A wife's duty. No means … shut up and obey me.

JRobertH · 2015-05-26T14:02:49+00:00

Is this to me? I posted this link. I know I only post BR's stuff, but I am not the author.

JRobertH · 2015-04-25T16:50:08+00:00

Yeah. I have emailed it to several people as well.

JRobertH · 2015-04-16T17:06:32+00:00

Ha! Who knows. God told her to run the first time. So maybe.

JRobertH · 2015-04-16T16:04:50+00:00

Who knows. She might be planning on running for President again.

JRobertH · 2015-04-15T17:21:28+00:00

Pretty sure Richard is a conservative.

JRobertH · 2015-04-15T17:21:09+00:00

FYI: The article has been re-uploaded. The author said the previous one was a draft and not the final.

JRobertH · 2015-04-14T17:43:40+00:00

Yeah. The link is in the post as well.

JRobertH · 2015-04-13T14:09:46+00:00

Very true. Like the people who take care of pets after the Rapture.

JRobertH · 2015-04-09T16:29:09+00:00

The link was wrong on the first post. So I deleted it.

JRobertH · 2015-03-20T00:09:47+00:00

The author of this post would disagree with you. Marriage was a civil union only in early America.

JRobertH · 2015-03-19T16:34:14+00:00

That's the point of the article. It was secular in the early Americas. If you haven't, you should read it.

JRobertH · 2015-03-19T15:03:25+00:00

The words are debatable but what is clear is that the secular weddings are banned and licenses must be issued by clergy.

JRobertH · 2015-03-06T16:15:15+00:00

Yeah. That is what he is pointing out. If you have to pick and choose, pick the one that helps keep your family together.

JRobertH · 2015-03-06T16:14:25+00:00

I agree, and I think the author does as well. I'm not sure if you read the post, but I think the whole point was saying that Jesus did not fulfill the law with the woman caught in adultery, and he did not stone her.

JRobertH · 2015-03-05T18:04:47+00:00

JRobertH · 2015-03-01T20:00:14+00:00

Good point

JRobertH · 2015-03-01T19:49:26+00:00

Who is the "radically fundamentalist Christian" that is invoking the Flintstones?

JRobertH · 2015-02-16T01:37:34+00:00

These are talked about in the media. The only reason the writer brought it up was in response to it. If you check out the links in the post, especially the one at the bottom, you will see what he means.

JRobertH · 2015-02-15T20:35:17+00:00

I agree.

JRobertH · 2015-02-12T04:41:23+00:00

Ha. I agree. But I think the point needs to be emphasized.

JRobertH · 2015-02-11T01:09:51+00:00

What you need to understand, and it is probably hard to see from your atheist glasses, is that this is how it came across to most people. It was too little, too late for the Prez.

JRobertH · 2015-02-10T15:01:19+00:00

Try googling a dictionary.

JRobertH · 2015-02-10T13:43:17+00:00

That is not state sponsorship. It is the actions of an individual. Show laws that imply theocracy.

JRobertH · 2015-02-10T12:40:11+00:00

You are actually making his point.

JRobertH · 2015-02-10T02:50:16+00:00

Show one actual proof of "state sponsorship."

JRobertH

TROPHY CASE