Greg_W

Actually, sure, I'd take either. I'll bet behind that prim proper Bouvier exterior, Jackie was a raving sex machine!! Or not, since JFK was banging all sorts of other poon. But, could be fun.

Look, I didn't say I would bang her. I just said she wasn't looking so much like a mountain troll as she did before. I second Tex, I'd take Marilyn off JFK's hands for an evening, that's for sure. Yowzaaa!!!

HAHAHA I'm with you AlpineK. Let's break shit!!!!! Yeahhhhh!

So you don't like it, who the fuck cares? Crawl back under your hippy rock.

Nope.

Hey, I said "halfway decent", not goddess-like. Halfway decent, as in, if she weighed half as much she'd look decent.

Not true Winter. Proper thinning and underburning (as needed) helps reduce the risk of fire; that's what my fire expert friends tell me.

What's more shocking than that is they actually made Monica Lewinsky look halfway decent in that picture

Logging is not bad, DFA. I understand the point of the article, but some logging needs to be done in order to keep standing fuel loads down.

No, I just want to hear what he has to say. He keeps saying there's evidence, but hasn't given anything concrete. Don't worry, thelawgoddess handles all my fetish work!!

Let's have it.

Hey, Necro - Someone was just asking me where your ultra-liberal, socialist, big-government, anti-freedom, elitist prick ass was lately. How's it going?

My uneducated guess would be it was flu-induced. My thinking is that you were more dehydrated by your illness than you thought and what would normally be sufficient pre-race water intake wasn't sufficient in this case. I don't know about the vitamin factor.

Kan't we all just get along??? Nah, fuck 'em all but six and use them for pallbearers

What was so 'wrong' about slavery? They had three hots and a cot, we got our work done cheap. Oh, except that whole "inalienable rights" thing. Where does that come from? Oh, from the BELIEF that we all have rights as individuals that are inherent to our humanity. That is called "Natural Rights"; adhering to this theory is called BELIEVING in the "Natural Rights Theory." There is no empirical evidence showing the existence of rights or the rights themselves. It is a belief in a system.

I agree, Iain, that they avoided any specific religion while acknowledging a Creator as the source of our natural rights (see the Preamble). As far as the "establishment of religion" clause, that is what it specifically means - the government WILL NOT establish a state-sponsored religion. The supporting writings of the period support this.

Jim - I don't want the government dictating what morality should be. Each individual must do that for himself. However, there are certain absolutes that correlate to personal freedom and natural rights that are necessary for the government to create laws to protect. We have a separation of church and state in this country. Just because an individual is elected, or appointed, who believes in God and/or actively attends a church doesn't mean that that individual is attempting to "create a state-sponsored church." This is what the 1st Amendment protects: the creation of a National Church. The Founding Fathers came from England, where the Anglican Church (established by Henry VIII) had far-reaching authority. The 1st Amendment says nothing about banning anything remotely religious from the halls of government.

Really? A number of the Founding Fathers relied on Biblical morality in establishing their positions on government. I believe Abraham Lincoln talked about Biblical morality in his policy decision to free the slaves. And best of all, Bill Clinton admitted that he, too, consulted the Bible and prayed as preparation to making major policy decisions. You see, many people believe in the Bible and see it as a source for their morality. Not all these people are bad, or "extreme".

Fuck you, dickhead. I am not.

DFA would you STFU!!! We're having a discussion here. I swear, you're like my 3-year-old sometimes. Greg W

RobBob - Sorry, I'm feeling militant today. Changed medications. Usually I try and be civil because I enjoy the spirited debate that ensues, but I don't mind being the asshole either. I've got a few hot-buttons, just like everyone else. Spray on Rob

Well, all you other liberal pukes then. So there... I must admit that my eyes begin to blur on the Goat's marathon posts, but that doesn't mean that his points aren't valid. Also, I think, when confronted with an overwhelming counter-argument, those with extreme liberal ideals can't back up what they believe. In that respect, I like the tactic as it exposes many flaws in their belief system.

Comments like this piss me off. I don't agree with a lot of people on this board, but I still respect your opinion as your own. Why would one of us bother to defend positions that we don't believe? I find it hilarious that you liberal pukes think, "he can't ACTUALLY believe that!!!" How fucking stupid is that? Are you liberals the only ones who are "enlightened" in this country? Give me a break.

Bwahahahaha

hehehe, gotcha! Here's some horsecock for you, Iain: