pajarito

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    4,872

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by pajarito

  1. pajarito
    No to the first. Yes to the second. Are we still talking about sexuality?
  2. pajarito
    It's not OK, but we still do it. We're human. The goal is to run the good race. You're going to stumble on the way. It's whether you get up and keep running that matters.
  3. pajarito
    That's all great & wonderful. They've done big things & gained lots of worldly possessions. They've also, however, raised children without a sense of what's right & wrong with regard to sexuality. By practicing homosexuality. Owning businesses, homes, and even raising children who grow up & can hold their own has nothing to do with morality. Other good things they do like giving to charity may be very moral & admirable but that also doesn't have anything to do with or somehow account for their immoral homosexual lifestyle.
  4. pajarito
    Not true. Homosexuality is a sin just like any other. Even the Apostle Paul continued to struggle with his own. “For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish” Romans 7:19 I dare say he was still a Christian. The question comes with whether trust & repentance are involved.
  5. pajarito
    Do you agree with all the stances found on that webpage? Or just the ones that suit your motive? .jim Stay on topic dude. I wasn't aware that my links were "little." Is there a markup tool I should be using to make mine as big as everybody elses?
  6. pajarito
    “The Bible does not forbid interracial marriages. It does, however, forbid a Christian from marrying an unbeliever.” It’s all in the context Bill. Also, just because the Bible doesn’t mention specifically “gay marriage” does not mean that it doesn’t condemn it. If it clearly condemns the homosexual lifestyle, a reasonable person might also conclude that formalizing that abominable union might also be “against the rules.” With reference to “gays being killed” in the Bible, those laws were the laws of the Nation of Israel and not “God’s law.” Along the same lines as all the other laws you frequently reference (e.g. can’t eat shellfish, etc.) When death is referenced with “God’s law”, it is speaking of spiritual death. Your physical presence here is not important when compared to your eternal soul.
  7. pajarito
    There’s obviously no basis in the Bible for what that judge suggested concerning interracial marriage . However, the Bible is very clear with reference to homosexuality . Your comparison is off base.
  8. pajarito
    COLD BEER...HOT ROCK... EXPECT NO MERCY! Awww, that's a shame that it's changed so much - that's what I keep hearing. As long as the Supper Club is still there... Man! And that place was about to rot out & fall over when I was there in the early 90's. It's good to know that some things never change. It's kind of like "The last great act of defiance." It refuses to go away. ROCK ON!
  9. pajarito
    COLD BEER...HOT ROCK... EXPECT NO MERCY!
  10. pajarito
    I'll bet that would be deemed very quickly to be discriminatory and public outrage would ensue. Not enough women would be put into those combat positions, if they enforced that "equal standard" rule, which grant faster promotion and higher pay. It would hurt their "careers." They wouldn't stand for that. I’m not saying there aren’t women out there who can’t make the men’s standard. I’m just saying that (I think) the vast majority can’t (speaking mainly of ground combat). Although, I do think an “equal standard” might shed some light on reality for the American public (whether they like it or not). I just hope the experiment doesn’t have to cost the lives of too many qualified soldiers/marines.
  11. pajarito
    As soon as they get rid of that "free-speech + expression" thing.
  12. pajarito
    What have YOU done to save the world lately? Damn man...lay off the coffee. By the way...WAR EAGLE!!!
  13. pajarito
    Well....yes.....it is.
  14. pajarito
    Till the tank & all that cool technology breaks. Then she better be prepared to stand toe-to-toe and fight...if she can. Otherwise, she's just going to quickly become a liability to her teammates and probably get some of them killed along with her. The American public better just get used to seeing it if that’s the card they want to play. When you break war down to its lowest common denominator, you have brutal savagery. All the cool technology in the world isn't going to change that.
  15. pajarito
    Hmmmmm....... Uhhhhh..... No.
  16. pajarito
    Respect the flag man. Simple.. I do. I also served in the Army. I fought for you to be able to fly your flag with honor & respect. I also fought for that asshole on the side of the road burning his in protest. In many other places in the world, an act like that would get you shot in the middle of a soccer field and drug in front of the crowd. Thank God not here in the USA. You're correct in that you take your chances if you disrespect it in front of certain crowds, though. I'd probably respond violently if it were done in front of me. I'm sure someone would get their ass kicked pretty badly if they did it in front of the VFW. However, I hesitate to agree with making it against the law. There's no need to open up that floodgate. Our freedom of speech & expression is one of our most precious freedoms. Even for that asshole that I don't agree with.
  17. pajarito
    If we're just talking about "your opinion", I'd agree that burning is the only issue. However, your original post is broader than that. If we're talking about what Congress passed, then we're discussing that banning desecration of the flag could mean just about anything. It seems the "selectivity" might be yours.
  18. pajarito
    Gotta say....nice one. Desecration could be interpreted as a broad range of things.
  19. pajarito
    Just checking. Your original statement was vague.
  20. pajarito
    Believes what exactly?
  21. pajarito
    ~~~~~~~~~Thread drift~~~~~~~~~~
  22. pajarito
    Burning an old tattered flag is legal. fine. Burning a (new) flag to make a statement should in my opinion be illegal. Wearing flag pants? Shirts? whatever has nothing to do with burning the flag. The law would give Congress the right to determine what is and what is not desecration with reference to the US Flag. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure burning will be included in that but it doesn't sound like it stops there. You say wearing flag pants or shirts doesn't apply. That's your standard. What's theirs? Do they need to have that kind of power over free speech & expression?
  23. pajarito
    I think it meant that Congress would have the right to define what is desecration. Am I wrong? I think that would open it up to more than just burning.
  24. pajarito
    But how would you define desecration with reference to what you would have punished and what you would not?
  25. pajarito
    I think eminent domain laws have a purpose for the betterment & benefit of the community, however, I don't believe an office building fits that description. I think that is overstepping their bounds.