or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by SDW2001

  Not relevant to the discussion we're having.  That's a facilities issue and a mechanical issue.            No.         I see the entire building regularly, including most of the service areas with the exception of the loading area and roof.             The custodial staff.  Again how is that relevant?  What does that have to do with potentially arming administrators?         No, it would be like claiming I understand drill procedures because I take part in...drill...
  If that's your conclusion, than you're more misinformed than I originally thought.           I have limited knowledge and experience with guns.  Working in a variety of schools has allowed me to have quite a bit of experience with security, from participating in drills of many kinds, to having to evacuate a building, to participating in revisions of procedures.         I didn't say that.  I said you were not a stakeholder to me.  I further took issue...
  I explained it several times.  Please go back and read.       tonton, I'm starting to wonder if you're even reading what I post.  As I explained, I did not mean to imply or state that gay marriage itself "harms" the institution of marriage.  I was talking about the potential consequences down the line.  Please make an effort to actually engage in discussion by reading what I post.         No thanks, I think I'm free to have my own opinion.           Yes, there is...
Is gloating really necessary?  It's not like things are going swimmingly for your pal, or the nation for that matter.  I'm getting ready to get my $100 lower paycheck this week.  Funny, I'm not rich, but my taxes are going up.  
That makes me a bigot...how? I was referring to the eventual possibility of what may happen to the institution. I was not referring to gay marriage alone.The arguments are exactly the same. The only possible difference is the practicality and logistics of marrying more than one person. Otherwise, there is no difference. Now, please explain on what grounds you'll deny me my right to marry more than one person.Once again, just can't help yourself, can you? I am...
  That's not what it is.  But thanks for your opinion.             False.      Tell me who proposes that. I don't know any politician on either side who proposes that.       Afghanistan was unnecessary?  And the economy was in strife when Iraq started?  And those are the prime contributors to our deficit and debt?               I assume then that you are arguing that higher taxes on the wealthy will create economic growth and prosperity?  
  He needs proof to believe that Rice was given faulty information.  Isn't the proof found in the that the information was, uh, proven false?           I don't know what that means.  The Tea Party was founded to stop the runaway growth in spending and size of the government.  Are you actually claiming they don't have any facts to support their concerns?         I called you a genius.  If you think that's derogatory, I can't help you. 
  There is no "and."  There is just the hilarity of your post.  
  Redefining and possibly harming a cultural pillar and tradition harms us all.  The potential destruction of marriage as an institution harms us all, just as the breakdown of the nuclear family has harmed us all.     Let me make this simple, though:  I could probably support gay marriage if there was a real answer to the slippery slope problem I outlined.  But everything I see and everything I know about the secular-progressive left tells me there isn't an answer.  There...
    Laughably ridiculous.  You're using SOMALIA to make a point in support of government control?   
New Posts  All Forums: