Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Separation of Church and State

collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:01:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Discuss
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:32:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Win.

There is no "separation of Church and State" required for states. That is a myth. The federeal government is not allowed ot restrict what states do with religion.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:35:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:32:47 PM, mongoose wrote:
Win.

There is no "separation of Church and State" required for states. That is a myth. The federeal government is not allowed ot restrict what states do with religion.

Take amendment 1. And amendment 14. Add them together. Just like the Supreme Court does.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:35:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
We know all about Watergate, but NOTHING about how FDR practically bought votes. Nothing.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:36:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:35:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:32:47 PM, mongoose wrote:
Win.

There is no "separation of Church and State" required for states. That is a myth. The federeal government is not allowed ot restrict what states do with religion.

Take amendment 1. And amendment 14. Add them together. Just like the Supreme Court does.

Answer = amendment 15

What?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:36:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:35:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:32:47 PM, mongoose wrote:
Win.

There is no "separation of Church and State" required for states. That is a myth. The federeal government is not allowed ot restrict what states do with religion.

Take amendment 1. And amendment 14. Add them together. Just like the Supreme Court does.

That's practically like saying that two plus two equals fish.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:41:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:32:47 PM, mongoose wrote:
Win.

There is no "separation of Church and State" required for states. That is a myth. The federeal government is not allowed ot restrict what states do with religion.

Yeah... I'd be for extending that to the states...

There's no guarantee that the 'states' have to respect any of the Rights in the Bill of Rights.

Only S.C. precedent says they do. I'd be for amending the constitution to say they have to respect those 'rights' made explicit in the constitution. They just wouldn't have to worry about Amends. 9+10.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:45:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:35:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Take amendment 1. And amendment 14. Add them together. Just like the Supreme Court does.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

that's interesting... What else could the Privileges be referring to?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:47:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:45:33 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:35:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Take amendment 1. And amendment 14. Add them together. Just like the Supreme Court does.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

that's interesting... What else could the Privileges be referring to?

No slavery.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:47:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
ITT

Texas Delegation vs ALL
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:49:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:47:44 PM, collegekitchen7 wrote:
ITT

Texas Delegation vs ALL

???
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:49:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:51:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:47:44 PM, collegekitchen7 wrote:
ITT

Texas Delegation vs ALL

Why would the Texas Delegation be opposed to the Alliance of the Libertarian Left?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:53:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:36:19 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:35:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:32:47 PM, mongoose wrote:
Win.

There is no "separation of Church and State" required for states. That is a myth. The federeal government is not allowed ot restrict what states do with religion.

Take amendment 1. And amendment 14. Add them together. Just like the Supreme Court does.

Answer = amendment 15

What?

add the language, not the numbers.

There's no guarantee that the 'states' have to respect any of the Rights in the Bill of Rights.

Again, that's amendment 14.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

that's interesting... What else could the Privileges be referring to?

No slavery.
Immunities, plural, absolute, without exception, not singular and THE exception as it would have to be to only apply to slavery. I was speaking of immunities, not "privileges". Citizens of the United States were immune from having a religion be established in any way against them insofar as they were citizens of the United States, as of amendment 1. Amendment 14 confers that immunity among others to additionally apply insofar as they are residents of one of the several States.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:54:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:49:35 PM, collegekitchen7 wrote:


Hey look, its a person playing brawl! This clearly answers my question!
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:55:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:49:06 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:47:44 PM, collegekitchen7 wrote:
ITT

Texas Delegation vs ALL

???

Perhaps I've misunderstood your position. Do you side with your state on this issue?
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:56:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:47:02 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:45:33 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:35:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Take amendment 1. And amendment 14. Add them together. Just like the Supreme Court does.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

that's interesting... What else could the Privileges be referring to?

No slavery.

LOL I knew I heard of the 14th amendment! :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:56:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:53:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:36:19 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:35:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:32:47 PM, mongoose wrote:
Win.

There is no "separation of Church and State" required for states. That is a myth. The federeal government is not allowed ot restrict what states do with religion.

Take amendment 1. And amendment 14. Add them together. Just like the Supreme Court does.

Answer = amendment 15

What?

add the language, not the numbers.

There's no guarantee that the 'states' have to respect any of the Rights in the Bill of Rights.

Again, that's amendment 14.


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

that's interesting... What else could the Privileges be referring to?

No slavery.
Immunities, plural, absolute, without exception, not singular and THE exception as it would have to be to only apply to slavery. I was speaking of immunities, not "privileges". Citizens of the United States were immune from having a religion be established in any way against them insofar as they were citizens of the United States, as of amendment 1. Amendment 14 confers that immunity among others to additionally apply insofar as they are residents of one of the several States.

Amendment 1 specifically says "Congress may not...." No restrictions on states in any way. The immunity is that they are free from the chance of legislation from CONGRESS that has to do with religion. This has nothing to do with state government in any way.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:56:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The First Amendment doesn't explicitly say that the people have the right not to have anything to do with religion; it just says that the federal government may not do such things. If such a right were believed to exist, it would be written in a clearer fashion. This loose interpretation is as sad as using the interstate commerce clause to regulate guns in schools.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:56:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:55:55 PM, collegekitchen7 wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:49:06 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:47:44 PM, collegekitchen7 wrote:
ITT

Texas Delegation vs ALL

???

Perhaps I've misunderstood your position. Do you side with your state on this issue?

What is ITT and ALL?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:58:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:56:55 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:55:55 PM, collegekitchen7 wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:49:06 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:47:44 PM, collegekitchen7 wrote:
ITT

Texas Delegation vs ALL

???

Perhaps I've misunderstood your position. Do you side with your state on this issue?

What is ITT and ALL?

ITT = In This Thread
http://www.urbandictionary.com...

All meaning most people.
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 7:59:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:56:55 PM, mongoose wrote:
What is ITT and ALL?

In This Thread and what I an only assume is the Alliance of the Libertarian Left.[1]

[1] http://all-left.net...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 8:02:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:56:05 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:53:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:36:19 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:35:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/12/2010 7:32:47 PM, mongoose wrote:
Win.

There is no "separation of Church and State" required for states. That is a myth. The federeal government is not allowed ot restrict what states do with religion.

Take amendment 1. And amendment 14. Add them together. Just like the Supreme Court does.

Answer = amendment 15

What?

add the language, not the numbers.

There's no guarantee that the 'states' have to respect any of the Rights in the Bill of Rights.

Again, that's amendment 14.


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

that's interesting... What else could the Privileges be referring to?

No slavery.
Immunities, plural, absolute, without exception, not singular and THE exception as it would have to be to only apply to slavery. I was speaking of immunities, not "privileges". Citizens of the United States were immune from having a religion be established in any way against them insofar as they were citizens of the United States, as of amendment 1. Amendment 14 confers that immunity among others to additionally apply insofar as they are residents of one of the several States.

Amendment 1 specifically says "Congress may not...." No restrictions on states in any way. The immunity is that they are free from the chance of legislation from CONGRESS that has to do with religion. This has nothing to do with state government in any way.
That's true. Which is why 14 is an AMENDMENT. Because it CHANGES the part about no restrictions on states. It GETS RID OF THAT. What was once an immunity only insofar as one is in the United States is now also an immunity from the States themselves.

The First Amendment doesn't explicitly say that the people have the right not to have anything to do with religion; it just says that the federal government may not do such things.
That's why they labelled it the bill of rights amirite? It was written explicitly to be held as a claim of rights as against the federal government, it would be meaningless otherwise (no one would have standing to sue the government for violating it). It establishes a clear immunity. The 14th amendment expands immunities that applied to the US government, applying them to state governments as well. GG.

If such a right were believed to exist, it would be written in a clearer fashion.
LOL@founders writing well.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 8:02:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 7:59:05 PM, Reasoning wrote:
All = everyone
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 8:41:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Amendment 1 specifically says "Congress may not...." No restrictions on states in any way. The immunity is that they are free from the chance of legislation from CONGRESS that has to do with religion. This has nothing to do with state government in any way.
That's true. Which is why 14 is an AMENDMENT. Because it CHANGES the part about no restrictions on states. It GETS RID OF THAT. What was once an immunity only insofar as one is in the United States is now also an immunity from the States themselves.

It was never designed to do that. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This was to prevent states from infringing on peoples natural rights. These rights were never thought to be "the right of the people to not have their states pass legislation that has to do with religion." That is not a privilege that ever existed.

The First Amendment doesn't explicitly say that the people have the right not to have anything to do with religion; it just says that the federal government may not do such things.
That's why they labelled it the bill of rights amirite? It was written explicitly to be held as a claim of rights as against the federal government, it would be meaningless otherwise (no one would have standing to sue the government for violating it). It establishes a clear immunity. The 14th amendment expands immunities that applied to the US government, applying them to state governments as well. GG.

That ammendment protected only against the federeal government. The 14th never expands this to the states. It would have to word it more like "all restrictions on the federal governemnt for these are also applied to the states."

If such a right were believed to exist, it would be written in a clearer fashion.
LOL@founders writing well.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 9:05:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 8:41:03 PM, mongeese wrote:
Amendment 1 specifically says "Congress may not...." No restrictions on states in any way. The immunity is that they are free from the chance of legislation from CONGRESS that has to do with religion. This has nothing to do with state government in any way.
That's true. Which is why 14 is an AMENDMENT. Because it CHANGES the part about no restrictions on states. It GETS RID OF THAT. What was once an immunity only insofar as one is in the United States is now also an immunity from the States themselves.

It was never designed to do that. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This was to prevent states from infringing on peoples natural rights.
It makes no reference to nature, only to citizenship-- civil rights-- legal immunities-- such as those outlined in the first amendment.

The First Amendment doesn't explicitly say that the people have the right not to have anything to do with religion; it just says that the federal government may not do such things.
That's why they labelled it the bill of rights amirite? It was written explicitly to be held as a claim of rights as against the federal government, it would be meaningless otherwise (no one would have standing to sue the government for violating it). It establishes a clear immunity. The 14th amendment expands immunities that applied to the US government, applying them to state governments as well. GG.

That ammendment protected only against the federeal government. The 14th never expands this to the states. It would have to word it more like "all restrictions on the federal governemnt for these are also applied to the states."
That is what it is worded "like." The "immunities of the citizens of the united states" and the "Restrictions on the federal government" have the same meaning.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 9:08:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/12/2010 9:05:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/12/2010 8:41:03 PM, mongeese wrote:
Amendment 1 specifically says "Congress may not...." No restrictions on states in any way. The immunity is that they are free from the chance of legislation from CONGRESS that has to do with religion. This has nothing to do with state government in any way.
That's true. Which is why 14 is an AMENDMENT. Because it CHANGES the part about no restrictions on states. It GETS RID OF THAT. What was once an immunity only insofar as one is in the United States is now also an immunity from the States themselves.

It was never designed to do that. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This was to prevent states from infringing on peoples natural rights.
It makes no reference to nature, only to citizenship-- civil rights-- legal immunities-- such as those outlined in the first amendment.
Because the federal government may make no law regarding an establishment of religion, the people have an immunity from any laws regarding an establishment of religion?
Because the federal government may not regulate intrastate commerce, the people have an immunity from any laws regulating intrastate commerce?

The First Amendment doesn't explicitly say that the people have the right not to have anything to do with religion; it just says that the federal government may not do such things.
That's why they labelled it the bill of rights amirite? It was written explicitly to be held as a claim of rights as against the federal government, it would be meaningless otherwise (no one would have standing to sue the government for violating it). It establishes a clear immunity. The 14th amendment expands immunities that applied to the US government, applying them to state governments as well. GG.

That ammendment protected only against the federeal government. The 14th never expands this to the states. It would have to word it more like "all restrictions on the federal governemnt for these are also applied to the states."
That is what it is worded "like." The "immunities of the citizens of the united states" and the "Restrictions on the federal government" have the same meaning.
Now you're dead wrong. See the trade example above.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 9:17:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Mongoose has refused to install firefox, and screengrab the WWIII 1984 PM Game for the wiki.

Let it be known that until he does so I will plague him with spam in his mailbox and spam on the forums and I really don't care how many times he reports me.

I will be like the black death on him.

MONGOOSE IS A LOSER (until he printscreens this message) It will take about 2 mins of his time.

JOIN THE CAUSE IN SPAMMING MONGOOSE TO BENEFIT THE MAFIA WIKI.

ALSO MONGOOSE AND MONGEESE HAVE REFUSED TO FINISH THEIR SUMMARY OF THEIR SUPER SMASH BROS MAFIA GAME.
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to