Reply With Quote
Show me where the Government told AIG when they started out they would get a bailout. And besides when has the Government ever told the truth?
Show me where the Government told AIG when they started out they would get a bailout. And besides when has the Government ever told the truth?
o!! we hired the survivors to build our railroads! they got all the work and most of the overtime! So we are square with the Japs! come on brah read your history books!
huh. who knews
The mule was a lagnaippe!
Ladies and gentlemen give it up for Wild Cobra, a very funny man!
No, because white men back then had the choice of using Blacks to work on their plantations or not. Whites were not forced to use Blacks. Blacks were forced to work for Whites.
So no, even if Blacks somehow get reparations, there is not one White that should also get them, no matter how twisted your logic might be.
How would it be payed ? Via tax breaks or special incentives in hiring, housing or education ?
Wait ...
^ Word!
Join me!
What a bizarre article. So Libya owes the us 2.7 billion for the panam bombing...of which it's paid 8 million...the us is going to pay libya reparations for the response...from not taxpayer dollars but an 'undisclosed' source ?
whacky article....so many words...not much said.
Never mind...world net daily....not a valid source.
Just wondering some . I have a strong opinion on Gays, I don't have a problem with a man being gay but my main concern is that if gays are given rights to marry each other, it will be taught to young kids in school that it is ok to be gay. Doesn't that bother any of you guys? Because it would kill me inside in a few years when I have kids, that they would be getting brainwashed in that way.
And btw, what happens if people in few years start saying they want to marry animals or some crazy like that. Do we have to give them their rights also?
how profound. my god man! where have you been?!!
Really?
I mean...
Really?
Are you seriously suggesting that law/society could not possibly distinguish the difference between those two situations?
Really?
Yea. Really. When two men are denied rights to marry each other people say "If thats what makes them happy then it should be done". So in a few years if "What makes the people happy" is marrying animals why should it be any different?
that's brilliant.
As absurd as this sounds now; put yourself back into 1958, even 1978....how absurd would Gay Marriage have sounded to them?
-devil's advocate
how many Americans are there? 200+ million?
how many of those do you think will be begging for animal marriage rights when gay/les marriage becomes legal?
maybe 100 people from Arkansas, Missouri and Montana......not enough to change up the system.
if science ever can prove it's purely a genetic trait that determines our orientation, then maybe those 100 animal lovers might have a slight gripe.
Until then, it's a decision based on two consenting adults.
Entering into a mutual contract with an animal would be kind of hard to do, but I absolutely can see mores changing so that bestiality is no longer "frowned upon."
The next legal frontier after gay marriage will be some kind of recognition for polyamory. The direction "marriage" is going is away from any notion of a lifetime covenant or a nuclear family, towards an arrangement based upon physical/emotional love and companionship for however long however many parties of whatever stripe want to maintain it. Ultimately, it will be indistinguishable from any other kind of transient interpersonal relationship and become obsolete both socially and legally. There will be subcultures that more or less maintain a more traditional understanding of family; their combination of relatively higher fertility and more successful child-rearing will over the long term cambiar la cultura y las estructuras de poder en este pais, o los paises a los que suceden.
The other barrier that is doomed to collapse is the taboo against pederasty. For now, the contemporary understanding of sex as an adult behavior requiring mutual adult consent is holding up the dam against the normalization of treating children that way. But contrast our mores against those of, for example, the Arabs, or numerous other societies throughout history. Our revulsion against the ins ution is simply a residue of our Western Judeo-Christian moral framework, and with that framework gone, it is only a matter of time until views change. We'll see how long the dam holds. I give it 50-100 years tops.
I didnt say now, I said in a few years. Think of it this way, lets say there are hundreds of people who have fantasies of loving animals (I know this is sick, but im trying to provoke you and others). Gay marriages are legalized, then the people who love these animals say " Gay people get to be with their lovers, we love animals and deserve the right to be with them also". What do we do in that scenario? If a man loves another man, people say he deserves the right to be with him. If a man loves an animal, shouldn't it be the same? It is who he loves right?
even in a few years, what exactly is it that you are talking about?
are you talking about society retracting current animal loving laws or are you saying that animal lovers will come out and demand marriage rights?
I'm more than certain there are people out there that bring their pets to bed with them, but I can't imagine many of them wanting to go so far as to say they want to marry Fido.
Im just trying to say people say that Gay rights should be legalized because its what makes some men happy. If thats the case, shouldn't all kinds of other crazy be legalized?
You have a point after all who decides who can or can't get married? What if I want to marry my Mother? or a person wants to marry a manikin? where do you draw the line, and why even have a line?
It sounds crazy but fair is fair right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
