|
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:14:30 -0500, Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56*am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. Why would I care what Harry believes? Amswer, I don't. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:21:03 -0500, RLM wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:14:30 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56*am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. Why would I care what Harry believes? Amswer, I don't. Good. He does make a fitting example however. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. Maybe it does. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John Worse than that. Krause wishes death to people he doesn't like. Tell me any legitimate religion that sanctions death wishes. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John Indeed it doesn't. That's why I read some of your posts, so I can learn from your expertise in lying and name-calling. Apparently your religion provides special training in that area. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:57:20 -0500, Boater wrote:
Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John Indeed it doesn't. That's why I read some of your posts, so I can learn from your expertise in lying and name-calling. Apparently your religion provides special training in that area. jiggle, jiggle....you're so friggin' easy, Krause! -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:40:21 -0500, BAR wrote: Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. Maybe it does. No. Judaism doesn't condone such behavior. -- John That's funny. You don't look Jewish. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:40:21 -0500, BAR wrote:
Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. Maybe it does. No. Judaism doesn't condone such behavior. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Dec 23, 3:33*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:54:31 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote: I couldn't believe it the other day. A couple of nurses were talking about Michelle Obama who was being interviewed, but still quite under wraps and not really saying anything... They said. "She is so open and real". "She wears real cloths and is such a normal person", "Her kids are so normal" Pfffftttt, they look like caged puppies for ****s sake.... After hearing how folks got on Sarah for being a real person, and actually shopping at real stores I almost puked.. Michelle Obama clammed up totally during the election and was never seen without very expensive gowns and dresses, dressed up like a Barbie doll. Amazing how the lemmings can be so hypocritical. There is a small difference. *Sarah Palin was running for office. * Michelle Obama is not. No, the difference is the blunders Michelle made were left alone and she was allowed to hide from the media who sent a bigger army to Alaska to check out Palins church than they did to Chicago to check out Ayers, that crazy white preacher, Reverend Wright, Rezko, and the rest of the organized criminal and crim organizations the Obama's represented and worked for... They they added to the fun by simply making it up as they went along with Palin... |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Dec 23, 4:18*pm, Tim wrote:
On Dec 23, 6:56*am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No, they are an arm of the DNC and thus have no accountability.. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com