I hate the fucking poodle.
But I do love the SheBar, thus the photos I permit to be taken of myself and the little shitmaker
See: http://forum.therx.com/showthread.php?t=605229
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRHSM%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";** @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;** div.Section1 {page:Section1;** --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";** </style> <![endif]--> Thats funny Joe, i cant come across the word Christ or Christian in the Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence or any other major federal framework written 200 years ago. I wonder why that is? You can make the argument that 95% of the founding fathers were Christian but its blatantly obvious they left the nouns out for a reason, is it not? So your obviously selfishly attempting to superimpose said writings with something you interpret as the base of when the base of is only by association, nothing more. I mean if 90 out of 100 bakers are baking bread, does that make the bread "Jewish bread". Using your logic, you would then assume that bread to be kosher, even thou we both no that is wrong. The beauty of the constitution is because of the freedoms it protects, while you and people like you try to take those freedoms away and then call yourself a patriot.
:nohead:
As Americans celebrate the 232nd anniversary of the signing of The Declaration of Independence, one scholar notes the document is more a submission to God than an assertion of rights.
<storybody></storybody>
Dr. Larry Arnn is president of Hillsdale College in Michigan. In a recent article published on TownHall.com, Arnn calls The Declaration of Independence "a most remarkable declaration." He says that it is remarkable to remember that all who supported the document and all who signed the document were committing acts of treason punishable by death. But perhaps most remarkable was the documents four references to God.
"The posture of The Declaration of Independence is an appeal to heaven. And so it's really a beautiful thing if you put the four places that God is mentioned together in the declaration. He's mentioned as the maker of the laws of nature and of nature's God – which makes him a legislator. He's mentioned as the supreme judge of the world – which makes him a judge. He's mentioned as divine providence – which makes him an executive. And he's mentioned as the creator – which is like being a founder," Arnn explains.
Dr. Arnn says the message of the declaration is that the powers of government could only be rightly united in the hands of God. "So the posture of the document is one of humility before God, and although it is a revolutionary document – very emphatically – it begins as a document of obedience to the laws of nature and of nature's God...," Arnn contends.
Arnn concludes that the The Declaration of Independence "...is a submission [to God] at the same time as it is an assertion [to the King of England]."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=165580
Abortion is a serious topic sometimes talked about too callously. I am prolife, but I realize that abortion is part of our culture and will probably never be outlawed. However, there is a line I can't cross, and that's late term abortions. Once the baby can survive outside the womb, it should be illegal to have an abortion. That living person has constitutional rights in this country, and he or she is not a fucking vegetable. That gives a person at least six months to abort the child.
Obama not only condones late term abortions, he thinks if the baby is alive and well outside the womb it's still ok to kill it. That's simply unconscionable. It cannot be argued that the mother's health is in jeopardy.
And can someone please tell me how pulling the baby's head out of the vagina before you crush it's skull would put the mother's health at risk?
Obama not only condones late term abortions, he thinks if the baby is alive and well outside the womb it's still ok to kill it. That's simply unconscionable. It cannot be argued that the mother's health is in jeopardy.
And can someone please tell me how pulling the baby's head out of the vagina before you crush it's skull would put the mother's health at risk?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27965
Like most Democratic politicians, Barack Obama favors abortion rights for women, with few exceptions. He has recently said that he might support some limits on very late-term abortions, those that occur in the last trimester of pregnancy. But when it comes to actual legislative limits, he's never found one yet he can vote for.
Take partial-birth abortion, a gruesome procedure in which the fetus is delivered feet-first, its skull punctured and its brain suctioned out, thereby killing the fetus and collapsing the skull for easy delivery of the full body. Although he was not in the U.S. Senate when it voted to ban partial-birth abortions, Obama has nevertheless heavily criticized the legislation and the Supreme Court ruling that upheld its constitutionality. "Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure -- that it's not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong," Obama told those attending a 2007 Planned Parenthood meeting. But Americans overwhelmingly oppose partial birth abortion -- 70 percent in a 2003 Gallup poll -- so Obama's views put him in a distinct minority.
He talks middle of the road, but votes for all abortions all the time
Obama's most controversial action on the abortion issue occurred when he was an Illinois state senator. Bills that would have required medical personnel to treat infants who survived abortion procedures came up several times during Obama's tenure in the Illinois state senate -- and each time, Obama opposed passage. He has since tried to defend his stand by claiming that the purpose of the Illinois bills was to overturn Roe v. Wade. And he's even argued that the Illinois legislation was unnecessary because "there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances," as he told Relevant magazine last month.
