YGPMApril23 said:So why do you "build" a road if you have this wealth of knowledge?
YGPMApril23 said:So why do you "build" a road if you have this wealth of knowledge?
HOW MIGHT ONE SAY OWNED MOTHERFUCKER. GOD IS ON MY SIDE! *laughs evil like*Sarcasmo said:JESUS CHRIST, I HAD A 2-PAGE FUCKING RESPONSE TO THIS THAT TOOK ME 3 HOURS TO TYPE WHILE WORKING AND THEN WHEN I CLICKED SUBMIT I GOT A DATABASE ERROR THAT LASTED FOR 30 MINUTES AND I LOST THE ENTIRE THING. I FUCKING QUIT.
I EVEN QUOTED ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE FOR FUCK'S SAKE
[IM]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/PhatDaddyDamon/GIFs/11206657429693ef.gif[/IMG]
shawndavid said:The only thing I want is to make sure of is FG maintains his right to feel the cool, Atlantic sea breeze blow through his tresses akin to the cover of a Harlequin Romance 'novel'.
I can't believe it's not buttuh...
FlamingGlory said:HOW MIGHT ONE SAY OWNED MOTHERFUCKER. GOD IS ON MY SIDE! *laughs evil like*
When you mess with the best shit happensSarcasmo said:I honestly feel sick to my stomach over here.
TALKING TO FLAMINGGLORY RULES
RULE 1. You are not smarter than FlamingGlory
...
RULE 4. What you know about the United States, or what you think you know, is nowhere near what FlamingGlory knows, because of RULE 1.
I have no idea what it's called, I just know it was the more expensive option.zengirl said:Are you talking about the D & C? I had one of those when I miscarried, and they gave me valium to relax but I was awake and aware of the whole thing. I remember it. I cried a lot... but not until after I asked the doctor for a 6 pack of that stuff to go.
FlamingGlory said:My position has 200 years of case law behind it. There is a very simple secret to never being wrong. A blantently obvious one at that.
No I'd be a shitty lawyer before my first instinct is to physically hurt people until they agree with me. I only cant do that across the interwebnets so I have to actually reason with you ingrates.shawndavid said:Yood be grate loyurr
are you a ceral killer?FlamingGlory said:No I'd be a shitty lawyer before my first instinct is to physically hurt people until they agree with me. I only cant do that across the interwebnets so I have to actually reason with you ingrates.
Best post ever. Capped off by the awesome animated gif.Flamer McDickchugger said:JESUS CHRIST, I HAD A 2-PAGE FUCKING RESPONSE TO THIS THAT TOOK ME 3 HOURS TO TYPE WHILE WORKING AND THEN WHEN I CLICKED SUBMIT I GOT A DATABASE ERROR THAT LASTED FOR 30 MINUTES AND I LOST THE ENTIRE THING. I FUCKING QUIT.
I EVEN QUOTED ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE FOR FUCK'S SAKE
Which part of the government? New Hampshire had a requirement that every holder of office was of the protestant religion until 1877. Mass. had a STATE CHURCH until 1833. Technically it is possible for a state to sanction religion.wonko80 said:I think the biggest problem our country faces is morality that we try to control via laws is too often intertwined with religion.
Our government should not be so tied to religion, as I find it against the ideals the country was founded on. Sure, when it was founded they all happened to be mostly the same religion, but why say you have freedom of religion then basically declare one to be the correct one since your government mentions it all the time.
Take God out of the picture. He/she does not care about governments our countries, only people. That other crap is mundane compared to the creation of life.
We as a world, but especially Americans, need to stop thinking God favors us over others. We don't do things for God, just for our own purposes and then put religion on it to sell it to the masses.
wonko80 said:I think the biggest problem our country faces is morality that we try to control via laws is too often intertwined with religion.
itburnswhenipee said:More importantly, people need to realize that you cannot legislate morality.
why_ask_why said:sure you can...it's morally wrong to kill and it's therefor illegal
You argue just to argue, don't ya?FlamingGlory said:Which part of the government? New Hampshire had a requirement that every holder of office was of the protestant religion until 1877. Mass. had a STATE CHURCH until 1833. Technically it is possible for a state to sanction religion.
Also in general, replacing one morality with another could end you up in far worse circumstances than you know. Right now, we have some people in the south who vote with their bible, not a huge problem, they are a minority. If some other religion/morality/flavour of the week were to replace them you face an unknown enemy, of unknown strength, with some greater level of willpower. The situation, as it is, is far more desirable to myself through what I know than a danger I'm ignorant of. If you think that the situation I outlined is unlikely you do not know the power of e.g., a convincing nihilist to the ears of those ignorant to the philosophy.
itburnswhenipee said:If it's a moral issue then why are there so many degrees of murder, homicide, and manslaughter?
why_ask_why said:sure you can...it's morally wrong to kill and it's therefor illegal