Reply With Quote
All of the above is very easy to fake.
The type of Restaurant don't matter. It's just the thought that your were considerate enough to realize that she burned and lost calories through the sex you put her through. A nice meal after your first (when your dating, courting) really tells her that you appreciated her vagina and want some more.
If it's just some trick you met at the club(she hot but ty;not mommy Gf material) then you could take them to Jack in Box or McDonalds and tell her she could order items from the dollar menu not exceeding 6 dollars.
All of the above is very easy to fake.
You obviously need some... I can't even do it.
Some people have done it by stretching skin. Nerves won't be the same however.
Should never be done in the first place IMO. Those African studies with supposed health benefits are full of statistical flaws. The uncertainty is much more than they indicate.
I was standing on a beach and on the beach were millions upon millions of new moms holding their newborn babies in one hand and a scalpel in the other. There was a black man walking up to each of them and explaining how cir cision increases their chances of erectile dis-unction when they get older. As he made his way down the beach, I approached him and mentioned the impossibility of talking to every single mom on the beach and that his work was futile and couldn't possibly make a difference. He paused and pointed to a baby whose mother who had thrown down her scalpel and said without emotion, "it made a difference to that one".
Then we rode Ski-Doos together.
I think "they" are just trying to increase the birth rate among Caucasians.
LOL. Maybe they ed up my cir cision.
Thanks for the links.
It's obvious that Germany doesn't have our first amendment.
I wouldn't expect this to happen in the US any time soon.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances.
If you stone your disobedient kid to death, do you think the first amendment defense would work in court?
Were such religious practices established as normal when the cons ution was written? You have to remember that even the old laws of Moses changes in the history of the Bible practices.
Neocons such as yourself already violate our First Amendment rights every day with religious anti-gay marriage laws and bills such as the Tresspass Bill, tbh...
If you have actually read the things I said, instead of painting my views in some wrong image, you would know that my viewpoint is government should bot be involved with marriage. What I say involving marriage has to do in the aspect that government is already involved. My viewpoint is that requiring a marriage license is a violation of the first amendment already. marriage is a church function. Not government.
You should stop using the word "neocon" incorrectly. It makes you look like a fool.
Well and good, but those who are married "under God" want to be recognized legally as such.
There's nothing in the BoR about separation of church and state. There is a statement that congress will not create any laws respecting the establishment of religion, however marriage is a legal issue regardless of it's origins. Many different religions practice marriage, many that were around long before Christianity.
Marriage can be a function of the church, but legal marriage is a function of the state. Anyone is allowed to get married at any time without a license, just don't expect the state to recognize it because, as the BoR says, they cannot.
Coming from someone who calls himself libertarian but supports presidential warmongering and eugenics for welfare recipients, this is highly ironic, B...
The First Amendment clearly states that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," meaning that they can't make laws favoring one religion's views over another or establish a national religion..... this essentially separates church and state, tbh....
from wiki:Coming from someone who calls himself libertarian but supports presidential warmongering and eugenics for welfare recipients, this is highly ironic, B...
Neoconservative gets more specific and is not accurate of my views. I do not want to expand our ideals. I am not a paleoconservative either. I like many of the multicultural ideals, and only wish to reduce illegal immigration.Major movements within American conservatism include support for tradition, law-and-order, Christianity, anti-communism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments." Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism, so they support school prayer and oppose abortion and sexuality. Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel. Paleoconservatives, in opposition to multiculturalism, press for restrictions on immigration. Most U.S. conservatives prefer Republicans over Democrats, and most factions favor a strong foreign policy and a strong military.
Actually no. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists mentioned the separation of the two as a suggestion to benefit the church, that state would not meddle in the affairs of the church.
The fact that the state is allowed to govern the relationship is proof enough. So it's intent wasn't to separate the two, but to limit the power of the government over men's conscience, over their mental choice to believe. It did nothing to keep the church out of the state's business.
Hindu's used to burn widows of their deceased husbands alive, but they outlawed that practice too even though it infringed upon religion. Don't look now, but a rabbi just got charged with criminal assault for cir cising in Germany. And the netherlands is expected to follow up with a similar ban too.
It doesn't formally separate church and state, but the First Amendment does restrict the government's ability to meddle in religious affairs to the point that they might as well be separate en ies, tbh.... additionally, the delegation of most social issues to the states also hampers church involvement at the federal level....
You mean when the 10th amendment is respected, right?
There is a growing group of Jews within Israel who are choosing not to cir cise as well. I can't believe this is even still an argument in 2012.
http://www.jewsagainstcir cision.org/
Jews who practice this are truly ignorant to what they are really doing. What they practice today is Bris Periah, and what was performed originally was Bris Milah. Bris periah is much more radical and removes more skin, it was developed because cir cised men were stretching their skin and restoring and this pissed off the rabbis.
Yeah, obviously I'm talking about a dream scenario in which this country is actually governed cons utionally....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions