nothing to do with throwing it out for an experiment. It has everything to do with upholding a document that obviously means nothing to you.

...that you seem to be ignoring.the first thing within it says that I do not have to believe in your bible, your religion, your church or your God. So why do you feel I should have to believe in your religious traditions? Next we'll be legislating turkey carving traditions.

Because they are nut jobs. Have you read about the Revolutionary war? Point one - The spent a long time negotiating before the Deceleration of Independence was signed and the war started. Point two - Our Founders did not have government representation. They did not have the option to vote. Do we have the option to vote? Do you have wet dreams of killing people instead of voting?

semantics? Not sure why some believe they own a word. It's fitting though. Ignore the First Admin and lay claim to a word. sacred? Yeah, real sacred, eh. I can get my pets married in a church. I can get married while drunk by a drunk Elvis. I can get married on a party or gambling boat. I can get married in a drive thru. Where's the blasphemy outrage here?

So this is where you get the though that kindergartners are being taught to be gay?

I agree but that wasn't the question though. Can not say that I've actually heard of it in grades K-5. Well, 'cept from those that fear teachers are teaching kindergarteners to be gay that is. And I believe it's law just about everywhere for written parental permission to be given.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't sex-ed usually reserved for middle school students and only taught with permission from the parents?

This topic has already been posted with explanations for the purchases. You can believe the explanations or not in that thread.

Very nice! Do you also bottle your own Pepto?

Lots of people are arrested and/or committed and later released. Even hardened felons find themselves being released after being caught "red handed". Such is the nature of the legal system beast. It's all about the price one is willing to spend on a lawyer, legal loopholes and evidence dismissals. This guy is a loon. He made open threats of killing people and taking up arms against the government. It's really no surprise to me that he's getting the support that he is because of the latter. There's a helluva lot of folks that have wet dreams of a revolution. They may be too scared to do it themselves.... but they'll by golly support anyone else that want's to start it... unless his last name in unpronounceable, that is.

So, now we're comparing how one plays with his pecker with those that are dangerous to others or makes open threats to others?Nice.

Not sure why the "it's a choice" or "disorder" argument always comes up. What does that matter? It still does not change the fact that these laws are unconstitutional. It still does not change the fact that a few are forcing their religion upon others. And even so, does a disorder mean these people do not have rights? I have OCD.... does that mean I do not have rights? And for what it's worth, I went to school with two gays and am still acquainted with them today after all these years. I find it hard to believe that a grade school age child could make the "choice" to be gay. I've said it before I'll say it again. I find it extremely gay for a grown man to tell another grown man how to play with his pecker;

Can not say I've ever seen politicians admit to voting in error of judgment. Narcissistic assholes usually stand by their decisions even after they realize their wrongs and take it all the way through the courts. Kudos!

Derka derka Bakalakadakah Equika righka to allka.

First thing this land fought and died for. First thing the Founders put down in ink. Before that little gun thing, even. Shame it's ignored. You'd think the Constitution party would be.... well, Constitutional.

Aluminum will hold no value once the system collapses. Best make those antimind control hats out of gold and silver. Follow the video for links to buy directly from the author!

Loved his role on Two And A Half Men. Great actor! And not to make light of his passing, but this speaks for me re: your quote

The founders were a mixed bag of religions, no religion and devotion to which. the founding of this country was not seeded in Christianity. Most of the people that immigrated here came here for it's religious freedoms. The Founders' religious believes are irrelevant anyway. The first thing they all agreed to do was to ensure our freedoms of and from religion was put in writing http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/the-us-founding-fathers-their-religious-beliefs/

Hef published a well reasoned article in this month's script (yes, I'm one of the 20 folks that still subscribe ). Don't know about you Smith.... but I would be sentenced to the electric chair if getting a BJ was still illegal... and that's just for my school years before girls started drinking

The Fourteenth Admin applies the Constitution to the states. That includes the First Admin. Everything you read about the First, the Framers and Jefferson will state that the Establishment Clause and it's intent keeps the government from establishing or showing preference to one religion over another or no religion. The letter from Jefferson expresses his intent as the "father" of the First Admin. Only religious insinuations and/or those within them will say differently in order to justify their religious opinions being legislated. And aren't you a Pastor? http://www.law.corne...lishment_clause I'm sorry, but I will take the words Jefferson [the Father of the First Admin] spoke, a couple hundred years of law and interpretation and the words of an accredited legal school over the words of a religious institution that benefits from legislating their religious opinion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Context that. The First Amendment was written and latter amended (based on Jefferson's letter about the intent of the First Amendment) to keep government out of religion and religion out of government. Simple enough? Or is your religious opinion not included?