Huckabee on HIV in 1992: "We need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well, I only care about beating him & his ilk down.

C'mon, you don't seriously believe he can win the nomination?

She did say his ilk - I believe she means Republicans.

BTW - "him and his ilk" is an expression that I've never read outside of a comic book

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

there is also a study that shows if the males have

foreskin

the species with that feature are overwhelmingly non-monogomous

*shrugs*

foreskin makes us non-monogamous? i don't get it.

oh it's something simple like having

foreskin

is indicative of the species being promiscuous since their

*wang*

is able to

withdraw previous deposits

. Species without this feature have no use for

withdrawing previous deposts

since they are monogamous.

Withdraw previous deposits? I don't get it.

dontcha know that sex is like a bank? you lose interest on withdrawal?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well, I only care about beating him & his ilk down.

C'mon, you don't seriously believe he can win the nomination?

Oh, and you bet he can win.

Edited December 10, 2007 by VJ Troll

[Mags 112]

there is also a study that shows if the males have

foreskin

the species with that feature are overwhelmingly non-monogomous

*shrugs*

foreskin makes us non-monogamous? i don't get it.

oh it's something simple like having

foreskin

is indicative of the species being promiscuous since their

*wang*

is able to

withdraw previous deposits

. Species without this feature have no use for

withdrawing previous deposts

since they are monogamous.

Withdraw previous deposits? I don't get it.

Semen and lady juices?

Edited December 10, 2007 by Mags

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

there is also a study that shows if the males have

foreskin

the species with that feature are overwhelmingly non-monogomous

*shrugs*

foreskin makes us non-monogamous? i don't get it.

oh it's something simple like having

foreskin

is indicative of the species being promiscuous since their

*wang*

is able to

withdraw previous deposits

. Species without this feature have no use for

withdrawing previous deposts

since they are monogamous.

Withdraw previous deposits? I don't get it.

Semen and lady juices?

But how does foreskin withdraw it????

[Caladan 19]

Monogamy isn't new. The pre-christians Romans were at it as well and they were polytheists.

Was it about property rights?

Or just keeping track of whose children are whose, so we know who gets the property. All the stuff about legitimacy, and in the Bible about who should marry his brother's widow, and all of that fun is mostly about keeping the inheritance of the children straight.

Historically, even when marriage has been a monogamous institution, most people aren't with one partner for their whole lives. Whether there's a tradition of mistress, or prostitutes and slaves not counting as cheating, or just that once the person dies remarriage is certain, it's always a little more complicated and closer to 'one mate with inheritance rights at a time' rather than 'one person, now and forever.'

there is also a study that shows if the males have

foreskin

the species with that feature are overwhelmingly non-monogomous

*shrugs*

foreskin makes us non-monogamous? i don't get it.

oh it's something simple like having

foreskin

is indicative of the species being promiscuous since their

*wang*

is able to

withdraw previous deposits

. Species without this feature have no use for

withdrawing previous deposts

since they are monogamous.

Withdraw previous deposits? I don't get it.

Semen and lady juices?

But how does foreskin withdraw it????

Think of it like a plunger.

[no name 1]

Well, I only care about beating him & his ilk down.

C'mon, you don't seriously believe he can win the nomination?

I'm not sure of anyone (except Freddy boy) - it's all too close....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, I only care about beating him & his ilk down.

C'mon, you don't seriously believe he can win the nomination?

Evangelical leaders have been saying they would back a 3rd Party candidate if Giuliani wins the Primaries. Huckabee just may break off and run as their 3rd Party candidate, especially if he gets a call from Jesus.

[no name 1]

Think of it like a plunger.

Biology 101- Ejaculation. No 'plunger' can withdraw something like that.

Edited December 10, 2007 by devilette

[mawilson 2,133]

...without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval Early in Roman history, a husband had considerable power over his wife and children, whom he could punish, sell, or even kill as he saw fit. However, eventually women came to enjoy a better legal position and gained more and more control over their lives and property. Thus, in imperial times husband and wife approached marriage as equals. Yet it seems that there was also a decline in marriage and birth rates, since the emperor Augustus found it necessary to pass drastic laws compelling people to marry and penalizing those who remained single.. There were several forms of marriage, the first of which (by usus) involved no ceremony at all. It was established simply by the couple's living together for one year. Divorce was just as informal. A more formal kind of marriage (by coemptio) began with a ceremony in front of witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony. Members of the upper classes usually preferred an elaborate ceremony and thus married by confarreatio in front of ten witnesses and a priest. In the case of a divorce, another great ceremony was required. However, all three forms of marriage and divorce were equally valid. All marriages were monogamous. Both men and women usually entered their first marriage in their late teens.

So if it wasn't the Church, it was an Emperor who shoved monogamy down people's throats.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Think of it like a plunger.

Wow, really? I didn't know.

Edited December 10, 2007 by VJ Troll

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Monogamy isn't new. The pre-christians Romans were at it as well and they were polytheists.

Was it about property rights?

Or just keeping track of whose children are whose, so we know who gets the property. All the stuff about legitimacy, and in the Bible about who should marry his brother's widow, and all of that fun is mostly about keeping the inheritance of the children straight.

Historically, even when marriage has been a monogamous institution, most people aren't with one partner for their whole lives. Whether there's a tradition of mistress, or prostitutes and slaves not counting as cheating, or just that once the person dies remarriage is certain, it's always a little more complicated and closer to 'one mate with inheritance rights at a time' rather than 'one person, now and forever.'

Yep. There was no need to marry someone other than for property, especially when sex and marriage weren't mutually exclusive.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Monogamy isn't new. The pre-christians Romans were at it as well and they were polytheists.

Was it about property rights?

Basically. It was political arrangement between families, rather than a romantic one. Not really much different from arranged marriages in other cultures today.

For the Romans - it was really about appearances and reputation, political unity between "reputable families" (cemented by the production of children) being prized over a romantic relationship. The romance part was a 'nice to have', but marrying for that reason alone was frowned upon as lustful.

They had high standards for themselves - but affairs were common, and 'ok' so long as they were discreet, and weren't found out - as that would damage the reputation of the husband.

Of course back then - you could get yourself a political appointment, not on your own merits, but by extolling those of your ancestors. Back then it wasn't so much about your (personal) reputation, but that you had a responsibility to live up to that of your ancestors. With that much pressure riding on your to succeed it probably explains why there were so many ambitious people back then

Edited December 10, 2007 by Number 6

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Think of it like a plunger.

Wow, really? I didn't know.

Did it rub off?

Edit: hahahaha....too quick with the edit...LOL

Edited December 10, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[mawilson 2,133]

dontcha know that sex is like a bank? you lose interest on withdrawal?

More like a 4(01)-s(k)in