Why Can't I Own a Canadian?--A Religious Letter

page: 11
130
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
jfj123


Honestly I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you.


Obviously your logic and reason are flawed since you came back to me. But I had a good idea by radar instinct that this would be the case.
In your elevated position you can justify anything ..particularly when it disagrees with your devout religious belief on this topic. No problem. Once again I make note of it to the readers out here. This jfj123 is peak performance for you.

I do not consider myself elevated. I consider myself Salty. I do not believe in your bias that you know the difference. No problem again.


By your posts, it's obvious you have a hatred for homosexuals and this is how you're venting it.


I did not respond to this statement of yours in my earlier post but now make note of it for the purposes of illustrating your posting technique.

I do not hate homosexuals jfj123. This is a bold and crass assumption on your part because of the insecurity you have in you. It is you who must elevate yourself on this type of guilt technique of transferring guilt to others in order to once again elevate your claim to moral ethical high ground. In like manner to which this machine I am describing went after this contestant.
You must heap any and everything you can conjure up to justify your beliefs. No problem with me on this. I will take it all.

What I greatly dislike is ignorance and open stupidity. This should be clear by my previous posts.

But in your haste to establish yourself as righteous here ...you must automatically paint others into your self built corners. No problem again.

You need to understand that this could be seen as coming from you....and even others with the same position. Including the concept that our conversation was not over as you tried to claim. Like many women and effeminate..you must get in the last word while claiming the opposite. Once again...noted.

jfj123, Like many of your genre...you can be easily lead to do this type of conduct because it is the only thing you know..building on one assumption after another to justify yourself and your beliefs. It is predictable. It is also very sad because it so obviously seeks to establish itself as elevated by these very sorry and poor techniques. Yet you make the elevated claim of others because they do not let you drag them across the road to your belief system. Once again telling of your intolerance.

Your statement about hating homosexuals is also indicative of intolerance.
You automatically assume that because someone is not in favor of something that they are a hater. This is standard logic and reason today among intelligences. It is also false. It is not enlightenment. But it makes for good drama until people grow and mature sufficiently to see the pattern, this technique, this modus operandi for what it is.

Oh..and this ...about censor/censorship.


I go by the legal definition as applied in The United States of America.


I understood the definition of which you choose to use. I also understand that censorship also means to rebuke, condemn, reprimand. You choose the narrow minded definitions to support your positions while ignoring what you deem should be ignored by your logic, reason, and emotions and call it intelligence, enlightenment. There is more to the definition of censorship, censored, and censor than that which you "choose" by preconceived bias and ignorance/intolerance.

Notice line 3 in this dictionary.

www.yourdictionary.com...

Notice under transitive verb...censored

transitive verb cen·sored, cen·sor·ing, cen·sors
To examine and expurgate.


Here again..line 3

www.answers.com... line 3

Also from below to censored..
tr.v., -sored, -sor·ing, -sors.
To examine and expurgate.


Notice here below line 5 under censored..

www.thefreedictionary.com...


In short what this machine put in motion by Perez Hilton did was to condemn and attempt to expurgate this contestant ..this woman from and in the public conscience. They censored her.
You need to get out more.

In my view you can do much better than the methods and techniques you are want to use but your provincialism keeps getting in your way.

I do hope this helps you as well as some of the other readers to this thread.

Thanks,
Orangetom


[edit on 4-6-2010 by orangetom1999]




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
jfj123

Honestly I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you.



Obviously your logic and reason are flawed since you came back to me.

Me responding to you has nothing to do with flawed logic



But I had a good idea by radar instinct that this would be the case.

Me too
You see I know you're the type of person that must have the last word no matter what so I'm just curious to see how long you will string this out so you can get the last word



In your elevated position you can justify anything ..

You're actually the one who claims to be in an elevated position, not me as I've stated before
But do go on



particularly when it disagrees with your devout religious belief on this topic.

How does anything disagree with my devout religious beliefs? And what are my devout religious beliefs?


No problem. Once again I make note of it to the readers out here. This jfj123 is peak performance for you.

Can't respond. Statement makes no sense.


I do not consider myself elevated.

Of course you do. You've stated as such



You must heap any and everything you can conjure up to justify your beliefs. No problem with me on this. I will take it all.

Let me clarify. I have no need to justify my belief system to anyone.


...you must automatically paint others into your self built corners.

Actually I have no interest in painting anyone into any "self built corners". You have the right to your opinions whether or not I agree with them. As example, although I hate the KKK, I support their right to free speech.


No problem again.

If it's not a problem, why are you complaining about it ?????


that our conversation was not over as you tried to claim.

I changed my mind. I'm having fun



Like many women and effeminate..you must get in the last word while claiming the opposite. Once again...noted.

You seem to be the one doing everything you can to get in the last word



jfj123,

Feel free to call me jfj



Like many of your genre..

What is my genre ?


Yet you make the elevated claim of others

Not others...just you
You're the one supplying the evidence I am correct



Your statement about hating homosexuals is also indicative of intolerance.

Yes I consider anyone that hates people because of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, etc.. as intolerant. I thought I was pretty clear about that earlier but as you say, "no problem...again"



You automatically assume that because someone is not in favor of something that they are a hater.

If someone is not in favor of something, the disfavor that thing. Pretty clear to me.


This is standard logic

Actually it's intermediate logic. If I used proper punctuation, it might be advanced logic



I go by the legal definition as applied in The United States of America.


I understood the definition of which you choose to use. I also understand that censorship also means to rebuke, condemn, reprimand. You choose the narrow minded definitions to support your positions
No I choose the legal definition since that is the one that protects free speech



In short what this machine put in motion by Perez Hilton

For the record, I can't stand perez hilton but he has a right to express his opinion as long as it isn't libelous or slanderous just like you have the right to express your opinion about perez hilton. You can even get a big group of people together and you can all express your opinions at once if you like.


did was to condemn and attempt to expurgate this contestant ..this woman from and in the public conscience. They censored her.

Nobody censored her. Simply by stating something over and over won't make it true. Here, lets try:
I am king of the Universe....I am king of the Universe....I am king of the Universe....I am king of the Universe....I am king of the Universe....I am king of the Universe....

See it didn't work
Thought I'd try just in case you were right though



Thanks,
Orangetom

You're welcome
Have a great weekend !!!!



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Patriotgal
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


The PROPER translation of the 4thCommandment, is :"Thou Shalt Not Murder". Killing, is fine, under certain circumstances. Even legally required, in some states.


According to WHO?
YOU?

Please tell us the exact Hebrew word, and explain it's meaning.


Kap



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by EspyderMan
The New testament is for today.


Rubbish!
It's a 2000 year old book of religious fantasy.

Kap



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousMoose
reply to post by juniperberry
 


The OT is History, there are just a few laws that are mention in the New Testament that are to be followed...the ten commandments is one of them


WHICH ten ?

You DO know there are TWO lists of commandments in the OT?
Neither of which has exactly 10 ?

You did know that, right?


Kap



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas1611
You know...this is probably one of thousands of similar stupid questions by people who do not understand the Bible nor how to apply its words.


Right - everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.



Originally posted by Dallas1611
And once again, any and ALL questions posed here can easily be answered by CONTINUE reading the Bible and comparing scripture with scripture.


Bollocks.
The more you read, the more you question.

That's why you FAILED to answer ANY of the questions.


Kap



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


The Old Testament is the Old covenant
The New Testament is the New Covenant.


The Book of Mormon is the Newer Covenant.


Kap



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by riiver
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Back on topic---

To all the people posting in this thread and using the Bible as an authoritative moral guide:

You have yet to really answer any of the questions posed in the letter.


Indeed.

All this preaching, and NOT ONE believer has ANSWERED a single one of the questions.

They CAN'T answer.

Except with silly preaching such as
"read the bible and you'll get the answers" !

What a crock.

They don't answer because they CAN'T.


Kap



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Interesting post but that just shows how ignorant the writer is in the matters of the old testament.


But you can't actually ANSWER even ONE of the questions !?


Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I didn't find it funny.. I felt sorry for this poor guy making a fool of himself speaking of matters he knows nothing about.


But you CAN abuse the poster.

A perfect example of a religious believer.


Kap



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phedreus
I am of the opinion that the OP has been watching to many west wing reruns. The simple facts are rather undeniable. homsexuality is abnormal to the species at large.


Homosexuality is completely normal, and is widespread throughout the aninal kingdom - completely natural.




Originally posted by Phedreus
many religions condemn the act. homosexuals represent less than .001% of the population. Muslim nations treat them far more harshly than we ever thought of.


Yes, religions are un-natural and bigoted.


Kap



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by Phedreus
homosexuals represent less than .001% of the population.


In this case, your information is incorrect. According to Gallup and a few other polls, anywhere from 2% to 10% of the population is gay.
www.gallup.com...

Not sure where you got your figures from, but you're WAYYY off. Even by the conservative polls.


He made it up out of thin air.

That's religion for you.


Kap



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phedreus
reply to post by grahag
 


even the gay community will tell you that those numbers are inflated by those who are 1. g.t.g. gay till graduation, 2, those that simple act gay for one reason or another, 3. those caught up in the chic of being thought gay.


Rubbish.

You are making up silly nonsense that has no basis in fact.

Homosexuality is common in humans and animals.


Kap



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I like the funny posts the best.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


jfj123,

you posted..


Honestly I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you.


to which I posted..

Obviously your logic and reason are flawed since you came back to me.


And now you post this....???

Me responding to you has nothing to do with flawed logic


Sure it does. It shows the manner in which you do or do not operate..how and why you think the way you do. It also shows that you cannot be taken seriously. Why?? Because you keep going back and forth to me..the very thing you declared you would not do.

I realize that his topic is very dear to you .but as I am trying to state..your methodology leaves alot to be desired if you are attempting to be taken as serious. And this is a serious topic ..indeed!!


You see I know you're the type of person that must have the last word no matter what so I'm just curious to see how long you will string this out so you can get the last word


This looks silly in lieu of your statement I have quoted above ..the opening remarks of this post. Once again it makes it difficult for those who can see..to take your posts/posting seriously.


You're actually the one who claims to be in an elevated position, not me as I've stated before But do go on


It is Salty..a Salty position ..do you know what it means and implies??


How does anything disagree with my devout religious beliefs? And what are my devout religious beliefs?


Your devout beliefs are of the feminine...in and of this world and the things of this world....of the flesh...complete with emotional default settings to deceive you into thinking you can heap guilt and blame on others for how they think and express themselves. Translate that censorship. That you are allowed to default..play through unquestioned unchallenged...by automatic default settings ..like this computer..it automatically goes there.
There are people out here who see this in you ..in the body politic, in the media and in public education non standards.
They don't go along and are not interested in your labeling them...nor default settings.
And they are teaching others to spot it across the board for what it is ..cheap censorship...also a sign of a religion at work..a very devout zealous religion.


Can't respond. Statement makes no sense.


We are going to agree on this because of your provincialism. It limits you ..as obviously evidenced by you misunderstanding of the definition of censored, censors.
Wow..we are agreeing on something here.!!
Be careful here jfj123.

I stated..

I do not consider myself elevated.


you stated..

Of course you do. You've stated as such


No jfj123 I did not state that I was elevated...you did here ...remember??
From page 10 of this thread.


I like the way you try and elevate yourself above us by letting us know that you've trained yourself to spot these "techniques" that lesser people use Your insinuation is that you can't be tricked by us because you're smarter


Insinuated is what you are reading into my statements. and then calling it elevated. This shows to me insecurity..in how you must continually put the onus on others. Its ok..I'll take it all. I can handle it. But it is not mature jfj123 in its methodology/motives. It does pass for good drama among most..but not to me.


Let me clarify. I have no need to justify my belief system to anyone.


LOL LOL LOL..ahh..sorry.I am slipping. This is serious business here.
No need to clarify on your part is why we are having this conversation, which you stated we were not going to be back and forth on page 10 of this thread and which I quote at the very opening of this post...right??
This conversation goes back to page 6 of this thread. Yes..you most certainly don't need to justify yourself. I agree. But you do send mixed messages by your method/methods of operation.


Actually I have no interest in painting anyone into any "self built corners". You have the right to your opinions whether or not I agree with them. As example, although I hate the KKK, I support their right to free speech.


I am gratified to hear you say this jfj123. I don't have much use for the KKK as well. Around here some of us call them "Kluckers."
To be frank about this I think it is just as stupid to declare ones excellence or acceptability on the basis of their race ...just as it is stupid to declare ones excellence and acceptability on the basis of sexuality.
It is incredibly stupid. It is the very epitome of stupid. And I can demonstrate that very easily about race.

These "Kluckers" respond to me in similar manner as do you until they find their default settings don't gel with me..then they become very vitriolic/threatening. No problem I can handle that as well. Racists have problems trying to paint me into a corner as well. I consider Jesse and Al to be racists too. Why?? ..because take race away and they have no topic. They are a one topic side show. A cottage industry. Hence they are racists.
But it is not popular to remove such default settings ..is it?? Bad form to put Light on such nonsense!! No matter how true.

Declaring greatness and acceptability by race or sexuality is equally stupid and a very poor nonstandard...but it does make for good drama...until one becomes mature enough to see it for what it is.

I am glad you brought up that perspective about the "Kluckers" Thank you.


I changed my mind. I'm having fun


Wow!! As I stated earlier in this post ..it is difficult to take you seriously when you make statements like this on a topic which is supposed to be serious and dear to your heart. Now here you are proving it out once again.


What is my genre


Your genre is effeminate..in and of this world and the things of this world. Of the flesh. So to are Al and Jesse...the Kluckers as well.


Yes I consider anyone that hates people because of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, etc.. as intolerant. I thought I was pretty clear about that earlier but as you say, "no problem...again"


I understood you said "Haters" or hate. I used the word intolerant while expecting tolerance of others. Here I will quote you again...


By your posts, it's obvious you have a hatred for homosexuals and this is how you're venting it.


Here again your quote and error...


If someone is not in favor of something, the disfavor that thing. Pretty clear to me.


jfj123. Disfavour is not the same as hate. You are grasping for straws here. And it is not good logic.


For the record, I can't stand perez hilton


I cant stand him as well. I thought him to be a drama queen. Not mature.. as it was he who asked the question and then could not tolerate the answer in a very immature and dishonorable manner. He is intolerant.


Nobody censored her.


Many censored her even tag teamed here. I call it a gang bang.

Did you look up the definition of Censored ...which I provided in the link??

www.answers.com...

tr.v., -sored, -sor·ing, -sors.
To examine and expurgate.

YOu cannot censor a person until after they have done something....in this case ..spoken out in honest answer to a question.
Censor and censored is not the same as free speech. You seem to be having problems with this concept ..once again indicating your provincialism in thought and understanding. Please re read the definition of censored.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by alienreality
 


Glad to see this little treatise is getting some traction. I have a tendency to trot it out when the gay-bashing begins and it sure creates a bunch of huffing and puffing (and giggles from the other side).

Looks like the author is a Kent Ashcroft, more detail unknown. I like it a lot, and so do my gay pals.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

And now you post this....???


Me responding to you has nothing to do with flawed logic

Again it's called changing your mind. Ever done it before or are you so set in your ways, you cannot change your mind no matter what ? I guess that says more about you then me



I realize that his topic is very dear to you .

Not really. I just feel self righteous people should be responded to with a dose of reality



but as I am trying to state..your methodology leaves alot to be desired

You've mentioned that before but failed to back up your statement



You see I know you're the type of person that must have the last word no matter what so I'm just curious to see how long you will string this out so you can get the last word



This looks silly in lieu of your statement I have quoted above ..the opening remarks of this post. Once again it makes it difficult for those who can see..to take your posts/posting seriously.

Looks like I'm right again



You're actually the one who claims to be in an elevated position, not me as I've stated before But do go on



It is Salty..a Salty position ..do you know what it means and implies??

You have high blood pressure? You put too much salt on your french fries?


How does anything disagree with my devout religious beliefs? And what are my devout religious beliefs?



Your devout beliefs are of the feminine...

Wow this really goes to show what type of person you are. You're telling me what my beliefs are. If you're implying I'm gay...I'm not. Love da ladies



in and of this world and the things of this world....of the flesh...complete with emotional default settings to deceive you into thinking you can heap guilt and blame on others for how they think and express themselves. Translate that censorship.

No it's not



Can't respond. Statement makes no sense.



We are going to agree on this because of your provincialism. It limits you .

Actually no what limits my understanding of you in this particular case is your poor sentence structure



I stated..


I do not consider myself elevated.



you stated..


Of course you do. You've stated as such



No jfj123 I did not state that I was elevated...you did here ...remember??
From page 10 of this thread.



I like the way you try and elevate yourself above us by letting us know that you've trained yourself to spot these "techniques" that lesser people use Your insinuation is that you can't be tricked by us because you're smarter



Insinuated is what you are reading into my statements. and then calling it elevated.

Yes. You see I use a very complex piece of software to analyze what you're typing to come up with the actual meaning based on your inference. It's called a BS METER
You've pinned the needle



This shows to me insecurity..

Really ? About what? I can't wait to find out how insecure I am



in how you must continually put the onus on others.

I find it amusing that you actually don't realize that you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of



Its ok..I'll take it all. I can handle it. But it is not mature jfj123 in its methodology/motives. It does pass for good drama among most..but not to me.

You're great at name calling



Let me clarify. I have no need to justify my belief system to anyone.



LOL LOL LOL..

You're laughing really loud. Please use your indoor voice



ahh..sorry.I am slipping.

I know. It's ok. I understand



This is serious business here.
No need to clarify on your part is why we are having this conversation, which you stated we were not going to be back and forth on page 10

I believe this is the 5th time that I've stated..."I have changed my mind". I guess what I'm saying is that I have changed my mind



of this thread and which I quote at the very opening of this post...right??

Yes. I've also stated 7 times now..."I have changed my mind"

You were able to glom on to 1 post but not 7? really????


This conversation goes back to page 6 of this thread.

I believe that is correct.


Yes..you most certainly don't need to justify yourself.

Thanks for agreeing with me



I agree.
GREAT !!! glad to hear !!!


But you do send mixed messages by your method/methods of operation.

You mean when I said I changed my mind ? (8 times)



Actually I have no interest in painting anyone into any "self built corners". You have the right to your opinions whether or not I agree with them. As example, although I hate the KKK, I support their right to free speech.



I am gratified to hear you say this jfj123. I don't have much use for the KKK as well. Around here some of us call them "Kluckers."
To be frank about this I think it is just as stupid to declare ones excellence or acceptability on the basis of their race ...

me too .


just as it is stupid to declare ones excellence and acceptability on the basis of sexuality.

me too.


These "Kluckers" respond to me in similar manner as do you until they find their default settings don't gel with me..then they become very vitriolic/threatening. No problem I can handle that as well. Racists have problems trying to paint me into a corner as well. I consider Jesse and Al to be racists too.

me too.


Why?? ..because take race away and they have no topic. They are a one topic side show. A cottage industry. Hence they are racists.
But it is not popular to remove such default settings ..is it??

Actually yes. They have a small audience because of what you've just described. People have become tired of the politically correct crap.


I am glad you brought up that perspective about the "Kluckers" Thank you.

You're welcome.


I changed my mind. I'm having fun



Wow!! As I stated earlier in this post ..it is difficult to take you seriously when you make statements like this on a topic which is supposed to be serious and dear to your heart. Now here you are proving it out once again.

The topic is not dear to my heart. But lets be honest, we here because we find the batenage entertaining, enlightening, fun, etc...


What is my genre



Your genre is effeminate..

Not at all actually



If someone is not in favor of something, the disfavor that thing. Pretty clear to me.



jfj123. Disfavour is not the same as hate. You are grasping for straws here. And it is not good logic.

I'm not leaping to conclusions. I took one small step and there conclusions were



Nobody censored her.



Many censored her even tag teamed here. I call it a gang bang.

A group of people expressed their opinions of her. Many people in the United States do this every 4 years. Would you also consider that censorship?


Did you look up the definition of Censored ...which I provided in the link??

As stated before, I'm going by the legal definition of censorship.


Thanks,
Orangetom

No, thank you
jfj

Have a great weekend !!!!



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 




I said..
It is Salty..a Salty position ..do you know what it means and implies??

to which you replied...
You have high blood pressure? You put too much salt on your french fries?


No problem here. Salt refers to the Salt of the Earth ..not the sugar.


Wow this really goes to show what type of person you are. You're telling me what my beliefs are. If you're implying I'm gay...I'm not. Love da ladies


No Sir..it shows what kind of person you are including insecurity. It has nothing to do with your sexuality. It has to do with the flesh and the things of this world..the physical. In occult parlance matter is female and feminine ..physical..energy is male. You limit your pattern of thinking and emoting to the feminine...matter ..to the physical. Once again ..just like your Hitler comment you go off on a tangent to look impressive. It does show insecurity in the manner you go off on useless tangents. Again it does show drama/insecurity...which has been one of my points about your postings, methods, techniques.


Actually no what limits my understanding of you in this particular case is your poor sentence structure


see above..feminine and Salty.


Really ? About what? I can't wait to find out how insecure I am


Already covered this material.


I believe this is the 5th time that I've stated..."I have changed my mind". I guess what I'm saying is that I have changed my mind


Yes..I agree..you most certainly did and also said this..

I find it amusing that ... also here.."I changed my mind. I'm having fun"


A=without.
Muse=thinking

without thinking..amuse/amusement.

As I stated afore..it is difficult to take you seriously when you use methods like this and on such a serious topic...then turn to amuse/amusement.


A group of people expressed their opinions of her. Many people in the United States do this every 4 years. Would you also consider that censorship?


This is an excellent point of yours here in that what passes for public office in this country has turned into a similar dishonest gutter slug fest. In exactly the same motives and justifications as this judge from this beauty contest. No honor in it.
Very cheap and gutter like. I am surprised that you would use this type of example. Very same/similar thing...censorship..gutter methods..digging up dirt. It has taken any honor out of the election process and it also provides candidates of questionable character. Same thing with the political parties and the process...all morally, and ethically questionable in their motives, methods and tact.


As stated before, I'm going by the legal definition of censorship.


What...?? I didn't catch this the first time around. Legal definition?? Wow!!

Do you know what the difference is in "legal and lawful?"

Try Blacks Law Dictionary since you seem enamoured of things "Legal."

www.blacks.worldfreemansociety.org...

Lawful refers to the substance of law..what the law is and is intended to do..accomplish..the substance.

Legal refers to the form of law..the appearance of law..not the substance. Only the form ..that the t's are crossed and the i's dotted..the forms are obeyed and observed. This is very feminine...of the flesh ..outward appearances..not substance.
Lawyers will often lie and deceive the public on this one.

You can find it in any Blacks Law dictionary. I have the 6th edition on my private stock of books.

Oh..and I am using the dictionary definition jfj123.


The topic is not dear to my heart. But lets be honest, we here because we find the batenage entertaining, enlightening, fun, etc...


I do not find this topic entertaining, nor enlightening, nor fun, nor amusing. If this is your stance you are wasting alot of time and effort on this thread and lowering the quality of the boards in Amusement. This is neither honest nor enlightening.

Without thinking. A Muse..Amusement. Something fed to us to prevent thinking.

Orangetom



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Wow this really goes to show what type of person you are. You're telling me what my beliefs are. If you're implying I'm gay...I'm not. Love da ladies



No Sir..it shows what kind of person you are including insecurity. It has nothing to do with your sexuality. It has to do with the flesh and the things of this world..the physical. In occult parlance matter is female and feminine ..

So are you saying all women are emotional and illogical?


A group of people expressed their opinions of her. Many people in the United States do this every 4 years. Would you also consider that censorship?



This is an excellent point of yours here in that what passes for public office in this country has turned into a similar dishonest gutter slug fest. In exactly the same motives and justifications as this judge from this beauty contest. No honor in it.

So any group of people expressing their opinions is censorship and without honor according to you. Interesting....


Very cheap and gutter like. I am surprised that you would use this type of example.

It's a reasonable example which can be applied to almost any type of similar situation. Just using your logic



Very same/similar thing...censorship..gutter methods..digging up dirt. It has taken any honor out of the election process and it also provides candidates of questionable character. Same thing with the political parties and the process...all morally, and ethically questionable in their motives, methods and tact.

I'm only referring to the voting process. The fact that a group of people vote (ie express their collective opinions) about someone. You could apply this to almost any similar process. I liked the way you tried to deflect from the subject though....good try !


The topic is not dear to my heart. But lets be honest, we here because we find the batenage entertaining, enlightening, fun, etc...



I do not find this topic entertaining, nor enlightening, nor fun, nor amusing.

Don't forget the etc... part.. and of course you do or you wouldn't be here.

Lighten up
Have a great weekend orangatom/rick



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bkcrt
Dr. Laura never talks poorly of gays. They often call into her show for advice. This is some sort of a smear campaign against her ideas. Shame on whoever started this rumor.


"If you're gay or lesbian it's a biological error." - Dr. Laura Schlessinger


www.religioustolerance.org...



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

I have seen no gay bashing. I have seen people with different opinions. People like you always call that bashing. So much for tolerance. Actually if you read the entire thread the most hateful comments are directed not at gays but at people of faith.





new topics
top topics
 
130
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join