Search results

k2: >How much is that hack getting paid to write tripe >like this, anyway? Uhhh --- Millions and millions. JB

>If the charges against Craig are true -- and that is >certainly in doubt -- he's a sinner (and barely that, >according to The Idaho Statesman), but he is among >the least hypocritical people in America. She's often very funny, but she wouldn't recognize a fact if it were the size of a...

AAA: >Solicitation for prostitution is illegal because prostitution >is illegal. Agreed. >Homosexual sex is not illegal. Well, DUH!!! That statement is true, but completely irrelevent. This case is about *solicitation*, and not about sex. >Doing it in a public restroom is, so...

AAA: >... Because it is not against the law to ask for sex, >even in a restroom. I must be misunderstanding you here, 'cause "solicitation" is pretty much illegal everywhere (and I don't mean asking your date or girlfriend for a BJ). JB

LOL -- That would have been *awesome*. JB

Dave: Just ordered the book on Amazon. I will post my thoughts in a few weeks. JB

Took me a second, but good one Stu. I'm all for sanctioned religion free schools, but I just don't follow this stand they took. It just seems like a personal moment to me and I believe we all have rights to our personal moments. JB

Hey, pretty much everyone here knows my strong agnostic position, but this is just stupid to me. Give the girl her 30 seconds, her diploma and STFU. JB http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295432,00.html

SP: >The Reps are hypocrites and so (are) the dems and >nothing will change that. I wouldn't give a nickel for either side. JB

JohnnyK: >How do you know that I don't know? Uhhh... let's just call it a really, really good guess (or alternately, we could say that you failed miserably to present even a shred of evidence). >Is it because I said so? You didn't say so. >But I've said a lot of things...

CO: >...he claims to have a "wide stance" in the stall as >the reason for playing footsie with the cop. Let's just say that I have a "wide stance" in the stall as a matter of discussion. I can assure you that I (and any other generally straight guy) would narrow the fuc* out of my stance...

Me: Uhh... and you know this how? Just as I thought -- you *don't* know this and you're making it up as you go. JB

JohnnyK: >He doesn't do it because it would be an affront. Uhh... and you know this how? JB

And your point Brandon, is the one that archipus clearly chooses not to face. JB

Iam: >More later... Please. No threats. JB

In spite of there being a number of things she's gets right on (and a number she doesn't IMO), she chooses to write from the standpoint of humor and attempts to incite -- sort of a "Daily Show" version from the right. It's a shame that smart folks like Stewart and Coulter rarely make...

LOL. Put down the Kool-aid buddy.

Me: >PS: wind up the the troll (not referencing you rcf) LAO! -- Right on que. Children -- their so cute when they are at this stage. JB

H: >But it's true. It's as far from the truth as Rat's position that WTC was brought down by conspiracy. To the independent thinker, there is a "lib" example for every one of your "con" examples. JB

rcf: >I respect an atheist if he/she spent some serious time >objectively examining the claims of biblical Christianity >and deciding against it. But most reject it without having >a clue what it really means and what it really says and >how well it is actually supported for the person...