|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
I think life is a precious, precious thing that isn't taken seriously by most people. We spend a lot of time arguing about when life starts because all societies revere the innocence and potential that a child represents. It's an emotional issue, period.
Yet everyday we walk past people that need our help, continue to house trivial criminals (i.e drug users) at the cost of the taxpayers, and ignore children already born who are being abused. Life is always precious.
Abortion after the first three months should be illegal except in cases where the mother's health is threatened. What continues to worry me are the number of women giving birth to children that will never receive the love and understanding they deserve.
A person granting rights to others can only do so by taking on responsibilities. That's the other side of the coin. If we are to grant the 'right to life' then we must recognise that life does not end at birth.
We have determined by law that a person is considered a child until 18 years of age. If these people have a 'right to life', then the society granting that right is responsible for the life until it reaches the age of majority at least. In order to provide these children with a proper environment and upbringing a social welfare state far more generous than anything the right imagines will be required. To put it in simple terms, if you want this child then you are responsible for it. When you have a plan to care for all these children you want, come talk to me. We can argue about the details.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
I think responsible parenting can trump the call for a "social welfare state". Saying we need more welfare takes the focus away from parenting and planning and puts it on a model of state behavior I believe to be at odds with the overall best interests of the child.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Billy Grahm should pray that the Clintons assasinate Pat Robertson. That would clear all of this up.
we should all rise above partisan instincts and back wbam on this!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
I think responsible parenting can trump the call for a "social welfare state". Saying we need more welfare takes the focus away from parenting and planning and puts it on a model of state behavior I believe to be at odds with the overall best interests of the child.
So you're saying that women not only have to bare unwanted children, they also have to raise them? Imagine what enthusiastic parents they'll make. How do you intend to pay for these unwanted children?
Rights are the foundation of private property. You're taking away the mothers valuable rights and transfering them to the unborn, she deserves compensation. To do otherwise would be thievery. You're using 'emminent domain' to sieze her womb. How will you compensate her for this intrusion into her body?
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
A child is not private property. You argument shows you stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
A child is not private property. You argument shows you stupidity.
I think you should just let him speak. He makes our point for us.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
A child is not private property. You argument shows you stupidity.
I never said they were. I said a woman's womb is private property. If you're going to deprive her of it's use, you have to compensate her.
Let's not get into name calling, okay?
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
I never said any such thing. Your model of an expanded social welfare state minimizes the role of a parent (or parents) who plan financially, emotionally and socially for the arrival of a child. People now have children and expect the state to foot the bill for the birth, and have no viable plan for caring after the child.
I haven't "seized" anyone's womb; your use of hyberole is misguided and unwarranted. You yourself mentioned rights entailing responsibilities, yet now these rights entail no responsibilities. I never mentioned abortion as a solution to unwanted pregnancies: this is an attempt to create an issue I never raised.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
I never said any such thing. Your model of an expanded social welfare state minimizes the role of a parent (or parents) who plan financially, emotionally and socially for the arrival of a child. People now have children and expect the state to foot the bill for the birth, and have no viable plan for caring after the child.
I haven't "seized" anyone's womb; your use of hyberole is misguided and unwarranted. You yourself mentioned rights entailing responsibilities, yet now these rights entail no responsibilities. I never mentioned abortion as a solution to unwanted pregnancies: this is an attempt to create an issue I never raised.
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I never presented a welfare state model. I asked a question about how to provide for these unwanted children. If not a welfare state, what's the alternative?
By denying a woman the right to decide if she wants to be a mother, the state are in fact taking the right of a woman to control her own reproductive system and transfering it to the state. The action is hostile to the owners intent. Sounds like a siezure of property to me. Where is the hyperbole?
If it is helpful to clarity I can write in the 3rd person only.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
A child is not private property. You argument shows you stupidity.
I never said they were. I said a woman's womb is private property. If you're going to deprive her of it's use, you have to compensate her.
Let's not get into name calling, okay?
Do I have the right to kill anyone who enhabits my private property?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
A child is not private property. You argument shows you stupidity.
I never said they were. I said a woman's womb is private property. If you're going to deprive her of it's use, you have to compensate her.
Let's not get into name calling, okay?
Do I have the right to kill anyone who enhabits my private property?
Any undeveloped child in your womb, is your choice.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
|
|
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
A child is not private property. You argument shows you stupidity.
I never said they were. I said a woman's womb is private property. If you're going to deprive her of it's use, you have to compensate her.
Let's not get into name calling, okay?
Do I have the right to kill anyone who enhabits my private property?
First, it's "inhabits," and, second, sure, people do that kind of thing all the time-- "coathanger abortions?"
"Ah good. Now I'm on the internet clearly saying I like tranny cleavage. This shouldn't get me harassed at all." -- Lothar of the Hill People
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
A child is not private property. You argument shows you stupidity.
I never said they were. I said a woman's womb is private property. If you're going to deprive her of it's use, you have to compensate her.
Let's not get into name calling, okay?
Do I have the right to kill anyone who enhabits my private property?
Any undeveloped child in your womb, is your choice.
Where do I derive that choice. Is it granted by God, teh constitution?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
PCG342 said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
A child is not private property. You argument shows you stupidity.
I never said they were. I said a woman's womb is private property. If you're going to deprive her of it's use, you have to compensate her.
Let's not get into name calling, okay?
Do I have the right to kill anyone who enhabits my private property?
First, it's "inhabits," and, second, sure, people do that kind of thing all the time-- "coathanger abortions?"
What people do and what is right isn't alwayse teh same thing.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
A child is not private property. You argument shows you stupidity.
I never said they were. I said a woman's womb is private property. If you're going to deprive her of it's use, you have to compensate her.
Let's not get into name calling, okay?
Do I have the right to kill anyone who enhabits my private property?
Any undeveloped child in your womb, is your choice.
Where do I derive that choice. Is it granted by God, teh constitution?
since i can prove the constitution exists, i'll say that. sure, it's not in the letter of the law, but it is in the spirit of it.
you can argue the theory of when life begins till your blue in the face, but you can no more prove that a baby is "alive" while still a mound of goo in a belly then you can prove that life begins with ejaculation. I can, however, prove that a baby is alive at birth and the few months leading up to that.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
A child is not private property. You argument shows you stupidity.
I never said they were. I said a woman's womb is private property. If you're going to deprive her of it's use, you have to compensate her.
Let's not get into name calling, okay?
whatever stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
since i can prove the constitution exists, i'll say that. sure, it's not in the letter of the law, but it is in the spirit of it.
Really? Where exactly. I would love if you could show me this portion. It would save alot of headaches.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 |
Quote:
Rights are the foundation of private property. You're taking away the mothers valuable rights and transfering them to the unborn, she deserves compensation. To do otherwise would be thievery. You're using 'emminent domain' to sieze her womb. How will you compensate her for this intrusion into her body?
Invasion into her body? Let's ignore God and religion and talk about biology for a moment. If the woman engaged in a baby-making activity (aka sex) and a baby was made, isn't that one of the logical outcomes of her choice? It's just like eating a cheeseburger and then complaining that McDonalds made you fat. You have to live with the consequences of your actions in the real world.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Killconey said:
Quote:
Rights are the foundation of private property. You're taking away the mothers valuable rights and transfering them to the unborn, she deserves compensation. To do otherwise would be thievery. You're using 'emminent domain' to sieze her womb. How will you compensate her for this intrusion into her body?
Invasion into her body? Let's ignore God and religion and talk about biology for a moment. If the woman engaged in a baby-making activity (aka sex) and a baby was made, isn't that one of the logical outcomes of her choice? It's just like eating a cheeseburger and then complaining that McDonalds made you fat. You have to live with the consequences of your actions in the real world.
but if you eat the cheeseburger and drink a diet soda, only to learn one of the soda machine valves tore and you ended up drinking regular soda instead, are you not allowed to do exercise to work those calories off.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Killconey said:
Quote:
Rights are the foundation of private property. You're taking away the mothers valuable rights and transfering them to the unborn, she deserves compensation. To do otherwise would be thievery. You're using 'emminent domain' to sieze her womb. How will you compensate her for this intrusion into her body?
Invasion into her body? Let's ignore God and religion and talk about biology for a moment. If the woman engaged in a baby-making activity (aka sex) and a baby was made, isn't that one of the logical outcomes of her choice? It's just like eating a cheeseburger and then complaining that McDonalds made you fat. You have to live with the consequences of your actions in the real world.
but if you eat the cheeseburger and drink a diet soda, only to learn one of the soda machine valves tore and you ended up drinking regular soda instead, are you not allowed to do exercise to work those calories off.
Sure! But no one dies when you exercise. Now if you want to work your baby off by going through nine months of pregnancy and then depositing said baby out into the world, that is great. Keep in mind, it's not the soda's fault that you chose to drink.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 |
I just realized something. Didn't this thread used to say something about Pat Robertson and Venezuela?
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
This one catches on quick! It won't be long before you realize Jessica Simpson is hotter than Alba!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,062
1000+ posts
|
|
1000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,062 |
Let's get this thread back on track:
If Jessica Simpson gets pregnant, should she have an abortion (knowing, in hindsight, what Britney's pregnancy did to her)?
Also, should Jessica Simpson kill Chavez?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Venezuela to seek legal action against RobertsonVenezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his government would take legal action against Pat Robertson and potentially seek his extradition after the U.S. evangelist called for Washington to assassinate the South American leader.
Robertson, who later apologized for the remark, said he was expressing his frustration with Chavez's constant accusations against the administration of President George W. Bush.
"I announce that my government is going to take legal action in the United States ... to call for the assassination of a head of state is an act of terrorism." Chavez said in a televised speech.
The fiery left-wing critic of Bush's foreign policy who frequently charges the U.S. government is plotting to kill him, called Robertson "crazy" and a "public menace."
He said Venezuela could seek Robertson's extradition under international treaties and take its claim to the United Nations if the Bush administration did not act.
Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition and a leader of the Christian right that has backed Bush, said on Monday that if Chavez "thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Interestingly enough, Robertson is not the first broadcaster to call for the assassination of a troubling foreign leader. In 1997, a number of journalists suggested that then-President Clinton should have Saddam assasinated: "Conventional Wisdom," Newsweek, Nov. 17: "Take him down." (next to a photo of Hussein and a downward-plunging arrow)
Thomas Friedman, foreign affairs columnist, New York Times, Nov. 6: "Saddam Hussein is the reason God created cruise missiles. ...So if and when Saddam pushes beyond the brink, and we get that one good shot, let's make sure it's a head shot."
George Stephanopolous, former Clintonite and current ABC News analyst, on ABC'S "This Week," Nov. 9: "This is probably one of those rare cases where assassination is the more moral course...we should kill him."
Sam Donaldson, co-host of "This Week," Nov. 9: We should kill Saddam "under cover of law.... We can do business with his successor."
Bill Kristol, ABC News analyst, "This Week," Nov. 9: "It sounds good to me."
Cokie Roberts, co-host of "This Week," Nov. 9: "Well, now that we've come out for murder on this broadcast, let us move on to fast-track..."
Jonathan Alter, Newsweek, Nov. 17: "It won't be easy to take him out. ...But we need to try, because the only language Saddam has ever understood is force."
Newsweek, Dec. 1: "Why We Should Kill Saddam." This is not to defend Robertson's action, simply to note that other U.S. journalists have been able to suggest we kill foreign leaders without much hue or cry.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40 |
Well at least now that there is some legal action being taken for Robert's comments, we know he's really truly sorry for what he said.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Actually, in Robertson's defense, I think he apologized before they started calling for his prosecution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
Still I believe we have the right to extradite religious leaders calling for the assasination of our political leaders or people. So I think it wouldn't hurt to send him down that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Actually, in Robertson's defense, I think he apologized before they started calling for his prosecution.
Was that before or after he disclaimed having said what he was apolagizing for?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
It was after the denial but before the call for extradition, I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
This is not to defend Robertson's action, simply to note that other U.S. journalists have been able to suggest we kill foreign leaders without much hue or cry.
No surprise there.
Not to defend the journalists' comments, but Pat Robertson has much more clout and influence than any journalist. He's actively involved with American politics, and I've heard he's on close terms with President Bush. Plus, he has a huge following and many people see him as a devout spiritual leader (heaven only knows why.)
A comment calling for whacking the leader of a country might cause more of an uproar coming from a guy like Robertson than from even the most prestigious journalist.
Last edited by Methos; 2005-08-30 11:57 AM.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
I think if a cleric in Venezuela called for the assasination of Bush we would be asking for his arrest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
I'm not so sure about that. Don't Muslim clerics in the Middle East say similar things on regular basis without us calling for their arrest?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
I believe we do maybe not publicly but I think we pressure countries to. If not we should.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
It's a tricky issue.
We're a free speech nation. If we allow other countries to define what is free speech for us, we could start down a slipperly slope wherein we have to allow, for example, US citizens who criticize Islam to be extradited to Iran for prosecution.
As noted above, a number of prominent journalists called for the assasination of Saddam. Suppose Iraq had demanded we extradite them? Should we have?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
I think absent of the resources to carry out such a task, it stands as nothing more than volatile speech (and also separates Robertson from people like Bin Laden).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
I think Robertson may well be a bit of a toss pot, but the idea of legal action is hilariously stupid!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
I think the appropriate legal action for Robertson, as well as Jackson and Sharpton, is for the IRS to inform them that they are clearly heads of political, not religious, organizations and remove their tax exempt status.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 920
500+ posts
|
|
OP
500+ posts
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 920 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I think the appropriate legal action for Robertson, as well as Jackson and Sharpton, is for the IRS to inform them that they are clearly heads of political, not religious, organizations and remove their tax exempt status.
Hey!
I agree with G-Man!
Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers
"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." - George W. Bush
I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would .. try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile. - Condoleeza Rice
Barbara Bush: It's Good Enough for the Poor
To comfort the powerless and make the powerful uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
