NOT QUITE HERE

Houston, TX

#28952 Nov 24, 2012
HOBBY AIRPORT..................

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#28953 Nov 24, 2012
Waco and Lu, I'll be calling after while :)

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28954 Nov 24, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>A closet "Fox Watcher" who woulda' thunk it? I'm sure you watched that entire segment, right? That's what makes your credibility suspect. I'd like to see you argue the point with O'Reilly, I think I heard him use the word "based" this countries laws. Do your homework Mike before you call out people like O'Reilly. He pays people to do his, because like you, he hates to be wrong. There are obscure laws still on the books from colonial times. What do you think those were based on? Massachusetts statute 2725 s 36 it's about "blasphemy". Have a great weekend folks, "cause I'm leaving here, on a jet plane".
I rewound the comment and it said "justice system". And yes "based" upon the ten commandments. I would love to debate Bill, as he clearly does not pass his BS through anyone before spewing it.
I would have told him just what I posted. The person he was interviewing was on his side, so he certainly was not going to correct him, although I know the guy and he certainly knew better.
I was waiting to see if he would correct him, as normally, that guy is at least somewhat intellectually honest. I watched him debate Christopher Hitchens. It was a good debate. But the guy did not even try to defend Christianity, he just tried to defend the concept of a possible god. Of course one cannot disprove all possible gods.

Our justice system is not based upon the ten commandments or Christianity. If you would like to defend Bills comment, please do.

The laws that did come to pass in our country that were based upon religion are being ruled unconstitutional. Thus the justice system is cleaning up the crap theists tried to squeeze in.This is far from being "based upon Christianity".
Our justice system is as secular as it gets. The exact opposite of what Bill claimed.

Bill often spews this anti intellectual crap. Why does he get away with it? Well he doesn't with anyone who is not a fox bot. But to fox bots, he is infallible. Bill throws red meat to the ones who do not know better, like yourself. You bought it hook line and sinker.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28955 Nov 24, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, I was reading an article the other day about "sin taxes":
"Sin taxes have been around since the 1600s in America and were originally attempts to modify what those in authority viewed as sinful behaviors. Today they are primarily used to tax alcohol, tobacco, gambling and pornography."
I think you would agree that a Christian god is associated with "sin"? Why don't we do away with these taxes and lose the revenue generated so people like yourself that feel as though they don't need a Christian god to tell them what to do doesn't tell them how to tax either? It's very interesting to read about the programs that "sin taxes" pay for and some are for the ones you whine most about.
As I said in my last post, some religious ideas do squeeze their way into our laws from time to time, but that is far from being what could be called "our justice system is based upon the ten commandments or Christianity".

America is of mostly Christian peoples. It is thus inevitable the Christian words and ideas would squeeze their way into some of our laws, no matter what the 'justice system' is based upon.

Note the key word Bill used,'based' upon. You are showing a trickle, not a base.

These taxes are based upon what is thought to be bad. Christians use the word 'sin' to signify what is bad or in many of these cases, unhealthy or dangerous.

I understand many Christians are against drinking and pornography, so in order for them to be allowed, compromises were made. The tax is the compromise. I understand republicans are not familiar with this 'compromise' aspect of our system, so I understand your confusion.
I can accept the compromise. I think smoking and drinking or anything that is so harmful should be taxed extra, as it tends to create more costs for the government to clean up the messes these things create. So it seems only fair to me. Call it a sin tax if you wish, the label is not critical to me.

BTW, these things are not exclusively sins to Christianity. BTW, not that drinking a sin anyway, as it is done even by your Jesus.
Point being, what is considered a sin by Christianity is considered bad by many if not most cultures. So this is more evidence to Bill's claim being of ignorance.

Show me a how laws in America are exclusively 'Christian' based? You and Bill have yet to do so. Hell, Bill did not even try. Guess seeing as how he was interviewing his team, he did not have to justify his outrageous claims. Typical fox news propaganda.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28956 Nov 24, 2012
NOT QUITE HERE wrote:
Mike.D. how many lives have you ruined with your filthy alcohol? Making money off of the weaknesses and suffering of others!! I expect nothing less than this from you.TRULY, you are without conscience! Waco.....Henry...
I cannot control others behaviors. Drinking is not going to ruin anyone' life if they drink responsibly.
I think even drugs should be legal as I have explained here before. It is up to the individual to control himself. I do cut people off though as required by law.
I am sure if someone were drinking to the point of it ruining their lives, the fact of me selling the drink or not would not have prevented the event. As even drugs are illegal, it does not stop anyone from using them. Prohibition does not work. The sooner you people understand that 'fact', the better.

I see you just diverted the conversation with personal attacks yet again.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28957 Nov 24, 2012
NOT QUITE HERE wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't know that being an atheist made a person such an unhappy outcast..........Waco 1909........AKA Henry....feel better douche bag?
Being an atheist does make someone an outcast in a predominantly religious culture. How is that not obvious? It does tend to piss us off when the religious say stupid things like Bill did. It pisses us off when they try to prohibit science teachings like evolution.
Yes, we get pissed off, but that does not mean we are not happy in general. That is just your false perception. Likely based upon your religious texts and propaganda. Your religion demonizes us atheists. So when you get some feedback from that, maybe you should consider the fact of who is provoking whom.

Atheists are no longer putting up with the religious trying to dominate our lives any longer.
Your tactic is typical of any majority who imposes itself unjustly upon others.
Just as Silver calls Arnold a whiner about racism. You are doing as Silver does.
Just because you cannot defend your position, you attack the person. It only makes your side look all the more weak.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28958 Nov 24, 2012
NOT QUITE HERE wrote:
<quoted text> Ever heard of"blue laws" booze boy? WACO 1909......AKA....Henry...
Again, this is a 'trickle' not a 'base'. Do you know the difference? Clearly no one on your team does.

Treaty of Tripoli 1797.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This was signed and passed unanimously by congress. President John Adams. Also George Washington signed this and helped to draft the document.
You see, these founding fathers of America understood the importance of making such a statement in an official manner. Why? Because some just do not understand what 'secular' means and some do not understand America is based upon secularism.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28959 Nov 24, 2012
NOT QUITE HERE wrote:
<quoted text> Ever heard of"blue laws" booze boy? WACO 1909......AKA....Henry...
Do I call you names like "boy"? No, so please act like a grown up.
Just defend your position and stop with the personal attacks.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28960 Nov 24, 2012
NOT QUITE HERE wrote:
The Heartless Bartender...... an equal opportunity hater..WACO 1909......AKA Henry...
Personal attacks just make your position look defenseless.
maize

Lenoir, NC

#28961 Nov 24, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Again, this is a 'trickle' not a 'base'. Do you know the difference? Clearly no one on your team does.
Treaty of Tripoli 1797.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This was signed and passed unanimously by congress. President John Adams. Also George Washington signed this and helped to draft the document.
You see, these founding fathers of America understood the importance of making such a statement in an official manner. Why? Because some just do not understand what 'secular' means and some do not understand America is based upon secularism.
its all about maize. America was founded bought and paid for with maize. Think of its fole in America. Without maize, there simply is no senate, Congress, or govt at all. Maize is the glue that holds us united

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28962 Nov 24, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>A closet "Fox Watcher" who woulda' thunk it? I'm sure you watched that entire segment, right? That's what makes your credibility suspect. I'd like to see you argue the point with O'Reilly, I think I heard him use the word "based" this countries laws. Do your homework Mike before you call out people like O'Reilly. He pays people to do his, because like you, he hates to be wrong. There are obscure laws still on the books from colonial times. What do you think those were based on? Massachusetts statute 2725 s 36 it's about "blasphemy". Have a great weekend folks, "cause I'm leaving here, on a jet plane".
What makes my credibility suspect? I watched the whole segment. I am taking nothing out of context. I gave and exact quote. Prove me wrong if you can, but if you cannot, then do not make accusations against me you cannot support.

I note you use the word 'obscure' to describe the laws that or of the religious sort. This just proves my point. American law is not 'based' upon religious beliefs.
If our justice system was based upon Christianity, there would be many, none obscure laws of the religious sort today. Yet their are few and they are becoming lesser by the year. Why? Because the justice system is clears them out as unconstitutional. Why? Because our system does not allow for religion to be be the base of our laws.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28963 Nov 24, 2012
maize wrote:
<quoted text> its all about maize. America was founded bought and paid for with maize. Think of its fole in America. Without maize, there simply is no senate, Congress, or govt at all. Maize is the glue that holds us united
I assume you're on my side here and just using sarcasm to show how our justice system is no more likely to be based upon corn as is it based upon Christianity.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28964 Nov 24, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Howdy Mike. Am back. No problem. I was giving you too much credit again. Fiscal responsibiliity starts with your president. Democrats claim to be looking out for the middle class, so your president and vice president should do their part. They know as much about the middle class as David Axelrod does, nothing.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theov...
http://www.taxpayertreasurehunt.com/index.php...
"About 47 million dollars per year...not including special visits and al the other indirect costs when he comes around for a visit....plua all the family members...the more first family members the more complex and expensive...plus when you have your children you are much more active..thus more movement,,,more security more riskk ..more money"
I have no idea what you want me to see in these links, as you do not say what you wish me to see.

I understand flying the president around costs a lot of money. So? It is necessary. Can you show it is not necessary? You have yet to do so. Fighting wars costs a lot also, and Bush spent a trillion dollars on one that never needed to be fought.
Seems like Obama's plane trips are chump change in comparison.

Are you suggesting the president not ever have his children with him? Why are you against family? Your greed is hard to comprehend.
You wish for our president to be vulnerable to terrorists attacks because you wish to save a buck. How shameless.
TSF

Kenly, NC

#28965 Nov 24, 2012
The sooner the secessionist leave , the better, but before they go , give them the bill for their share of the national debt. I'm all for their exodus to the promise land, where ever that may be for them. Good luck, good riddance , thank God and greyhound when they are gone. Sorry, after 4 years of their pissing and moaning,
folks have just about endured enough of their wrath. They need to get on board, STFU or get out .
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Peaceful secession is ignorant? Like when the colonials went and pleaded their case to King George over and over and over?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28966 Nov 24, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Peaceful secession is ignorant? Like when the colonials went and pleaded their case to King George over and over and over?
Obviously it was ignorant of them to think the king would just hand them a country. History shows I am correct.
Not sure if they actually thought the king would do so. It could have just been a formal way of putting the revolution as an official concept. I would assume they knew all along it would be an act of war to try and secede.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28967 Nov 24, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly right, no heart.
Oh look, you and Waco are in agreement about something.
I guess you cannot call me a bleeding heart liberal now. Well, not as if anything ever stopped a republican from contradicting themselves.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#28968 Nov 24, 2012
TSF wrote:
The sooner the secessionist leave , the better, but before they go , give them the bill for their share of the national debt. I'm all for their exodus to the promise land, where ever that may be for them. Good luck, good riddance , thank God and greyhound when they are gone. Sorry, after 4 years of their pissing and moaning,
folks have just about endured enough of their wrath. They need to get on board, STFU or get out .
<quoted text>
That debt, solely incurred by the democrats through your mans spending. Your bill, not ours.

As for my wife and I, we are in the process of finializing a few things and making sure contingencies are in place for our kids before we hit the trail. Can't make the lawyers work faster.

Good luck with that fiscal cliff though. Will be interesting to watch from afar.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#28969 Nov 24, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously it was ignorant of them to think the king would just hand them a country. History shows I am correct.
Not sure if they actually thought the king would do so. It could have just been a formal way of putting the revolution as an official concept. I would assume they knew all along it would be an act of war to try and secede.
And you said I don't pay attention to history...

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28970 Nov 24, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>A closet "Fox Watcher" who woulda' thunk it?
Closet? No, as I have stated many times here I do watch all sides. Nothing wrong with watching what the other side is saying. In fact I think everyone should, as to not doing so would make one ignorant.
I see studies show conservative fox news watchers do not usually watch other news channels. Thus they are ignorant of what the other side is 'really' saying.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#28971 Nov 24, 2012
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
That debt, solely incurred by the democrats through your mans spending. Your bill, not ours.
As for my wife and I, we are in the process of finializing a few things and making sure contingencies are in place for our kids before we hit the trail. Can't make the lawyers work faster.
Good luck with that fiscal cliff though. Will be interesting to watch from afar.
"solely incurred by the democrats"? Lies.
Pretend Bush and the republicans did not pass of debts to Obama all you wish. It is just a bold faced lie.
I guess you cannot defend your side without lying. How pathetic. I almost feel sorry for you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Autryville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hey hells angels Momad 666 you fat filthty fowl... (Mar '10) Sep 18 Old Skool 14
Review: S H Barnes East Coast Roofing Sep 17 Joe 1
street gang v.s. motorcycle clubs (Sep '12) Sep 16 Citizen Cain 133
Dont use Robert Wilson privateer landscaper ! Sep 16 Citizen Cain 1
White Women in Fayetteville (Jun '10) Sep 13 It could be worse 32
Parsons may be moving to Fayetteville (Aug '13) Sep 11 Myself 13
Review: Tint Plus (Oct '11) Sep 11 Sean L Taylor 7
•••
•••
•••

Autryville Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Autryville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Autryville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Autryville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••