- This topic has 735 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 8, 2009 at 10:46 AM #427688July 8, 2009 at 10:51 AM #426945briansd1Guest
[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 #427172briansd1Guest[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 #427459briansd1Guest[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 #427531briansd1Guest[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 #427693briansd1Guest[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 #426950scaredyclassicParticipantso 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 #427177scaredyclassicParticipantso 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 #427464scaredyclassicParticipantso 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 #427536scaredyclassicParticipantso 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 #427698scaredyclassicParticipantso 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 #426960ZeitgeistParticipantWhy 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 #427187ZeitgeistParticipantWhy 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 #427474ZeitgeistParticipantWhy 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 #427546ZeitgeistParticipantWhy 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.