The Perverted State Of America

Toogood Reports ^ | 11/25/03 | Allan C. Stover

[Protagoras]

This agrees with the "in my own words" definition I provided above.

LOL,,good stuff. First you climb on to a high horse and scold me in a derisive manner for not using a real definition, and then when I provide one and it proves me correct, and you incorrect, you switch high horses and admit you never looked it up and that it means what you think it should so it fits your mistake. LOL

You should do stand up comedy.

And your bizzarro world of up is down and freedom is totalitarianism would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[scripter]

I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

[scripter]

The number of people who choose to eat too much or drink too much is so much larger than those who choose to indulge in same sex acts which cause disease that it can't be compared.

I was more interested in pointing out the context of my statement and I hadn't thought of that angle, thanks.

[Protagoras]

I did thank you, and I hope you did as well.

[Protagoras]

You seem to confuse religious authority with religious principles.

I'm not even a tad confused.

Our nation was founded on religious principles,

Actually, although often repeated I don't find it to be true. It would be more accurate IMO to say it was founded by largely religious men. It was founded on the idea of limited government with checks and balances to keep mischief to a minimum.

but has never been ruled by religious authorities.

Quite true, that's what the founders wanted. But it isn't what many on this thread want.

If you didn't hate those who believe in religious absolutes, you'd readily see the difference.

That's not only incorrect, it is in itself a hateful comment.

[little jeremiah]

Nope, my in-my-own words definition of "theocracy" was one I remembered from another dictionary. Then I quoted Webster's which supported my first definition.

You (as most "liberaltarians" I have attempted to debate with) cannot debate fairly; meaning cannot debate using facts and evidence.
All you can do is juggle words, name-call, and spout slogans and libertarian cant. Just like the "liberals" you claim to be so different from. Besmirch the messenger ("Taliban", etc) but as usual, libertarians (as befits of one of the many brands of utopians) cannot debate facts. The conversation quickly degrades into your side name calling, innuendo, belittling, and so on.

Come up with some reasoned debate or go back to your bong.

And if you don't like that kind of argument, stop using that kind of argument.

[Protagoras]

You have just described your own style. An unexplained dementia has set in. A disconnect with reality.

[Protagoras]

What was your screen name before you resigned up 10 days ago? How many times have you been banned? Inquiring minds want to know. LOL

[little jeremiah]

Never been banned. Long time lurker.

And your last two posts prove my point.

[Protagoras]

Never been banned.

Rightttttttttttttttttt....... LOL