|
Illiad +anyone else.... | by tesla_koil | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
A link to the actual Constitution: | by NOLAWitch | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| It would be interesting to hear your counter- |
by adiplomat |
2004-03-17 10:08:52 |
| explanation for phrases like "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" included in said documents. I'm asking out of curiousity (do you have a counter?) and from a desire to raise the tone of the conversation. (Can we keep roasted genitals out of it? If not, feel free to ignore this. I don't want confrontation, I'm interested in what you think is the explanation.) |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
The sentence... | by nelzie | 2004-03-17 10:13:12 |
|
Given when Scientology was founded, | by adiplomat | 2004-03-17 10:26:42 |
|
She's already given it to you. | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 10:43:11 |
|
You are right... | by nelzie | 2004-03-17 11:05:23 |
|
I've already given it in posts past, however, I'll | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 10:13:14 |
|
Well, that's not really what I was asking for. | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 11:31:57 |
|
That is my assertion. They PURPOSEFULLY | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 11:44:46 |
|
Sorry. I did my (obviously inadequate) best | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 12:58:51 |
|
I don't understand your question either. | by quilting_kitty | 2004-03-17 13:04:43 |
|
Never mind that. Let HIM answer for a change. (n/t) | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:15:03 |
|
While you won't use the words, the smell of | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 13:33:18 |
|
The counter-evidence is clear: they didn't cram | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:41:14 |
|
You were warned. I'm done. (n/t) | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 13:50:00 |
|
Well, you did offer your genitals up for roasting. (n/t) | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:51:00 |
|
Oh, and I believe I stuck to the points in your | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:54:03 |
|
Ahem. | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 14:05:51 |
|
Cabbage of course. It's cooking right now. | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 15:01:07 |
|
For good, or just this thread? | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 13:54:51 |
|
If you don't like Historical Revisionism... | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 13:41:55 |
|
My only comment here is that you seem to think | by quilting_kitty | 2004-03-17 13:45:40 |
|
YOU are the one who should be answering | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:14:10 |
|
That is an unfounded assertion. | by BloodyViking | 2004-03-17 12:09:39 |
|
If you insist on referring ONLY to the documents | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 13:14:35 |
|
BZZZT! You're off the track again. | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:17:25 |
|
Got proof? Didn't think so. | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 13:23:43 |
|
Many perhaps but not most. | by BloodyViking | 2004-03-17 13:32:24 |
|
just a question | by gibuu | 2004-03-17 10:35:23 |
|
That's a good thought, actually. | by abstrackt | 2004-03-17 11:03:22 |
