Posted on 12/17/2004 4:36:19 PM PST by TERMINATTOR
Actually, the part that seemed absurdly self-serving was when he was suggesting that if he'd performed cunnilingus that would have been 'having sex', but receiving felatio was not; if he'd simply said that he thought the question referred solely to coital intercourse, he would have been just as fine under that definition. On the other hand, I'm loath to really complain that he didn't add more activities to the 'not really sex' column.
FYI: In the biblical context (or at least in context of the culture of that time) a virgin was simply an unmarried woman. Having not 'known' a man was just assumed.
If that were the case, why the explicit language regarding the "tokens of virginity"? Also, it is stated that a man who lies with an unmarried woman must take her as his wife unless her father refuses, but must pay the bride-price regardless. If a man refuses to let his daughter marry a man with whom she is known to have laid, that would not make the woman be a virgin despite her being unmarried.
To me, this document constitutes the Ashcroft DOJ's most enduring legacy, a gift to the people, a labor of love for the Republic. As long winded as it is, it utterly reaffirms the intent of the Founding Fathers. An item of related interest, Gary Hart (yep, that one, Mr. Monkey Business) apparently also takes the same point of view in his PhD thesis, which has what actually looks like a very good plan for beefing up Homeland Security. In it, the reaffirmation of the duties and responsibilities of all able bodied citizen militia members plays a key role in the plan.
Amendments 1-9 were to secure individual rights. The communist founded ACLU is just hiding behind their legal finger to deny that that one particular right is not an individual right.
A great refutation of the "Unitary" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. This school of thought states that the American people can collectively bear arms, but not individuals.
bump for later study
As I learned in a land description class: "concise clarity, without ambiguity". Keep it short, simple and to the point, although, I, too, ramble on at times. Yup.
All any idiot (including myself) has to do is learn just a tiny bit of American History and they can easily see that any argument against personal ownership of firearms is about the most retarded thing you could ever hear. And that is a fact jack.
What is a land description class? I'm not familiar with that. As far as 'running on' - this is the perfect forum in which to build a rhetorical rat's nest. Just pile it all together.
One thing Democrats don't understand (thank goodness!) is that your mistakes can't rule you if you own up to them. Look what happened with George W. Bush's DUI arrest. He said, "yeah, I did that. I was dumb and stupid then, but I'm wiser now." Since history suggests that Bush learned from his mistakes and has not repeated them, there's nothing more anyone can do to attack Bush with them.
And the truth shall set you free.
I liked this part.
The one thing the government is forbidden to do is infringe the right of the people, who are the source of the militia's members, to keep and bear arms.
Tell that to those lilly livered skallywags of the gun control lobby.
To accurately write a land description, I took a class that taught some of the history and basics of legal land description.
I handled easements, wrote and reviewed documents concerning land rights. It was an 'interesting' job. I dealt, often, with attorneys that couldn't find their butts. So much for a degree.
However, as the 'Night Court' judge's dad said, after he got out of the asylum, "I'm feeling much better, now!".
Gone fishing. Back in 5.
Martial Law, smarshall law, Never means never.
My job, in the end, was to protect my company's easments, while helping outside entities (city, county) and individuals (including developers) to safely use their land.
I enjoyed helping others, cutting the red tape. I am not a bureaucrat. Others did not my attitude (Dirty Harry?). That's why my doctor don't let me play that game no more.
Oh yeah. To me, a realtor is just a couple of rungs lower than a used car salesman. The prices are way too high, especially here in CA.
Truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.