Winners only.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kind of a circular argument. State should not control religion, but if religion controls state, then state will control religion.
Laws will be enacted based on religion, and people will essentially be forced to follow a religion.
No thank you.
There's nothing prohibiting law makers from using religious language or express beliefs...there just can't be state sponsored religions...
 
What government office does he hold?

The American people have a right to know about the 10 percent that went to the "big guy" aka Joe Biden, but the media has done everything possible to keep it under wraps

also, taxpayers are funding Hunters stupid art career.

anytime ethics are brought into question we just get the same ole answer "a system has been established" . . . not very transparent, is it?
 
The American people have a right to know about the 10 percent that went to the "big guy" aka Joe Biden, but the media has done everything possible to keep it under wraps

also, taxpayers are funding Hunters stupid art career.

anytime ethics are brought into question we just get the same ole answer "a system has been established" . . . not very transparent, is it?
You mean the 10% stake in the fund that Hunter got?

When did your ethics concern begin? Was it in 2021, or prior?
 
We’re talking about laws created from a religious belief.
Look at the second clause of 1A.

You sound like a woman again, but I don’t wanna assume your gender.

Everyone makes decisions on their beliefs, including religious and atheists. Separation of church and state means you can’t have a forced government religion, it doesn’t mean you can’t have religious beliefs in the government.
 
We’re talking about laws created from a religious belief.
Look at the second clause of 1A.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They can make no law to establish a religion...like how king Henry made himself the leader of the church of england...nothing further is stated...
 
I don't take your view personally. I take your view and ill informed and ignorant. According to you no woman can be ***** unless it is on video tape. That is not how rapists operate. I guess that you would've let Epstein go because there wasn't any video proof just peoples words
No you dumb ***, that is your view and interpretation of what I said. All you have to do is read what I said and understand it, which you clearly can't do, and you should know where I stand. You are doing NOTHING but using your feelings. Not one rational thought on this topic. If you aren't capable of rational thought you probably shouldn't be responding.

"ThxOne said he didn't see a person do something but we told him they did it and he won't believe us"

You know why cops ask you if you saw something happen after you call them? Because if you didn't see it happen then it's just your word... they will need PROOF before making an arrest.
 
Last edited:
Thxone is a sick puppy. He would just tell her to quit crying so that he could finish having "***".
This back and forth is because you are an ignorant child. You don't pay attention to post, you ignore context, then you lash out because I don't agree with you and your view that all men accused of **** should be killed on site. Women lie all the time about being *****. Period. If you want to live in a fantasy world where you think all women who yell **** are telling the truth go right ahead. At this point you are acting like a cuckold simp. Grow a pair of balls and meet the rest of us back here in reality.
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They can make no law to establish a religion...like how king Henry made himself the leader of the church of england...nothing further is stated...
“it would violate the Establishment Clause for the government to compel attendance or financial support of a religious institution as such, for the government to interfere with a religious organization’s selection of clergy or religious doctrine; for religious organizations or figures acting in a religious capacity to exercise governmental power”

Government should make no religious-based laws, religion should not be a part of the operating government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...

About this thread

Slo_Ride

5,000+ posts
Regulator
Thread starter
Slo_Ride
Joined
Location
ATLANTA
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
33,976
Views
1,105,458
Last reply date
Last reply from
Buck
IMG_20260516_193114554_HDR.jpg

sherbanater

    May 16, 2026
  • 0
  • 0
IMG_20260516_192955471_HDR.jpg

sherbanater

    May 16, 2026
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top