scott_ish
-
@ to have their news delivered that way? Everyone pays for something that someone else wouldn't be caught dead paying for.
about 8 hours ago
from web
in reply to sjaustin
-
@ But not just from you, from a lot of people, and I don't really get the hostility. I mean, so what if some people like to pay ...
about 8 hours ago
from web
in reply to sjaustin
-
@ I just feel like I see a lot of anti-newspaper comments, both veiled and blatant, from you.
about 9 hours ago
from web
in reply to sjaustin
-
@ Oh man, we are slacking.
about 11 hours ago
from web
in reply to btdangelo
-
@ For newspapers in general, that is.
about 11 hours ago
from web
in reply to sjaustin
-
@ Did a newspaper reporter steal your girlfriend in high school or something? You sure have a lot of random hostility for them.
about 11 hours ago
from web
in reply to sjaustin
-
@ THe boy has good taste.
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to sjaustin
-
@ Ah, but is your faith not a "special interest" in whose pocket so many politicians sit, as well? :)
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to nateswart
-
@ Seems a little too cautious a position. I'd rather grant rights where they are needed now and clean up any messes along the way.
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to nateswart
-
@ But there's no way that legislation would get through with the mountain of first amendment precedent that's been set.
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to nateswart
-
@ ... that their church is now legally obligated to perform gay marriages? Is that where you see confusion occurring?
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to nateswart
-
@ So, I mean, is your position that you think, when people hear that NY has passed gay marriage, they will believe that means ...
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to nateswart
-
@ If the government never passed anything until we were sure the American public understood it, we'd never pass anything.
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to nateswart
-
@ I don't see that the ruling would have any impact on "religion" whatsoever, so how could it set a precedent?
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to nateswart
-
@ I'm not really that confused. It's granting/prohibiting the *state recognition* of gay marriage and the rights that come with it.
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to nateswart
-
@ 1. Possibly. I personally haven't seen enough evidence to decide yet. 2. I think you're conflating religious marriage with state.
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to bkpalmer
-
@ Two questions: 1. What group will be exploited/suppressed by allowing gay marriage? 2. How/what would you have them clarify?
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to nateswart
-
@ I don't think you quite believe that, just pointing out the fallacy of your line of thinking there.
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to nateswart
-
@ Most people were not ready for blacks to vote when they were given the vote. But it was "dictated" that blacks could vote.
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to nateswart
-
@ It's the logical extension of the specific tweet I was referring to, is it not?
about 12 hours ago
from web
in reply to nateswart
|
- Name Scott Cranfill
- Location Rochester, NY
- Web http://scottish.t...
- Bio Designer/Developer, Musician, Gamer
|
