Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://production.aws.patheos.com/blogs ... ttendance/

Arizona State Sen. Sylvia Allen would like a bill requiring mandatory church attendance.

Is this similar to the "Mandatory Beers w/Pols @ the Rhino" clause in every CS.com membership?

Speaking of....Hey Pols, there is a new Growler Fill Station next to The Pearl. Supposedly it is something special. It opens this weekend.

Religion

Religion

grizzaholic wrote:Is this similar to the "Mandatory Beers w/Pols @ the Rhino" clause in every CS.com membership?

Pretty much, but I won't force you to pass the plate...Just the beer.

grizzaholic wrote:Speaking of....Hey Pols, there is a new Growler Fill Station next to The Pearl. Supposedly it is something special. It opens this weekend.

Haven't heard of it. I stopped at the one in Spokane and it was okay. Nothing really that I would drink. I expect that one in Missoula to either. Let me know if you stop in.

polsongrizz wrote:http://production.aws.patheos.com/blogs ... ttendance/

Arizona State Sen. Sylvia Allen would like a bill requiring mandatory church attendance.

Actually shouldn't the title be, "Now This Woman Wants Mandatory Church Attendance"?

D1B wrote:Religion

Arizonans

They're the ones who re-elected the woman who said the Earth was 6000 years old.

CID1990 wrote:

polsongrizz wrote:http://production.aws.patheos.com/blogs ... ttendance/

Arizona State Sen. Sylvia Allen would like a bill requiring mandatory church attendance.

Actually shouldn't the title be, "Now This Woman Wants Mandatory Church Attendance"?

Easier for some Libs to lump their perceived enemy into faceless groups in order to strip them of any human traits so that one can make fun of them without appearing to be uncaring.

Cluck U wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Actually shouldn't the title be, "Now This Woman Wants Mandatory Church Attendance"?

Easier for some Libs to lump their perceived enemy into faceless groups in order to strip them of any human traits so that one can make fun of them without appearing to be uncaring.

This.

This kind of thing is exactly why the first amendment exists.

polsongrizz wrote:http://production.aws.patheos.com/blogs ... ttendance/

Arizona State Sen. Sylvia Allen would like a bill requiring mandatory church attendance.

This must be a slow day at the office. I'm trying to be nice today.

CID1990 wrote:

polsongrizz wrote:http://production.aws.patheos.com/blogs ... ttendance/

Arizona State Sen. Sylvia Allen would like a bill requiring mandatory church attendance.

Actually shouldn't the title be, "Now This Woman Wants Mandatory Church Attendance"?

If you think she is the only one then you haven't been paying attention...

89Hen wrote:

D1B wrote:Religion

Arizonans

They're the ones who re-elected the woman who said the Earth was 6000 years old.

She did not seriously propose mandatory Church attendance. And, really, I don't care if somebody thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old if how they vote on various bills is how I'd like to see them vote on various bills.

It's like the question to Scott Walker on evolution. I personally believe in evolution. But do I care if Scott Walker believes in evolution or not when what he's doing in terms of the function and structure of government is generally what I agree with? HELL no. Whether he believes in evolution or not is of no importance at all. And the same is true if he says he believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. Whether someone in government believes that or not has absolutely no practical significance.

JohnStOnge wrote:She did not seriously propose mandatory Church attendance. And, really, I don't care if somebody thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old if how they vote on various bills is how I'd like to see them vote on various bills.

It's like the question to Scott Walker on evolution. I personally believe in evolution. But do I care if Scott Walker believes in evolution or not when what he's doing in terms of the function and structure of government is generally what I agree with? HELL no. Whether he believes in evolution or not is of no importance at all. And the same is true if he says he believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. Whether someone in government believes that or not has absolutely no practical significance.

Especially if they're one of the most brilliant students to ever attend Harvard law.

Romulan warbird uncloaking! Deflection shields on full, Scotty!

Especially if they're one of the most brilliant students to ever attend Harvard law.

I have no idea as to what Cruz thinks about how old the Earth is but, yes, you're correct. What I listen to is what he says about the Constitution, etc. And I like what he says in that regard. So I couldn't care less about what he thinks about how old the Earth is. It really doesn't matter.

I mean think about it. If you listen to someone speak and you agree with everything they say in terms of the way government should operate and they think the Earth is 6,000 years old are you REALLY going to rule them out because they think the Earth is 6,000 years old? What the hell difference does it make? I mean really.

Think of this: Suppose you have somebody to manage your investments and they always do great. No matter what happens with the stock market you're making like 20% on average consistently per year no matter what happens. And you find out they believe in the Easter Bunny. I mean they really think the Easter Bunny exists.

Are you going to ditch them because they believe in the Easter Bunny? If so you're an idiot. You'd be ditching them for something totally irrelevant to what they do and do very well.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Especially if they're one of the most brilliant students to ever attend Harvard law.

I have no idea as to what Cruz thinks about how old the Earth is but, yes, you're correct. What I listen to is what he says about the Constitution, etc. And I like what he says in that regard. So I couldn't care less about what he thinks about how old the Earth is. It really doesn't matter.

I mean think about it. If you listen to someone speak and you agree with everything they say in terms of the way government should operate and they think the Earth is 6,000 years old are you REALLY going to rule them out because they think the Earth is 6,000 years old? What the hell difference does it make? I mean really.

Do you want somebody that gullible representing our nation to the rest of the world and making us a laughingstock like dubya did?

JohnStOnge wrote:She did not seriously propose mandatory Church attendance. And, really, I don't care if somebody thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old if how they vote on various bills is how I'd like to see them vote on various bills.

It's like the question to Scott Walker on evolution. I personally believe in evolution. But do I care if Scott Walker believes in evolution or not when what he's doing in terms of the function and structure of government is generally what I agree with? HELL no. Whether he believes in evolution or not is of no importance at all. And the same is true if he says he believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. Whether someone in government believes that or not has absolutely no practical significance.

So, you really think it's okay to have a leader that is stupid enough to believe that evolution isn't true and that the Earth is 6,000 years old? That doesn't raise a few red flags for you?

Do you want somebody that gullible representing our nation to the rest of the world and making us a laughingstock like dubya did?

First let me say that I think we are WAY more of a laughingstock now than we ever were when G.W. Bush was President. And it's not because of questions about how old the Earth is or evolution.

Now to answer the question: I don't think it matters. I don't think the rest of the world is going to gauge our President based on how old they think the Earth is or whether they believe in evolution or not.

And I also think the rest of the world has gauged our current President as being a wimp. I think that's the situation we're in now.

Flash back to Ronald Reagan. Whatever the rest of the world thought of Ronald Reagan, they did not think he was a wimp. And how old he thought the world is or whether he believed in evolution or not was not a factor in that. That kind of stuff is not what matters.

Vidav wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:She did not seriously propose mandatory Church attendance. And, really, I don't care if somebody thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old if how they vote on various bills is how I'd like to see them vote on various bills.

It's like the question to Scott Walker on evolution. I personally believe in evolution. But do I care if Scott Walker believes in evolution or not when what he's doing in terms of the function and structure of government is generally what I agree with? HELL no. Whether he believes in evolution or not is of no importance at all. And the same is true if he says he believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. Whether someone in government believes that or not has absolutely no practical significance.

So, you really think it's okay to have a leader that is stupid enough to believe that evolution isn't true and that the Earth is 6,000 years old? That doesn't raise a few red flags for you?

No, because its just like managing a portfolio.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Do you want somebody that gullible representing our nation to the rest of the world and making us a laughingstock like dubya did?

First let me say that I think we are WAY more of a laughingstock now than we ever were when G.W. Bush was President. And it's not because of questions about how old the Earth is or evolution.

Now to answer the question: I don't think it matters. I don't think the rest of the world is going to gauge our President based on how old they think the Earth is or whether they believe in evolution or not.

And I also think the rest of the world has gauged our current President as being a wimp. I think that's the situation we're in now.

Flash back to Ronald Reagan. Whatever the rest of the world thought of Ronald Reagan, they did not think he was a wimp. And how old he thought the world is or whether he believed in evolution or not was not a factor in that. That kind of stuff is not what matters.

Wrong as usual, with metronomic regularity.

Do these Republicans not understand the founding of our country? Separating Church and State was so important to them. Why can't they get that? So because, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is tough to get around, these fucktards want it at the state level?