1 - 10 Next
This would not be a case of loving your neighbor as yourself. This would heartlessly punish individuals who live there, but do not approve of the violence. Glad you're not in charge of much, NHSenior.
Gee, do you think the reporter might have told us in whose hands the decision is right now, why they haven't made it public yet, and what the anticipated time and venue is for when that happens? Or showed that he wasn't incompetent by reporting "Authorities are not revealing at this time who is holding the decision," and so on?
In response to:

Uncommon Common Sense on Marriage

Brian953 Wrote: Nov 20, 2014 11:26 AM
@"What type of people want big intrusive Gov to regulate sex?" Those who understand that it results in progeny, results in new members of the society, Your assessment of Larence is mistaken. Though states could not regulate sexual behavior FOR THE SOLE REASON of moral approbation, that narrow finding does not create the broad-brush conclusion you assert. "Cannot" is one word. The government is in the business of licensing marriage, in part so that it can say that dissolution of the same is to be hard. Homosexuals can marry all they want, and divorce all they want, with no involvment by the government at all — the government has no standing in it. But when it comes to heterosexual marriage, it is a totally different story. It is reductionsim, a logic error, to conflate the two. Failing to recognize or license homosexual marriage DOES apply the laws equally. ALL persons are entitled to marry one, and ONLY one eligible person of the opposite gender. (No one can "marry the person they love" as a carte blanche. If that other is already married? No. If that person is a sibling? No. If that person is your parrent or offspring? No. If that person is under a certain age? No.)
"What does it take?" Ahhh, now there's the $64,000 question!
And promoting the wild-eyed Elizabeth Warren will only serve to accelerate that demise. I was SO happy to see that! Everything they do to make that party more extreme is a benefit for the country (as long as they are in the minority, of course!).
It isn't valid to deem people who have not been given true reporting "stupid," for being unaware. When a steady parade of economists are trotted out on the MSM newscasts, all saying this law is good, it is reasonable for those hearing that to eventually believe it. The news reports were devious lies, to be sure.
That doesn't appear to be a differnet take, only an enumaeration of one part of the whole.
In response to:

Politically Correct or Prostitution?

Brian953 Wrote: Nov 03, 2014 1:45 PM
- "hear, hear," meaning, "Pay attention to what this person is saying!"
In response to:

Politically Correct or Prostitution?

Brian953 Wrote: Nov 03, 2014 1:45 PM
Further proof that Freud was not really all that smart,
In response to:

Politically Correct or Prostitution?

Brian953 Wrote: Nov 03, 2014 1:44 PM
Big O7, you are right, of course. But it was a double play on the common thought that liars go to hell, and that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It was clever, though erroneous. Incidentally, the road to hell is paved with sin, not good intentions.
1 - 10 Next