To: fwdude
We want a man for Commander-in-Chief. Technically that's what we have presently.
7 posted on
05/30/2011 4:26:32 PM PDT by
EGPWS
(Trust in God, question everyone else)
To: EGPWS
26 posted on
05/30/2011 5:11:00 PM PDT by
Osage Orange
(The MSM is an enemy of the United States of America)
To: EGPWS
Technically that's what we have presently. Technically yes; testically, no.
28 posted on
05/30/2011 5:15:53 PM PDT by
Mr Ramsbotham
(Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
To: EGPWS
“Technically that’s what we have presently.”
Technically, you’re right. Practically...not so sure.
To: fwdude; EGPWS
We want a man for Commander-in-Chief. Technically that's what we have presently.
I'll see you a beer and raise you a pinkie.
To: EGPWS
"We want a man for Commander-in-Chief."
Technically that's what we have presently. Technically, yes. Practically, no way.
61 posted on
05/30/2011 9:42:49 PM PDT by
fwdude
(Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
To: EGPWS; fwdude
We want a man for Commander-in-Chief.
Technically that's what we have presently. Further technical question: If a guy is anatomically male but is a catamitic "bottom" and former chicken, then is he technically "a man"?
63 posted on
05/30/2011 11:06:10 PM PDT by
lentulusgracchus
(Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson