T1B

Yeah. Andy Sullivan hasn't been included in the GOP for quite some time. Writing for The Atlantic will do that.

Papa Willie wrote:

Van wrote:'Spray, fwiw, I'm considered by many to be every bit is depraved as you are, randomly juxtapositioned sexual words-wise. You kick my ass, though, when it comes to adding outboard motors and power tools to the mix.

Pardon my birth defect. :)

How come you called Papa Willie, Spray? Is he the famous "shutyomouth? " WOW, im always the last to know.

Now I know I'm living in an insane asylum.

Papa Willie wrote:

No. I am Charlton Heston.

so that's why you kept calling me and PrimeX goddamn dirty apes.

It was known years ago that Barry likes the dick.

Nice going, News?weak.


What "news" will you bring us next?

Barry is a fraud?

smackaholic wrote:I'd like to hear his views on polygamy. I mean, we are talking about consenting adults, right?

Personally, I don't much give a fukk one way or the other, but, if we are going to widen the definition of marriage and cite constitutional rights, how can you not treat polygamists in the same manner?

Of course we are talking about consenting adults. And this is why the homosexual community will destroy our culture. They want to portray their lifestyle as "normal", when SCIENCE clearly says it is not.
The centerpiece of "gay man love" is forcible anus thrusting, which of course, the anus was NOT designed for. Hence the reason SCIENCE calls this "ABNORMAL" behavior.

As for lesbians you ask? Im all for two insanely hot women doing anything they want. And SCIENCE is too.

Thanks for breaking that down for us, brad.








The centerpiece of "gay man love" is forcible
anus thrusting, which of course, the anus was
NOT designed for.

It appears that iriehusker is campaigning for the job of monitoring such activities.

Diego in Seattle wrote:It appears that iriehusker is campaigning for the job of monitoring such activities.

What? you want me to monitor your daily activities? Is it a six figure salary? Is it for scientific study?
Or strictly humanitarian causes?

poptart wrote:

Obama Announces Plans to Repeal Defense of Marriage Act

http://gawker.com/5910277/obama-announc ... rriage-act









Mount Rushmore of Degenerates

Yeah, Ted kicked whoppi to the curb, her pussy was too fishy and rank, Babwaaa waa waa is brain dead. and Joy Behar? She doesnt know her ass from her mouth. Obama fits in nicely there.

p.s. Elizabeth Hasselback is fuckin HOT HOT HOT!!!!

poptart wrote:

It was known years ago that Barry likes the dick.

Nice going, News?weak.


What "news" will you bring us next?

Barry is a fraud?

First gay President? I don't think so.





Of course W, like all good righties, was a self-loathing homosexual.

4,2........3,1

smackaholic wrote:

4,2........3,1

You lost me there? I see dead people.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

poptart wrote:

It was known years ago that Barry likes the dick.

Nice going, News?weak.


What "news" will you bring us next?

Barry is a fraud?

First gay President? I don't think so.





Of course W, like all good righties, was a self-loathing homosexual.

The second picture is past fucking obvious its a photoshop, you blithering idiot.

Who cares? Really, there are few 'national' issues of less importance.

The problem is that this is a big issue. It's another line-in-the-sand emotion point that stuffed shirt shitbags from both sides love because it keeps voters from forcing them to be accountable or actually running the country.

Gay marriage is the new abortion.

Van wrote:Who cares?

the people who are treated as less-of-an-American. they seem to care. and it isn't like we are only capable of one thing at a time.

Who cares? It's nothing but pure symbolism.

Van wrote:Who cares? It's nothing but pure symbolism.

me wrote:the people who are treated as less-of-an-American. they seem to care. and it isn't like we are only capable of one thing at a time

Great, so you care. Let's bother the Supreme Court over it.

R-Jack wrote:The problem is that this is a big issue. It's another line-in-the-sand emotion point that stuffed shirt shitbags from both sides love because it keeps voters from forcing them to be accountable or actually running the country.

Gay marriage is the new abortion.

I don't see how abortion is anything but a HUGE issue.

Approximately 50 million babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade.

3,000 a day.

WOAH!


http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/u ... tatistics/

poptart wrote:

R-Jack wrote:The problem is that this is a big issue. It's another line-in-the-sand emotion point that stuffed shirt shitbags from both sides love because it keeps voters from forcing them to be accountable or actually running the country.

Gay marriage is the new abortion.

I don't see how abortion is anything but a HUGE issue.

Approximately 50 million babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade.

3,000 a day.

WOAH!


http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/u ... tatistics/

Good. Way too many fucktards in this county as it is who pose a drain on society.

WAR CULLING THE HERD

Libs are idots x a lot.

They love them some taxes, and yet they use infanticide for 40 years to kill off 50 million people they could be taxin' the shit out of.


That's not smart.

Pop, for a moment consider how many spontaneous miscarriages have occurred since mankind has roamed the earth. Just use your 10,000 year window ( ) if you please. There is NO more prolific an abortionist than your god. But why stop at abortion? If you or I have the ability to stop a murder or rape or any other horrible thing happening to someone else and we don't act, we are complicit in some way in that horrible thing. God stands by idly watching these things happen over and over again. Does he not have the power to intercede?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

- Epicurus 341–270 B.C.

I didn't expect another theology twist.


Here's my short answer, DC.

I think what you are doing is trying to apply your human standards and understandings to a Being who operates on an entirely different level of understanding than you do.

While I can't begin to explain all the hows and whys involved in the problem of evil, I can tell you what the Bible says - therefore what I trust is important for us to know.

God has certainly allowed the evil one to dance on this earth... for a season, but the safety of God's Own children has never been in doubt.

You can look at the Scriptures below if you are inclined.


Ephesians 1:3-6 - God knew His children before the creation, and our salvation has never been in doubt.

John 10:26-30 - Those who do not hear and follow Jesus are not God's children.

poptart wrote:Libs are idots x a lot.

They love them some taxes, and yet they use infanticide for 40 years to kill off 50 million people they could be taxin' the shit out of.


That's not smart.

If you want to address me, address ME, not "libs." I don't love me some taxes.

KC Scott wrote:

poptart wrote:Libs are idots x a lot.

They love them some taxes, and yet they use infanticide for 40 years to kill off 50 million people they could be taxin' the shit out of.

That's not smart.

This is an absurd spin on a point I've made to the exact opposite numerous times

Almost all of the abortions are by unmarried females. If these kids were born, they'd likely require ADC / Food Stamps / Section 8 housing etc. that No one on the right wants to fund via taxes

The Far Right wants to block abortion and in some cases contraception but doesn't want the tax burden when the kid is born

Simply amazing

Compassionate Conservatism.

KC Scott wrote:

poptart wrote:Libs are idots x a lot.

They love them some taxes, and yet they use infanticide for 40 years to kill off 50 million people they could be taxin' the shit out of.

That's not smart.

This is an absurd spin on a point I've made to the exact opposite numerous times

Almost all of the abortions are by unmarried females. If these kids were born, they'd likely require ADC / Food Stamps / Section 8 housing etc. that No one on the right wants to fund via taxes

The Far Right wants to block abortion and in some cases contraception but doesn't want the tax burden when the kid is born

Simply amazing

Yep, I thought the same thing when I read pop's post. To a great extent those kids were going to end up becoming a tax drain, not a tax boon.

pop wrote:I think what you are doing is trying to apply your human standards and understandings to a Being who operates on an entirely different level of understanding than you do.

You mean like you do every single day, whenever you speak of God and His motivations, plans and desires?

Right. That's all mankind has ever done with God. It's been a constant parade of rampant ignorance and wishful thinking from Day One.

The bottom line is that at least where humans are concerned, Epicurus was correct. God is either impotent and therefore not a god, or He's malevolent and therefore not worth worshipping. Pinning all His plans on the afterlife in lieu of torturing us during our time on earth is pure silly nonsense.

KC Scott wrote:Almost all of the abortions are by unmarried females. If these kids were born, they'd likely require ADC / Food Stamps / Section 8 housing etc. that No one on the right wants to fund via taxes

The Far Right wants to block abortion and in some cases contraception but doesn't want the tax burden when the kid is born

Simply amazing

Is it your take that people receiving aid do not pay taxes?

Hmmm...


Scott, you rightfully 'should' have been aborted, right?
You have turned out to be quite... successful, right?

Oh yes, I know, but you're... KC SCOTT!!


Hey, 3,000 abortions a day, folks.

You'll never convince me that an astronomical number like this is necessary because of 'poor circumstances.'

Total bullshit.

And you'll never convince me that we've actually increased our tax revenue by killing off 50,000,000 people.

Amazing justification, amazing spin.


No, what we've done is created a VERY grotesque culture of accepted and justified genocide.

Sick freaks.


I don't intend to reply to your theology comments and questions here.
Take 'em to the proper forum.

Pretty sure this one has theology fatigue right about now.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

poptart wrote:Libs are idots x a lot.

They love them some taxes, and yet they use infanticide for 40 years to kill off 50 million people they could be taxin' the shit out of.


That's not smart.

If you want to address me, address ME, not "libs." I don't love me some taxes.

My post was actually not addressed directly to you.

I was just posting another thought on the situation and you happened to post in between my thoughts.

pop, no one ever said that tax revenue was increased via those abortions. Rather, the point is that the drain on the existing tax base was decreased. Whether you want to accept it or not, many government aid recipients and other 'poor people' pay little or no taxes, and the odds are greatly stacked in favor of those abortions eventually becoming people who end up on the low end of the economic totem pole.

KC Scott wrote:If these kids were born, they'd likely require ADC / Food Stamps / Section 8 housing etc. that No one on the right wants to fund via taxes

I see. And when you are aged and require Medicare and Social Security? Why not just off you instead? A .22 in the back of the melon and off to Organ Donation (mandatory, of course) with you.

KC Scott wrote:It makes zero sense to make some teen girl have a kid that will grow up in poverty. It makes even less sense that you would make her have it and then wouldn't support AFDC / Foodstamps / section 8 and the rest of the welfare and public services it would require

Yes, sure, because we all know that the 3,000 abortions that happen every day are those of teenage girls.

Van wrote:pop, no one ever said that tax revenue was increased via those abortions. Rather, the point is that the drain on the existing tax base was decreased.

Pol Pot killed 2 million of his own folks.

We've killed 50 million of our own folks.


No, I don't believe we've enhanced our economic bottom line by this HUGE on-going slaughter.

If you do, feel free to keep embracing it.

Feel free to keep brandishing your idiocy as a dull mallet.

KC Scott wrote:It makes zero sense to make some teen girl have a kid that will grow up in poverty.

So just kill the kid? Why not kill the mother, too? Maybe we should just kill everyone below poverty level and those who might, at some point in the future, require public assistance? We could save a bundle.

poptart wrote:Yes, sure, because we all know that the 3,000 abortions that happen every day are those of teenage girls.

We all know that the majority of those 3,000 abortions that happen every day come from women from low income households. Stop side-stepping around the issue.

Pol Pot killed 2 million of his own folks.
We've killed 50 million of our own folks.

Yeah, because killing a 50 year old man is really the same as vacuuming an embryo.