Did Edwards already blow it?

[UberNeuman]

No, Robert - I'm just waiting for you to make your case....

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

There is nothing to "lie" about with this topic. The simple fact of the matter is that you guys are willing to turn a blind eye toward Christian-haters while you simultaneously preach equality and tolerance.

The fact of the matter is that you can not prove your point that the comments of the bloggers are hate speech...

Now you can read thraashman's post of the comments and his commentary of them, and you can refute his opinion of them and show what about those comments supports your viewpoint.

You won't.

Because you can't.

Because what you want to be there, isn't....

you are part of a very small minority of people who do not see the hatred and vulgarity in their comments about Catholics and Christians. amazing...

i feel as though I'm trying to describe a painting to a group of blind infants...

Ok, so let's play devil's advocate here. According to you what they said is hate-filled. And as a result Edwards definately should've fired them. So, by that account then, should we impeach Bush for being a bigot for his attitude towards homosexuals and how he feels they don't deserve equal rights under the law? Because that's what his attempt at an anti- gay marriage amendment was. Or is it only hate-filled speech when it's not about gays or if a Democrat says it?

Does Bush have two staffers who used to write blogs that bashed gays? if not, then try to come up with another analogous example that actually works... apples to apples, ok? good.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

There is nothing to "lie" about with this topic. The simple fact of the matter is that you guys are willing to turn a blind eye toward Christian-haters while you simultaneously preach equality and tolerance.

The fact of the matter is that you can not prove your point that the comments of the bloggers are hate speech...

Now you can read thraashman's post of the comments and his commentary of them, and you can refute his opinion of them and show what about those comments supports your viewpoint.

You won't.

Because you can't.

Because what you want to be there, isn't....

you are part of a very small minority of people who do not see the hatred and vulgarity in their comments about Catholics and Christians. amazing...

i feel as though I'm trying to describe a painting to a group of blind infants...

Ok, so let's play devil's advocate here. According to you what they said is hate-filled. And as a result Edwards definately should've fired them. So, by that account then, should we impeach Bush for being a bigot for his attitude towards homosexuals and how he feels they don't deserve equal rights under the law? Because that's what his attempt at an anti- gay marriage amendment was. Or is it only hate-filled speech when it's not about gays or if a Democrat says it?

Does Bush have two staffers who used to write blogs that bashed gays? if not, then try to come up with another analogous example that actually works... apples to apples, ok? good.

I don't know, having employees that write semi-offensive blogs is nowhere near as bad as trying to force legislation through that actively makes one group of people have less rights than another. You're right, it's not apples to apples. If the bloggers should be fired for what they did, Bush should be executed for what he did. Yet you've been historically very supportive of Bush. I guess it's only ok when someone hates gays is that it? I think we've identified who the bigot here is.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

There is nothing to "lie" about with this topic. The simple fact of the matter is that you guys are willing to turn a blind eye toward Christian-haters while you simultaneously preach equality and tolerance.

The fact of the matter is that you can not prove your point that the comments of the bloggers are hate speech...

Now you can read thraashman's post of the comments and his commentary of them, and you can refute his opinion of them and show what about those comments supports your viewpoint.

You won't.

Because you can't.

Because what you want to be there, isn't....

you are part of a very small minority of people who do not see the hatred and vulgarity in their comments about Catholics and Christians. amazing...

i feel as though I'm trying to describe a painting to a group of blind infants...

Ok, so let's play devil's advocate here. According to you what they said is hate-filled. And as a result Edwards definately should've fired them. So, by that account then, should we impeach Bush for being a bigot for his attitude towards homosexuals and how he feels they don't deserve equal rights under the law? Because that's what his attempt at an anti- gay marriage amendment was. Or is it only hate-filled speech when it's not about gays or if a Democrat says it?

Does Bush have two staffers who used to write blogs that bashed gays? if not, then try to come up with another analogous example that actually works... apples to apples, ok? good.

I don't know, having employees that write semi-offensive blogs is nowhere near as bad as trying to force legislation through that actively makes one group of people have less rights than another. You're right, it's not apples to apples. If the bloggers should be fired for what they did, Bush should be executed for what he did. Yet you've been historically very supportive of Bush. I guess it's only ok when someone hates gays is that it? I think we've identified who the bigot here is.

I have absolutely no problem with gays, and I completely disagree with Bush's attempts to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment.

so guess again Sherlock.

what's with the use of "impeach" and "executed" in trying to make your point? why must you go to extremes? and WTF does this incident have to do with Bush?

I wish you'd just come out and admit that you have no problem with people who hate and bash Christians... we'd be able to move on much faster. The fact that you describe their writings as "semi-offensive" says it all. You're downplaying it just because the candidate is a Democrat... there is no other logical reason for you to defend bigotry... unless, of course, you too hate Christians...?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I doubt it considering we are soooooo far away from even the primaries.

Yeah, I bet this will be ancient history by then. With about 32 contenders there is bound to be a lot of bone head errors yet to occur.

Fern

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I have absolutely no problem with gays, and I completely disagree with Bush's attempts to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment.

so guess again Sherlock.

what's with the use of "impeach" and "executed" in trying to make your point? why must you go to extremes? and WTF does this incident have to do with Bush?

I wish you'd just come out and admit that you have no problem with people who hate and bash Christians... we'd be able to move on much faster. The fact that you describe their writings as "semi-offensive" says it all. You're downplaying it just because the candidate is a Democrat... there is no other logical reason for you to defend bigotry... unless, of course, you too hate Christians...?

But you have historically been supportive of Bush on these boards. Even if you don't support some of his stances, you've supported him. And because what the bloggers did was mild in comparison to what Bush did, if they deserved being fired, then what Bush did was worse enough in comparison to get executed. The reason I mentioned the gay marriage thing is because I've just gotten you to admit to agreeing with what the bloggers said. Because many of their posts were attacking the church because of the church's position on homosexuals. The posted blogs don't attack Christians, they attack the church, and rightfully so. The closest the came to attacking christians was the comment against the anti-choice protestants, a sub-group of christians. No one is defending bigotry, but on dozens of requests in this thread to have you point out where anything they said was bigoted, you've side-stepped the question. I don't even think you understand what it means to be bigoted. By your argument I must be bigoted against Republicans for being against the death penalty and considering people who are for it as murderers. Or I'm bigoted against black people because I think Jesse Jackson is an idiotic blowhard. Or I'm bigoted against Catholics because I think the entire concept of Limbo is retarded and that the church is in it for the thought control and money instead of any higher purpose.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: thraashman
But you have historically been supportive of Bush on these boards. Even if you don't support some of his stances, you've supported him. And because what the bloggers did was mild in comparison to what Bush did, if they deserved being fired, then what Bush did was worse enough in comparison to get executed. The reason I mentioned the gay marriage thing is because I've just gotten you to admit to agreeing with what the bloggers said. Because many of their posts were attacking the church because of the church's position on homosexuals. The posted blogs don't attack Christians, they attack the church, and rightfully so. The closest the came to attacking christians was the comment against the anti-choice protestants, a sub-group of christians. No one is defending bigotry, but on dozens of requests in this thread to have you point out where anything they said was bigoted, you've side-stepped the question. I don't even think you understand what it means to be bigoted. By your argument I must be bigoted against Republicans for being against the death penalty and considering people who are for it as murderers. Or I'm bigoted against black people because I think Jesse Jackson is an idiotic blowhard. Or I'm bigoted against Catholics because I think the entire concept of Limbo is retarded and that the church is in it for the thought control and money instead of any higher purpose.

or Palehorse74, as a deist, is a bigot as the denies the religions of man and that Jesus is the son of God....

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: thraashman
But you have historically been supportive of Bush on these boards. Even if you don't support some of his stances, you've supported him. And because what the bloggers did was mild in comparison to what Bush did, if they deserved being fired, then what Bush did was worse enough in comparison to get executed. The reason I mentioned the gay marriage thing is because I've just gotten you to admit to agreeing with what the bloggers said. Because many of their posts were attacking the church because of the church's position on homosexuals. The posted blogs don't attack Christians, they attack the church, and rightfully so. The closest the came to attacking christians was the comment against the anti-choice protestants, a sub-group of christians. No one is defending bigotry, but on dozens of requests in this thread to have you point out where anything they said was bigoted, you've side-stepped the question. I don't even think you understand what it means to be bigoted. By your argument I must be bigoted against Republicans for being against the death penalty and considering people who are for it as murderers. Or I'm bigoted against black people because I think Jesse Jackson is an idiotic blowhard. Or I'm bigoted against Catholics because I think the entire concept of Limbo is retarded and that the church is in it for the thought control and money instead of any higher purpose.

or Palehorse74, as a deist, is a bigot as the denies the religions of man and that Jesus is the son of God....

Oooh, good one.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: thraashman
But you have historically been supportive of Bush on these boards. Even if you don't support some of his stances, you've supported him.

If you notice, that support doesnt often extend beyond the GWOT and Iraq (And I even disagree with most of his decisions concerning Iraq!). You'd probably be very surprised if you questioned me on other issues... hence the reason I do not identify myself with the Republican party; nor do I worship all things Bush!

And because what the bloggers did was mild in comparison to what Bush did, if they deserved being fired, then what Bush did was worse enough in comparison to get executed.

that's just plain ridiculous.

The reason I mentioned the gay marriage thing is because I've just gotten you to admit to agreeing with what the bloggers said. Because many of their posts were attacking the church because of the church's position on homosexuals. The posted blogs don't attack Christians, they attack the church, and rightfully so. The closest the came to attacking christians was the comment against the anti-choice protestants, a sub-group of christians. No one is defending bigotry, but on dozens of requests in this thread to have you point out where anything they said was bigoted, you've side-stepped the question. I don't even think you understand what it means to be bigoted.

And I think you've molded the definition to fit your agenda. I would describe most of what they've written as bigoted, or prejudicial.

By your argument I must be bigoted against Republicans for being against the death penalty and considering people who are for it as murderers. Or I'm bigoted against black people because I think Jesse Jackson is an idiotic blowhard. Or I'm bigoted against Catholics because I think the entire concept of Limbo is retarded and that the church is in it for the thought control and money instead of any higher purpose.

I do not have much respect for any Church itself either; but I, would never bash their followers the way these two women have. I genuinely believe that they fanatically hate Christians.

btw, Jesse Jackson IS an "idiotic blowhard" who just happens to be black. Daying so does not make you a racist. But if you said "blacks are idiotic blowhards," then yes, you'd be a racist. And that is very similar to what these women wrote about all Christians.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: thraashman
But you have historically been supportive of Bush on these boards. Even if you don't support some of his stances, you've supported him. And because what the bloggers did was mild in comparison to what Bush did, if they deserved being fired, then what Bush did was worse enough in comparison to get executed. The reason I mentioned the gay marriage thing is because I've just gotten you to admit to agreeing with what the bloggers said. Because many of their posts were attacking the church because of the church's position on homosexuals. The posted blogs don't attack Christians, they attack the church, and rightfully so. The closest the came to attacking christians was the comment against the anti-choice protestants, a sub-group of christians. No one is defending bigotry, but on dozens of requests in this thread to have you point out where anything they said was bigoted, you've side-stepped the question. I don't even think you understand what it means to be bigoted. By your argument I must be bigoted against Republicans for being against the death penalty and considering people who are for it as murderers. Or I'm bigoted against black people because I think Jesse Jackson is an idiotic blowhard. Or I'm bigoted against Catholics because I think the entire concept of Limbo is retarded and that the church is in it for the thought control and money instead of any higher purpose.

or Palehorse74, as a deist, is a bigot as the denies the religions of man and that Jesus is the son of God....

and you guys think that -I- am the one who needs to look up the definition for "bigot"?!? lol... ya... right.

 

[daniel49]

The Tim Hardaway case in the media today is an excellent example of the double standard.

He made a statement in an interview as a private citizen that he hates gays.
And then later apologized and was shortly thereafter banned by the NBA from showing up at the allstar game where he was sponsering some charitable events.

Without defending his statement, which I am sure to a gay person would be offensive and rude.
It is an excellent example of how if it is the right group it is no longer free speech , but now hate speech.
The PC police have once more run amuck. Its OK the NBA has people there who have been convicted of Wife beating, or Attacking a cop, or dealing coke.
But make a comment about the wrong group and he instantly isostracized.

Wonder what Mr Sterns actions would have been if he said I hate Catholics?
Both statements in fact are protected by free speech.
And the PC police need to get a grip.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I have absolutely no problem with gays, and I completely disagree with Bush's attempts to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment.

I know the search is broken, but could you post a link to the topic you made where you share your outrage over Bush's bigoted stand against gays.

I do not believe that anyone should ever "tolerate" hatred, in any form.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse74


I do not believe that anyone should ever "tolerate" hatred, in any form.

I can't wait to see your response.

Originally posted by: palehorse74


once again, I'll break out the crayons: I may "tolerate" the existence of fanatical hatred -

my response is you are an idiot. Again, you made so much of a mess in this thread you can't even keep your own beliefs straight.

that is what happens when you lie too much.

You are intolerant, and you condone your own bigotry.

do you guys ever discuss something without resorting to childish name-calling?

I molded my explanation to fit your use of the words "tolerate" and "condone."

I even included the caveat that by "tolerate," I mean that I dont actively go out and hunt down fanatical racists and bigots.

Do I have to take it one step further and use big pictures to try and explain myself to you?

There is nothing to "lie" about with this topic. The simple fact of the matter is that you guys are willing to turn a blind eye toward Christian-haters while you simultaneously preach equality and tolerance.

IOW, you are the very definition of prejudiced hypocrites!

Oh wow this reply is a total car crash. I guess that is what happens when you get called out on lies.

so which is it PH?

"I do not believe that anyone should ever "tolerate" hatred, in any form."

OR

"once again, I'll break out the crayons: I may "tolerate" the existence of fanatical hatred -"

your own words.

OH and please dont give me this BS about childish name calling, cry me a river.

One other thing, this BS about, "I molded my explanation to fit your use of the words "tolerate" and "condone." WHAT A JOKE. Just how many definitions of "tolerate" and "condone" do you have in your vocabulary of lies, spin, and deceit??

Oh, and did the fact that I AM Christian somehow get lost on you? why do you continue to throw out this garbage that I am a Christian hater?

going to DUCK again PH? How about you just admit you learned a valuable lesson about yourself and go out and try to change your intolerance of others?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I have absolutely no problem with gays, and I completely disagree with Bush's attempts to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment.

I know the search is broken, but could you post a link to the topic you made where you share your outrage over Bush's bigoted stand against gays.

I do not believe that anyone should ever "tolerate" hatred, in any form.

first, I do not see in Bush's proposal as one based on hatred; rather, it seems to derive itself from a lack of social awareness; second, I still disagree with Bush on that issue.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse74


I do not believe that anyone should ever "tolerate" hatred, in any form.

I can't wait to see your response.

Originally posted by: palehorse74


once again, I'll break out the crayons: I may "tolerate" the existence of fanatical hatred -

my response is you are an idiot. Again, you made so much of a mess in this thread you can't even keep your own beliefs straight.

that is what happens when you lie too much.

You are intolerant, and you condone your own bigotry.

do you guys ever discuss something without resorting to childish name-calling?

I molded my explanation to fit your use of the words "tolerate" and "condone."

I even included the caveat that by "tolerate," I mean that I dont actively go out and hunt down fanatical racists and bigots.

Do I have to take it one step further and use big pictures to try and explain myself to you?

There is nothing to "lie" about with this topic. The simple fact of the matter is that you guys are willing to turn a blind eye toward Christian-haters while you simultaneously preach equality and tolerance.

IOW, you are the very definition of prejudiced hypocrites!

Oh wow this reply is a total car crash. I guess that is what happens when you get called out on lies.

so which is it PH?

"I do not believe that anyone should ever "tolerate" hatred, in any form."

OR

"once again, I'll break out the crayons: I may "tolerate" the existence of fanatical hatred -"

your own words.

OH and please dont give me this BS about childish name calling, cry me a river.

One other thing, this BS about, "I molded my explanation to fit your use of the words "tolerate" and "condone." WHAT A JOKE. Just how many definitions of "tolerate" and "condone" do you have in your vocabulary of lies, spin, and deceit??

Oh, and did the fact that I AM Christian somehow get lost on you? why do you continue to throw out this garbage that I am a Christian hater?

going to DUCK again PH? How about you just admit you learned a valuable lesson about yourself and go out and try to change your intolerance of others?

LOL, that post was ridiculous. You should write a book called "101 Ways to Avoid Answering a Question." I'm sure it will sell exceptionally well in DC...

And my calling you a Christian-hater was a tongue-in-cheek response to all the random things you've called me here. Are you always this inept?

I've been called a lot of things in my life, but nobody would ever label me a bigot.... well, ok, correction: everybody knows I hate stupid people.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse74


I do not believe that anyone should ever "tolerate" hatred, in any form.

I can't wait to see your response.

Originally posted by: palehorse74


once again, I'll break out the crayons: I may "tolerate" the existence of fanatical hatred -

my response is you are an idiot. Again, you made so much of a mess in this thread you can't even keep your own beliefs straight.

that is what happens when you lie too much.

You are intolerant, and you condone your own bigotry.

do you guys ever discuss something without resorting to childish name-calling?

I molded my explanation to fit your use of the words "tolerate" and "condone."

I even included the caveat that by "tolerate," I mean that I dont actively go out and hunt down fanatical racists and bigots.

Do I have to take it one step further and use big pictures to try and explain myself to you?

There is nothing to "lie" about with this topic. The simple fact of the matter is that you guys are willing to turn a blind eye toward Christian-haters while you simultaneously preach equality and tolerance.

IOW, you are the very definition of prejudiced hypocrites!

Oh wow this reply is a total car crash. I guess that is what happens when you get called out on lies.

so which is it PH?

"I do not believe that anyone should ever "tolerate" hatred, in any form."

OR

"once again, I'll break out the crayons: I may "tolerate" the existence of fanatical hatred -"

your own words.

OH and please dont give me this BS about childish name calling, cry me a river.

One other thing, this BS about, "I molded my explanation to fit your use of the words "tolerate" and "condone." WHAT A JOKE. Just how many definitions of "tolerate" and "condone" do you have in your vocabulary of lies, spin, and deceit??

Oh, and did the fact that I AM Christian somehow get lost on you? why do you continue to throw out this garbage that I am a Christian hater?

going to DUCK again PH? How about you just admit you learned a valuable lesson about yourself and go out and try to change your intolerance of others?

LOL, that post was ridiculous. You should write a book called "101 Ways to Avoid Answering a Question." I'm sure it will sell exceptionally well in DC...

And my calling you a Christian-hater was a tongue-in-cheek response to all the random things you've called me here. Are you always this inept?

I've been called a lot of things in my life, but nobody would ever label me a bigot.... well, ok, correction: everybody knows I hate stupid people.

HAHA well that was even worst than your last "dodge and duck" routine.

nice try trying to back off calling me a Christian-hater...are you always this bad at lying? I think you have maybe called me a christian hater at least twice in this thread. Was the other time tongue in cheek too? yeah right...

you are wayy transparent. Just give it up already.

and dare I ask what question did I fail to answer for you? I think I answered everything you just lack the understanding required to recognize the answers.

are you really in intelligence? I mean seriously? Isnt that what you spouted off when you first came to these boards? If its true I am surprised the military lets you near a keyboard.

I am honored to be the first to call you a bigot then. Enjoy! In the mean time, you still haven't reconciled the lies you wrote earlier in the thread.

"I do not believe that anyone should ever "tolerate" hatred, in any form."

OR

"once again, I'll break out the crayons: I may "tolerate" the existence of fanatical hatred -"

your own words. And now no one can take you seriously, if they ever did.

edit: Im done with you I hope you learned something. I doubt it though.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte
"I do not believe that anyone should ever "tolerate" hatred, in any form."

OR

"once again, I'll break out the crayons: I may "tolerate" the existence of fanatical hatred -"

your own words. And now no one can take you seriously, if they ever did.

why is it that you continuously fail to quote the rest of that sentence? you know, the part wherein I defined my use of the word "tolerate" so that it would fit into your little sphere of understanding. I did so after you repeatedly used the word "tolerant" to describe me.

As in, by "tolerate" I meant that I do not hunt them down in my spare time. In other words, for the shortbus riders out there, if YOU consider that to be "tolerant," then I guess I am "tolerant" to a certain degree.

Are you high, or something?

Why is it that you also continuously avoid my questions?

Such as: If a republican candidate hires two gay-bashing bloggers for his staff, will you see it as "tolerating" free speech and respecting other peoples' beliefs? Or would you condemn the candidate to hell for being associated with bigots?

I think I know why you refuse to answer these questions... I just wish you had the cajones to admit it.

im getting tired of trying to teach a monkey to play football...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
If a republican candidate hires two gay-bashing bloggers for his staff, will you see it as "tolerating" free speech and respecting other peoples' beliefs?

Or would you condemn the candidate to hell for being associated with bigots?

I would condemn the guy for associating with Republicans.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74
If a republican candidate hires two gay-bashing bloggers for his staff, will you see it as "tolerating" free speech and respecting other peoples' beliefs?

Or would you condemn the candidate to hell for being associated with bigots?

I would condemn the guy for associating with Republicans.

Why are you avoiding the question Dave? Scared to answer honestly?

typical...

 

[UberNeuman]

I don't know why you keep asking everyone to answer your questions when you can't even tell us what about those bloggers statements are in any way like hate speech from the KKK or discriminates against Catholics...

It's actually quite clear now what your issue really is: Democrats. That's all it is, you could care less about intolerance - as that's how you have begun this thread with calling these women "militant feminist filth," and railing on about Democrats...

thraashman's post with the bloggers comments would have been a excellent way for you to discuss the issue, but you ingore that....

And you duck and dodge at every point to address the issue that you claim to have with the bloggers. OrByte, and you yourself, has clearly shown that you are hypocritical as you will ignore intolerance, as long as its Republican in nature.....

So, well does that leave us? More "paint a picture" remarks? More avoiding to address the issue you "claim" is there....

Why even wonder.... Wash, Rise, Repeat......

 

[nageov3t]

bloggers or no, I don't think Edwards has a chance... remember how badly he got demolished in the '04 VP debate vs Cheney?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
I don't know why you keep asking everyone to answer your questions when you can't even tell us what about those bloggers statements are in any way like hate speech from the KKK or discriminates against Catholics...

It's actually quite clear now what your issue really is: Democrats. That's all it is, you could care less about intolerance - as that's how you have begun this thread with calling these women "militant feminist filth," and railing on about Democrats...

thraashman's post with the bloggers comments would have been a excellent way for you to discuss the issue, but you ingore that....

And you duck and dodge at every point to address the issue that you claim to have with the bloggers. OrByte, and you yourself, has clearly shown that you are hypocritical as you will ignore intolerance, as long as its Republican in nature.....

So, well does that leave us? More "paint a picture" remarks? More avoiding to address the issue you "claim" is there....

Why even wonder.... Wash, Rise, Repeat......

do you completely deny that their writings are filled with anti-Christian statements and other hate-filled vulgarities? seriously?!

Take off you partisan blinders...

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Why even wonder.... Wash, Rise, Repeat......

Unless you can address the issues that you are having, this dialog is pointless...

In fact, this thread should be locked up as you are unwilling to discuss this in any meaningful manner....

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Why even wonder.... Wash, Rise, Repeat......

Unless you can address the issues that you are having, this dialog is pointless...

In fact, this thread should be locked up as you are unwilling to discuss this in any meaningful manner....

yes, we get it - you're an apologist for these fembigots. lock 'er up.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
do you completely deny that their writings are filled with anti-Christian statements and other hate-filled vulgarities? seriously?!

Take off you partisan blinders...

So what?

Ever hear of that thing call Free Speech?