|
How to give insecure right-wing males the sh*ts...
|
How to give insecure right-wing males the sh*ts...
|
How to give insecure right-wing males the sh*ts...
ESAD wrote:
On 2/5/13 8:10 AM, Salmonbait wrote: twerp noun \?tw?rp\ Definition of TWERP : a silly, insignificant, or contemptible person Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! Why, thank you, John, for pointing out what you are...a twerp. We know you wouldn't be aiming that at someone else, because you're not a liberal and you don't engage in name-calling, *except* when you do, which is most of the time, of course. Be sure to let us know after you have an accident with your new pistola, or it is taken away from you by a kid you are stalking in your neighborhood. I'm sure John pays his taxes so STFU. Your lame insults are very sad. |
How to give insecure right-wing males the sh*ts...
True North wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:03:53 AM UTC-4, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote: On 2/5/2013 7:52 AM, Meyer wrote: On 2/5/2013 7:31 AM, True North wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:38:58 AM UTC-4, ESAD wrote: On 2/5/13 1:48 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/5/2013 1:29 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/2/2013 10:47 AM, ESAD wrote: Gays don't try to force non-gay members of society to conform to their practices or beliefs. Gays don't try to force "creationism" and other "stuporstitious" beliefs onto gullible school children. The ones in the priesthood certainly have. Ha, now harry is gonna' tell us all about gays. I bet he knows some very tidy ones, who are perfect stereotypical homosexuals in every way:) I'm in the Washington, D.C., metro area, and there are many gays here. Of course I know some gays and lesbians, but I'll bet a U.S. dollar your knowledge of these folks is far more intimate than mine. Is the little whore flirting with gays now? Meyer and e#c will be terribly jealous. Grow up. I just don't understand how they can call themselves "tolerant", the way they mock and ridicule gays... so much hate. We mock and ridicule you, for good reason. Are you now telling us that you are gay? Who is "we", dip****? You and the resident tax cheat? |
How to give insecure right-wing males the sh*ts...
On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:25:28 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:14:05 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:26:21 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:08:45 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/2/2013 8:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 11:58:33 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/2/2013 11:52 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 2/2/2013 10:30 AM, ESAD wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=r0Be8LnuG3U#! Be careful.. While you are burying your head in the sand pro choice, pro gay rights conservatives are popping up all around you, we are more libertarian than right. We are everywhere, democrats are fuked... Oh, cool, I didn't know you were were pro gay rights. Let the marriages begin! You didn't know, because you just assume and argue.. Next time try listening... But just to **** you off I will tell you that I support gay rights, BECAUSE I am a Christian, not because I personally approve. How can you adopt such a position, when the Mormon church has clearly stated that acting upon same-sex attraction is a sin. How can you be so stupid? I told you my position, I do not speak for the Mormon Church. “What we do know is that the doctrine of the church – that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married – has not changed and is not changing,” (Elder Quentin Cook) C'mon, name calling? You've made it clear that you are Mormon, yet you don't believe that you should follow the Mormon teachings. That is about as confusing as an atheist that believes in God. And your response is name calling. Why try to interject your feelings for religion into whether or not gays should have equal rights as non-gays. Civil rights are civil rights. The Constitution doesn't distinguish between gays and non-gays, both are entitled to the same protection under the law. That is not a religious issue. However, gays who are 'unionized' are *not* living a 'marriage'. Meriam-Webster has it correct in their primary definition: Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law ...all rest is designed to appease the liberals. Salmonbait The "unionized" stuff (whatever that is) is probably about civil unions, which was the only thing available to gays and lesbians, since the conservatives, pushed along by the religious right, effectively blocked any concept permitting other than "one man and one woman" to wed. That is historical in nature, unless you are (again) trying to rewrite history. MY feelings pertaining to religion have nothing to do with it. Conservative Christian dogma has EVREYTHING to do with it. I said nothing about what *I* believed, I merely pointed to an inconsistency in the OP's wearing of HIS religion on his sleeve vs. the official position of that religion's governing body. Why do you always try to attack the messenger rather than make a logical argument. Of course, as I suspect, you don't HAVE a logical argument and the only thing left is an argumentum ad hominem. You were not attacked. The dictionary made the argument. I simply agree. The rest of the definition was simply added to appease liberals. Oh, and please pardon my misspelling of 'Merriam'. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion. |
How to give insecure right-wing males the sh*ts...
In article ,
says... On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:14:05 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:26:21 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:08:45 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/2/2013 8:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 11:58:33 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/2/2013 11:52 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 2/2/2013 10:30 AM, ESAD wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=r0Be8LnuG3U#! Be careful.. While you are burying your head in the sand pro choice, pro gay rights conservatives are popping up all around you, we are more libertarian than right. We are everywhere, democrats are fuked... Oh, cool, I didn't know you were were pro gay rights. Let the marriages begin! You didn't know, because you just assume and argue.. Next time try listening... But just to **** you off I will tell you that I support gay rights, BECAUSE I am a Christian, not because I personally approve. How can you adopt such a position, when the Mormon church has clearly stated that acting upon same-sex attraction is a sin. How can you be so stupid? I told you my position, I do not speak for the Mormon Church. ?What we do know is that the doctrine of the church ? that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married ? has not changed and is not changing,? (Elder Quentin Cook) C'mon, name calling? You've made it clear that you are Mormon, yet you don't believe that you should follow the Mormon teachings. That is about as confusing as an atheist that believes in God. And your response is name calling. Why try to interject your feelings for religion into whether or not gays should have equal rights as non-gays. Civil rights are civil rights. The Constitution doesn't distinguish between gays and non-gays, both are entitled to the same protection under the law. That is not a religious issue. However, gays who are 'unionized' are *not* living a 'marriage'. Meriam-Webster has it correct in their primary definition: Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law ...all rest is designed to appease the liberals. Salmonbait The "unionized" stuff (whatever that is) is probably about civil unions, which was the only thing available to gays and lesbians, since the conservatives, pushed along by the religious right, effectively blocked any concept permitting other than "one man and one woman" to wed. That is historical in nature, unless you are (again) trying to rewrite history. MY feelings pertaining to religion have nothing to do with it. Conservative Christian dogma has EVREYTHING to do with it. I said nothing about what *I* believed, I merely pointed to an inconsistency in the OP's wearing of HIS religion on his sleeve vs. the official position of that religion's governing body. Why do you always try to attack the messenger rather than make a logical argument. Of course, as I suspect, you don't HAVE a logical argument and the only thing left is an argumentum ad hominem. He's VERY narrow minded. |
How to give insecure right-wing males the sh*ts...
In article ,
says... On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:25:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:14:05 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:26:21 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:08:45 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/2/2013 8:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 11:58:33 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/2/2013 11:52 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 2/2/2013 10:30 AM, ESAD wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=r0Be8LnuG3U#! Be careful.. While you are burying your head in the sand pro choice, pro gay rights conservatives are popping up all around you, we are more libertarian than right. We are everywhere, democrats are fuked... Oh, cool, I didn't know you were were pro gay rights. Let the marriages begin! You didn't know, because you just assume and argue.. Next time try listening... But just to **** you off I will tell you that I support gay rights, BECAUSE I am a Christian, not because I personally approve. How can you adopt such a position, when the Mormon church has clearly stated that acting upon same-sex attraction is a sin. How can you be so stupid? I told you my position, I do not speak for the Mormon Church. ?What we do know is that the doctrine of the church ? that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married ? has not changed and is not changing,? (Elder Quentin Cook) C'mon, name calling? You've made it clear that you are Mormon, yet you don't believe that you should follow the Mormon teachings. That is about as confusing as an atheist that believes in God. And your response is name calling. Why try to interject your feelings for religion into whether or not gays should have equal rights as non-gays. Civil rights are civil rights. The Constitution doesn't distinguish between gays and non-gays, both are entitled to the same protection under the law. That is not a religious issue. However, gays who are 'unionized' are *not* living a 'marriage'. Meriam-Webster has it correct in their primary definition: Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law ...all rest is designed to appease the liberals. Salmonbait The "unionized" stuff (whatever that is) is probably about civil unions, which was the only thing available to gays and lesbians, since the conservatives, pushed along by the religious right, effectively blocked any concept permitting other than "one man and one woman" to wed. That is historical in nature, unless you are (again) trying to rewrite history. MY feelings pertaining to religion have nothing to do with it. Conservative Christian dogma has EVREYTHING to do with it. I said nothing about what *I* believed, I merely pointed to an inconsistency in the OP's wearing of HIS religion on his sleeve vs. the official position of that religion's governing body. Why do you always try to attack the messenger rather than make a logical argument. Of course, as I suspect, you don't HAVE a logical argument and the only thing left is an argumentum ad hominem. You were not attacked. The dictionary made the argument. I simply agree. The rest of the definition was simply added to appease liberals. Oh, and please pardon my misspelling of 'Merriam'. Salmonbait Please do tell, narrow minded racist, where do you get the notion that the "rest" of the definition was to appease liberals? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com