In fact, the Illinois legislation was introduced after a Chicago nurse, Jill Stanek, came forward to describe her own experiences "where babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in the soiled utility room" at Christ Hospital in a Chicago suburb. Stanek testified that she held one of the infants for 45 minutes before it died after being denied any medical treatment. Clearly the legislation was not superfluous, as Obama suggested. Moreover, Obama explained his vote at the time by complaining, "if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try and keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."
Obama's most controversial action on the abortion issue occurred when he was an Illinois state senator. Bills that would have required medical personnel to treat infants who survived abortion procedures came up several times during Obama's tenure in the Illinois state senate -- and each time, Obama opposed passage. He has since tried to defend his stand by claiming that the purpose of the Illinois bills was to overturn Roe v. Wade. And he's even argued that the Illinois legislation was unnecessary because "there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances," as he told Relevant magazine last month.
In fact, the Illinois legislation was introduced after a Chicago nurse, Jill Stanek, came forward to describe her own experiences "where babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in the soiled utility room" at Christ Hospital in a Chicago suburb. Stanek testified that she held one of the infants for 45 minutes before it died after being denied any medical treatment. Clearly the legislation was not superfluous, as Obama suggested. Moreover, Obama explained his vote at the time by complaining, "if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try and keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."
"barnman" is a very disturbed sick puppy.
Anyone who needs their own private pharmacy just to manage their mental state has crossed the threshold of insanity.
I don't say this lightly or very often about anyone, but the forum would be much better off without him.
As BermudaGirl observed, "barnman" is very VERY creepy.
You miss the whole point and this piece you posted only confirms my point. The word "God" isnt shackled to Christianity, its just the English pronunciation and meaning for the Alpha and the Omega. Last time i looked the Constitution and all other documents were written in English, thus the word God is present. You can post any articles from the AFA or Onenewsnow (both faith based websites) in attempt to give the word "God" a Christian stronghold, but it doesnt fly. Being Christianity is about as black and white as any religion in the world, i would assume its safe to say that those founding fathers would have made mention of Christianity in the frameworks, and they didnt. Why? Because they were facing religious persecution themselves, they would want to do the same via language to others... just as King George did to them. So the word God is universal. Its pretty special that those 230+ years ago have a better grasp of that then 95% of US citizens now.
fletch, you are the poster child of modern secularized ignorance.
You obviously aren't trying to hide the fact that you've never read ANYTHING written by the framers -- beyond the few distorted 'excerpts' posted at your favorite uber-secular websites.
But then you also believe Noam Chomsky is an all-American hero.
hno:
You obviously aren't trying to hide the fact that you've never read ANYTHING written by the framers -- beyond the few distorted 'excerpts' posted at your favorite uber-secular websites.
But then you also believe Noam Chomsky is an all-American hero.
hno:Joe I don't think Barman should be following you around the forum, and at times it becomes ridiculous. I have previously made mention of this.
However I disagree with your views on his "private pharmacy." If pot should be illegal than so should valium. I don't think pot smoking makes someone a sick puppy. I would assert that the number of people who smoke pot that are productive members of society is equal to the number who are "straight."
I respect you and your opinion Joe. And I don't consider either you or Steve as people who would make me uncomfortable if you were my neighbors.
Do you guys want me to play Henry Kissinger? LMAO!
Come on already you two!
However I disagree with your views on his "private pharmacy." If pot should be illegal than so should valium. I don't think pot smoking makes someone a sick puppy. I would assert that the number of people who smoke pot that are productive members of society is equal to the number who are "straight."
I respect you and your opinion Joe. And I don't consider either you or Steve as people who would make me uncomfortable if you were my neighbors.
Do you guys want me to play Henry Kissinger? LMAO!
Come on already you two!
fletch, you are the poster child of modern secularized ignorance.
You obviously aren't trying to hide the fact that you've never read ANYTHING written by the framers -- beyond the few distorted 'excerpts' posted at your favorite uber-secular websites.
But then you also believe Noam Chomsky is an all-American hero.
Problem with you is you only read what you agree with, thus your chances of ever becoming enlightened with anything outside of your narrow view points is unlikely. I have read PLENTY of the framers works, plenty boy. I have also read Chomsky and just because i have doesnt make him much of anything, unless i have said otherwise, i have not. Now have you read Chomsky? Ill answer for you, you have not and you have said so before. So, then how do you know what he is about Because some talking head gave you that opinion for you (just like everyone else you try to pass off as your own). And to further drive my assertion of you being a thick skulled label whore...you couldnt even get through one sentence without resorting to labels. You boy are the poster child for the dumbed down American unable to think critically about anything not given to him by his masters. Always looking for something to identify with...always looking for acceptance and approval. What a miserable and pathetic exsistance that must be.
uke1:
