Advocate wrote:The major problem here is that Bush's opposition to federal funding for stem cell research is religiously based. This violates the doctrine of separation of church and state. But what can one expect of the likes of Bush and his ilk.
It is my religious belief that stealing is wrong, but my neighbor thinks stealing is perfectly okay. Yet we have laws against it. Now what, Advocate?
okie wrote:Advocate wrote:The major problem here is that Bush's opposition to federal funding for stem cell research is religiously based. This violates the doctrine of separation of church and state. But what can one expect of the likes of Bush and his ilk.
It is my religious belief that stealing is wrong, but my neighbor thinks stealing is perfectly okay. Yet we have laws against it. Now what, Advocate?
There are many reasons that stealing is wrong which have nothing to do with religion. Terrible analogy
Cycloptichorn
Every law has a religious or belief basis, cyclops. It is all about the concept of right and wrong, which goes to the core of our beliefs.
I realize not many people have the guts to say so, but its a fact.
I realize this is a new concept to you, cyclops, but it is the obvious staring you in the face. If you wish to examine the beliefs of various cultures, you would realize some fairly bazaar things have been the beliefs in various places. How about cannibals? How about certain native American tribes that believed stealing was perfectly okay, in fact honorable if done to another tribe, but a crime inside the tribe? How about Muslims that claim murder is honorable in certain circumstances acccording to their religious belief?
What if I decide to believe in a God that advocates murder. In fact, in some countries, Muslims are making noises that they should have their own law, that they are not subject to the laws of the country because they have a different religious basis than theirs and they violate their religious beliefs.
What you and others like you do when you have brought up this stupid argument of violation of church and state is to open up a huge can of worms and thrown yourself onto a huge slippery slope. There is no boundary as to what man will stoop to do to justify himself, because they can always claim the law that he broke is religiously based. And if we are honest, the person would have a good defense.
It was interesting that Victoria Toensing testified after Plame, saying that Plame was not covert within the meaning of the IIAA. VT claimed expertise because she helped draft the law about 25 years ago.
Plame previously said that, within the past five years, she went on a number of secret missions. The law refers to "foreign assignments."
In any event, VT's recollections would be inadmissable on the interpretation issue.
Limbaugh says he has the hots for Plame. The thought of Plame with that disgusting, fat, windbag is enough to gag anyone.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54755
I guess the prostitutes in the Dominican Republic didn't satisfy him.
Advocate wrote:Limbaugh says he has the hots for Plame. The thought of Plame with that disgusting, fat, windbag is enough to gag anyone.
I guess the prostitutes in the Dominican Republic didn't satisfy him.
That is, if he went for the prostitutes. He was traveling with a bunch of other men...
snood wrote:Advocate wrote:Limbaugh says he has the hots for Plame. The thought of Plame with that disgusting, fat, windbag is enough to gag anyone.
I guess the prostitutes in the Dominican Republic didn't satisfy him.
That is, if he went for the prostitutes. He was traveling with a bunch of other men...
WOuld there be anything wrong with that? Never been on a trip with other guys before?
Yeap that was the trip where Rush upon his return to the USA customs officials found him trying to smuggle into the country thousands of viagra pills.
I guess either he bought them there or brought them with him and thought he was going layed a lot more.
Obviously, your one of your pre-tumescent heroes, George.
Schwing!
McGentrix wrote:snood wrote:Advocate wrote:Limbaugh says he has the hots for Plame. The thought of Plame with that disgusting, fat, windbag is enough to gag anyone.
I guess the prostitutes in the Dominican Republic didn't satisfy him.
That is, if he went for the prostitutes. He was traveling with a bunch of other men...
WOuld there be anything wrong with that? Never been on a trip with other guys before?
Well, let's just say that I've never been on a trip with other guys while packing a bunch of viagra. How 'bout you?
snood wrote:Advocate wrote:Limbaugh says he has the hots for Plame. The thought of Plame with that disgusting, fat, windbag is enough to gag anyone.
I guess the prostitutes in the Dominican Republic didn't satisfy him.
That is, if he went for the prostitutes. He was traveling with a bunch of other men...
Gosh, that's not a reflexive homophobia based insult is it?
Are you saying Rush is gay?
Have you ever taken a trip with a bunch of guys while packing a bunch of viagra?
The Dominican Republic has some resorts for wealthy men (or couples) in which they can pick prostitutes to be with them 24/7. Rush said in so many words that he visited one of them.
Again, Plame would eat glass before dating the likes of Rush.
