L
Reaction score
3

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • Why, thank you sir. :)

    I was under the impression that you were German, yet you seem to be having a discussion with GW in your VMs about voting in the US elections.
    I agree with you in principle on abortion, for the most part.

    I do accept the life of the mother exception, which you probably don't.

    I understand, although do not agree with, the rape exception (Incest makes no sense, it was either consenual and thus would not fall under iape, or its rape and so would.) I still don't agree with it, but I can understand why an otherwise pro-life person would accept that exception, and I wouldn't discount a candidate by default on it (Eliminating 95% of abortions is a heck of a lot better than not eliminating any.)

    As you said, we're short on choices this year. Honestly, while I wouldn't really call him pro-life, Gary Johnson is pro-life compared to Obama or Romney. I'm not supporting him because of an amazing abortion view, but the right to life committe backed him for gov. In spite of the fact that he carries the label "Pro-choice" he did sign every bill the right to life committe asked him to sign, and he opposes Roe v Wade.
    Which parts of the GOP do you consider to be most intelligent?

    I hate both sides too. Foreign policy and civil liberties (As in, no Patriot Act, no NDAA, no TSA) are my highest priorities right now, and so neither of the major candidates appeal to me. And Ryan is the only one of the four that are in (Whether this is good or bad I'm not necessarily saying) has distinguished himself as economically different than Romney, Obama, and Biden, who all are basically saying the same thing to me ("Cut taxes from the middle class" which we all know will never happen.)

    At this point I'm rooting for Gary Johnson to do as well as possible. I know he's pro-choice and pro-SSM (Although on the former issue he's anti-Roe v Wade) but as long as we're in perpetual war we aren't going to get anything else done.
    Yea, these X.vs.Y threads are super silly normally, but in his context less style there nonsense. Another poster and I did Iroh.vs.Aragorn and Kirk.vs.Picard in total troll fashion and he still didn't get the hint.
    Not gonna lie, I really don't know much about that period of time at all. You'd be much better at poking holes in your own idea.
    It's not that I think Monarchy is an inherently immoral form of government, it's that I think government is inherently immoral :p

    But yes, ideological obelisks are why I chose to evaluate in the Machiavelian sense and more importantly, the specific myth is that henry the VIII was incompetent, usually based on the main points that:
    1) He's a fatty.
    2) He had a lot of wives.
    Question (being civil), do you think we should move our discussion to a new thread? I think were getting way off from what the original poster wanted to talk about.

    Also, (still being civil) you are right, calling you a papist in a debate was wrong, so how about no name calling or insults?
    Bourbon is a fine drink :goodjob:

    It'll be weird to be able to drink by myself in a few months, that's for sure
    "Sure. I'll take the role that gets killed off. Wouldn't want any of you ladies getting hurt."
    Huh, well that's a surprise. While we're talking, if Dachs is Mordin, and you're Garrus, what does that make me?
    Disgusting! Unethical! Sloppy! Used by brute-force CFCers, not thinkers. No place in proper posting.
    I believe you may be right about the broadening about the meaning through popular usage. It's interesting that whilst the invention of the printing press and the popularisation of readily-accessible dictionaries has all but stabilised spellings, the vocabulary itself still continues to evolve.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom