"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:15:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



I was going to ask if you were OK with religion getting too involved
with
government, but I forgot something: You'll never provide a straight
answer
to that question.

I love this kind of debate technique. Make a statement as if it were
fact,
then question the answer to a baseless question assuming that fact.

Doug is very good at it, but when you pin him down, it's just all
narcissistic strut. Ever notice that when he gets pinned into a
corner, he tries to shift the discussion in a new direction? Or he'll
turn the discussion into a snark fest?

I used to think Doug had a solid streak of intellectual curiosity in
him - now I know better - he's just another prejudiced self-hating
social misfit who can't get along with anybody.


And yet, the reality is that you will never discuss religion mingling too
much with government. You hauled out the "we have a Christian heritage"
blather instead, a target that's easier to shoot than the side of a barn.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:55:07 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:10:28 -0500, BAR wrote:


I think you, the liberal side of the asile, are in fear of a candidate
with a strong faith in God.

Just curious, how do you determine who has a "strong faith in God"?

You don't. They do.
--
John H



And then, you take their word for it? Like what's-his-name the TV preacher
slob - was it Jim Baker?

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 03:26:37 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:03:28 -0500, HK wrote:


Besides, Obama merely attends the church; he isn't its pastor or its
former pastor, nor is he out praising Jesus or thanking heaven on a
public, daily basis for his political successes.

"Moreover, it's wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the
door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William
Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. - indeed, the majority of great
reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, they
also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and
women should not inject their "personal morality" into policy debates
is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of
morality."

Barak Obama, USA Today, 7/10/2006

Let's debate this: Without the ten commandments, absolutely nobody would
know that murder is wrong.

Nobody. No exceptions. Period.

I'm sorry Doug - I'm tired of you and your bull****.

Go play fake intellectual games with somebody else.

I'm out.


This is far from being bull****. This is at the heart of your "we have a
Christian heritage" thing. That usually leads to a discussion of how many of
our laws are based on religious principals, so I shot down that idea for
you. Here's the heart of the issue: I think normally adjusted humans
NATURALLY know certain things are wrong, and don't need commandments or laws
to help them. So much for religious heritage. I think we'd have most of our
laws even if religion never existed.

"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 18:39:54 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:




What's not to like about Chuck Norris movies. Lots of action, lots of
explosions. Good guy movie. No Jeff Gordon movie. Seagal was good,
before
he decided he could write and direct movies. Van Damme, movies. Just
SUX.
Jackie Chan is a good comedian. And I like good comedians.

Hey, Van Damme always had a naked butt scene and the girls in the
house must have found it titillating.
IMO, just about any episode of the "A-Team" had more good stuff than a
Norris movie. Peppard saying "I love it when a plan comes together"
displayed more acting talent than the entire cast of a Norris movie
saying all their lines. But maybe I wasn't paying close attention.

--Vic

Did not say Chuck was an actor. Just said it had great action scenes.



Q: What's behind Chuck Norris' beard?

A: Another fist.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:33:43 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:00:54 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:01:40 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Do you know this person:
http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/off...personId=14243

Not cool Reg.
Horse****!

You stand by and say little or nothing to Krause for the most vile
**** on the internet, and then jump on Reggie for this obvious
joke?

Some jokes are funny - some are not. This does not reach the level
of Joke in any sense of the word.

I do not find pedofilphila funny.

What ever else Harry has done, might or will do does not equal
basically being called a pedophile.

For what it is worth, I did find Harry's comment about keeping a photo
of a young girl in his wallet, very weird. I mean very weird.

While I don't care if you hold me to a higher standard than Harry (I
think I should be held to a higher standard), Harry has called numerous
people pedophiles and made numerous references to their preference
towards bestiality. Harry made these comments often without any comment
from you or any of the other regulars. Don has also made numerous
comments about people being pedophiles when he is puppy dogging Harry's
comments.

So while I agree with you I should be held to a higher standard than
Harry, JohnH was making a valid point that many people overlook Harry's
daily comments that are equal or go beyond anything said by others.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:00:54 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:01:40 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Do you know this person:
http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/off...personId=14243

Not cool Reg.

Horse****!

You stand by and say little or nothing to Krause for the most vile **** on
the internet, and then jump on Reggie for this obvious joke?

Give us a break!


--
John H


Facilitating again Johnny? You encouraging this type of infantile
behaviour?

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
snip
Don has also made numerous
comments about people being pedophiles when he is puppy dogging Harry's
comments.



Show examples jackass or slither back to the mud in Lake Lanier.

Don White wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
snip
Don has also made numerous
comments about people being pedophiles when he is puppy dogging Harry's
comments.



Show examples jackass or slither back to the mud in Lake Lanier.



Don, I thought you had me in your bozo bin?

If I wanted to spend the time, I could find numerous comments made by
YOU about numerous people liking little boys, just because Harry said
it. You are so busy puppy dogging Harry, you can't even remember what
you said.

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:00:54 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:


On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:01:40 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:


Do you know this person:
http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/off...personId=14243

Not cool Reg.


Horse****!

You stand by and say little or nothing to Krause for the most vile **** on
the internet, and then jump on Reggie for this obvious joke?

Give us a break!

I second that.

When krause has accused posters of incest, bestiality, etc., or voiced a
wish that they were dead, why was that "not cool"?

Sad part is, krause was not joking.

-- Charlie

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I think normally adjusted humans
NATURALLY know certain things are wrong, and don't need commandments or laws
to help them.

"Normally Adjusted Humans" (NAHs) natuarally know that killing animals
because they poop on your lawn is wrong.

Apparently you need a commandment.

Tick tock, Tick tock...

-- Charlie