Originally posted by lucid eyes
Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
You are seeing what you want to see, trolling, and pushing an agenda.
Left-wing sexual-liberation taken too far that caused this particular event. Even liberal magazines admit that much. That makes you angry. You feel
vulnerable because you see what a trainwreck exaggerated liberalism can become. Thats why you're foaming at the mouth although the OP is completely
accurate.
From the Nambla to the Dutch Pedophile Party...all political activism for pedophilia is founded on liberalism. Show me one pro-pedophile party that is
founded on conservative values. You cant. Conservative transgressions are different, founded on different kind of ideas. When catholics molest
children they dont do it to "liberate society" but because of decades of sexual repression within the church. You are not sophisticated enough,
intellectually, to understand the difference.

- I can only assume you're joking. Foaming at the mouth? My goodness you've lost it, huh?
I don't feel vulnerable over a vastly propagandized article hosted by a person interested in bashing liberals.
For goodness sake. Why would I? It's utter nonsense.
Propaganda: If you want to prove that all dogs are green, then just write about green dogs.
Notice any similarity in this concept and your collection of articles? Hm?
Oh, I will add before I leave your little thread, you ask me to show you a "pro-pedophile party" that is conservative, (again suggesting there are
actually liberal politcal parties that actively support sexual perversion, criminality, and child abuse). Apparently you still have managed to hang
onto the belief that you have somehow "proven" there are actually liberal political parties who endorse child abuse, because of an event occurring in
Germany two years ago.
I would not insult my conservative friends by accusing them of such an endorsement.
Do you really not see how sillly that is, and what you are peddling here?
As you see, most people are not buying what you are selling.
Happy new year, ma'am.
edit on 1/5/2011 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)