- This topic has 735 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 8, 2009 at 10:46 AM #427688July 8, 2009 at 10:51 AM #426945
briansd1
Guest[quote=Zeitgeist] It took the Republicans in Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights act. Lincoln was a Republican.[/quote]
I also took Democrats to pass that landmark legislation.
You vote for the future, not because of some important figure in the past. The Republican party is no longer the party of Lincoln. Now, it’s more the party of Pat Robertson.
July 8, 2009 at 10:51 AM #427172briansd1
Guest[quote=Zeitgeist] It took the Republicans in Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights act. Lincoln was a Republican.[/quote]
I also took Democrats to pass that landmark legislation.
You vote for the future, not because of some important figure in the past. The Republican party is no longer the party of Lincoln. Now, it’s more the party of Pat Robertson.
July 8, 2009 at 10:51 AM #427459briansd1
Guest[quote=Zeitgeist] It took the Republicans in Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights act. Lincoln was a Republican.[/quote]
I also took Democrats to pass that landmark legislation.
You vote for the future, not because of some important figure in the past. The Republican party is no longer the party of Lincoln. Now, it’s more the party of Pat Robertson.
July 8, 2009 at 10:51 AM #427531briansd1
Guest[quote=Zeitgeist] It took the Republicans in Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights act. Lincoln was a Republican.[/quote]
I also took Democrats to pass that landmark legislation.
You vote for the future, not because of some important figure in the past. The Republican party is no longer the party of Lincoln. Now, it’s more the party of Pat Robertson.
July 8, 2009 at 10:51 AM #427693briansd1
Guest[quote=Zeitgeist] It took the Republicans in Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights act. Lincoln was a Republican.[/quote]
I also took Democrats to pass that landmark legislation.
You vote for the future, not because of some important figure in the past. The Republican party is no longer the party of Lincoln. Now, it’s more the party of Pat Robertson.
July 8, 2009 at 10:55 AM #426950scaredyclassic
Participantso if her daughter got pregnant when she was a kid, that “father” was under the law potentially prosecutable as a child molestor. I think he was 18 and she was 17. Wouldn’t necessarily matter under CA law if he were underage too, but I think he was an adult. So, for those of you who value the “rule of law”, what we have here is a dude potentially eligible for a prison term in CA for child molestation and stat rape. Palin is basically by accepting him in that relationship giving tacit approval to child molestors and rapists. Her daughter couldn’t possibly consent because she was a child. The rule of law can be a harsh thing. In CA, they might very well have charged Levi. Wouldn’t have gotten prison, probably could have done house arrest, very likely could have avoided registering as a sex offendor for the remainder of his life, but would have been branded a felon sex offendor…nice.
July 8, 2009 at 10:55 AM #427177scaredyclassic
Participantso if her daughter got pregnant when she was a kid, that “father” was under the law potentially prosecutable as a child molestor. I think he was 18 and she was 17. Wouldn’t necessarily matter under CA law if he were underage too, but I think he was an adult. So, for those of you who value the “rule of law”, what we have here is a dude potentially eligible for a prison term in CA for child molestation and stat rape. Palin is basically by accepting him in that relationship giving tacit approval to child molestors and rapists. Her daughter couldn’t possibly consent because she was a child. The rule of law can be a harsh thing. In CA, they might very well have charged Levi. Wouldn’t have gotten prison, probably could have done house arrest, very likely could have avoided registering as a sex offendor for the remainder of his life, but would have been branded a felon sex offendor…nice.
July 8, 2009 at 10:55 AM #427464scaredyclassic
Participantso if her daughter got pregnant when she was a kid, that “father” was under the law potentially prosecutable as a child molestor. I think he was 18 and she was 17. Wouldn’t necessarily matter under CA law if he were underage too, but I think he was an adult. So, for those of you who value the “rule of law”, what we have here is a dude potentially eligible for a prison term in CA for child molestation and stat rape. Palin is basically by accepting him in that relationship giving tacit approval to child molestors and rapists. Her daughter couldn’t possibly consent because she was a child. The rule of law can be a harsh thing. In CA, they might very well have charged Levi. Wouldn’t have gotten prison, probably could have done house arrest, very likely could have avoided registering as a sex offendor for the remainder of his life, but would have been branded a felon sex offendor…nice.
July 8, 2009 at 10:55 AM #427536scaredyclassic
Participantso if her daughter got pregnant when she was a kid, that “father” was under the law potentially prosecutable as a child molestor. I think he was 18 and she was 17. Wouldn’t necessarily matter under CA law if he were underage too, but I think he was an adult. So, for those of you who value the “rule of law”, what we have here is a dude potentially eligible for a prison term in CA for child molestation and stat rape. Palin is basically by accepting him in that relationship giving tacit approval to child molestors and rapists. Her daughter couldn’t possibly consent because she was a child. The rule of law can be a harsh thing. In CA, they might very well have charged Levi. Wouldn’t have gotten prison, probably could have done house arrest, very likely could have avoided registering as a sex offendor for the remainder of his life, but would have been branded a felon sex offendor…nice.
July 8, 2009 at 10:55 AM #427698scaredyclassic
Participantso if her daughter got pregnant when she was a kid, that “father” was under the law potentially prosecutable as a child molestor. I think he was 18 and she was 17. Wouldn’t necessarily matter under CA law if he were underage too, but I think he was an adult. So, for those of you who value the “rule of law”, what we have here is a dude potentially eligible for a prison term in CA for child molestation and stat rape. Palin is basically by accepting him in that relationship giving tacit approval to child molestors and rapists. Her daughter couldn’t possibly consent because she was a child. The rule of law can be a harsh thing. In CA, they might very well have charged Levi. Wouldn’t have gotten prison, probably could have done house arrest, very likely could have avoided registering as a sex offendor for the remainder of his life, but would have been branded a felon sex offendor…nice.
July 8, 2009 at 10:57 AM #426960Zeitgeist
ParticipantWhy do you need my approval? Only you can decide what is good enough for you. I am an Independent and I am sure many of us US taxpayers and members of Churches support a variety of overseas institutions, possibly including orphanages. A lot of Democrats register as Republican to wreak havoc with the primary. I agree with idiots on the ticket. I was never in favor of McCain. I wanted Romney. I just do not understand your enmity toward Palin and her family regardless of their age. It is unseemly conduct.
July 8, 2009 at 10:57 AM #427187Zeitgeist
ParticipantWhy do you need my approval? Only you can decide what is good enough for you. I am an Independent and I am sure many of us US taxpayers and members of Churches support a variety of overseas institutions, possibly including orphanages. A lot of Democrats register as Republican to wreak havoc with the primary. I agree with idiots on the ticket. I was never in favor of McCain. I wanted Romney. I just do not understand your enmity toward Palin and her family regardless of their age. It is unseemly conduct.
July 8, 2009 at 10:57 AM #427474Zeitgeist
ParticipantWhy do you need my approval? Only you can decide what is good enough for you. I am an Independent and I am sure many of us US taxpayers and members of Churches support a variety of overseas institutions, possibly including orphanages. A lot of Democrats register as Republican to wreak havoc with the primary. I agree with idiots on the ticket. I was never in favor of McCain. I wanted Romney. I just do not understand your enmity toward Palin and her family regardless of their age. It is unseemly conduct.
July 8, 2009 at 10:57 AM #427546Zeitgeist
ParticipantWhy do you need my approval? Only you can decide what is good enough for you. I am an Independent and I am sure many of us US taxpayers and members of Churches support a variety of overseas institutions, possibly including orphanages. A lot of Democrats register as Republican to wreak havoc with the primary. I agree with idiots on the ticket. I was never in favor of McCain. I wanted Romney. I just do not understand your enmity toward Palin and her family regardless of their age. It is unseemly conduct.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
