Search results

No. Can't speak to what someone else would want to do or be afraid of.

It's not in Zaac's nature to talk context.

So, based on the thread title, we're down to only 32 million people without insurance?

Not that it means anything, or that anyone cares; but I'm anti-abortion.

Which just proves that Zaac knows the analysis of him is correct, and is in total denial. The equivalent of covering his ears and shouting, "I'm not listening." Good night, folks.

Let me help your understanding, Zaac: Let me tell you about a person who enters your house without permission, at a time when you're not there, and causes damage to your house while doing so; takes things from your house without paying for them, never returns them, and never has any intention of...

Ya know, Zaac, I never thought I'd say it to you: you're an idiot. You have yet to call anyone on this board a racist--but you point out their alleged racism every chance you get. We're talking about a situation where someone was shot in the back 8 times; you were responding to preachinjesus...

Here's the part that points YOU out as a racist: most of us can't wrap our heads around a policeman shooting *anyone* in the back eight times.

Wait -- did you just say that if we watch a certain group more, we'll see more reasons to arrest them, and therefore those certain people will get arrested more? I'm assing that what you mean is, if we'd watch all groups equally, we'd see equal arrest rates; and I'm not disagreeing with that...

Sometimes I wonder if we start certain threads or post certain posts, just to get Zaac spun up....

(slaps forehead) As Matt said: *Responsible.* Meaning, not anyone who wants to carry a gun in schools is going to be allowed to; only those that meet the *responsible* guidelines set up by those administrations. Your comparison fails on oh-so-many levels....

A Taser is being used as justification for the use of deadly force? The cop should go down for murder.

Bad law. Shouldn't happen.

Oh, I don't know that it was wrong. He did say that another pastor or two recommended he do so; and in my personal-be-it-ever-so-humble position, the pastor is the one who should be working with his flock to ensure they're doing the right thing and not casting a bad reputation upon the church...

NOT WHAT I SAID AT ALL. Their intent to marry (their future status) indicates they will have sexual relations; not necessarily that they are. THAT'S where you have to decide if you're going to support/endorse those future actions. Please stop twisting my words, and trying to spin this. Be...

If you'd read correctly, I said we have to assume that about both couples. That's why we can only focus on the future sleeping arrangements, not the current.

Menendez is a DEMOCRAT. Why is the Obama administration deciding to prosecute when a fellow democrat chooses to disagree?

What does that have to do with the Obama administration intimidating anyone, especially democrats, who oppose the Iran nuke agreement?

Um...I thought Scarlet's was rational and intelligent. Begs the question of why you pulled up a 2014 quote instead of something relevant to today.

As we've been working through hiring a pastor, I've seen this at least twice. The first one started showing up every service; it was interesting to watch him "work the room." Then, when it became clear we weren't going to hire him, he stopped showing up. The second one is currently a member...