quote:It will be fun watching the idiots that have taken over the republican party die.
Wow! I don't like what you lefties do, but I certainly don't hope you lefties die.
quote:Maybe we should give them there own states cut off all federal funds to them and forget about them forever. Another words a banishment.
They have earned it
That's a great idea! Let's give you socialists the coasts and let the capitalists have fly-over country. We'll build a 50 foot fence along the new border to keep you lefties out after your socialist economy collapses. Oops, too late, the socialist state of California is already on the verge of economic collapse.
IP: Logged |
quote:It will be fun watching the idiots that have taken over the republican party die.
Wow! I don't like what you lefties do, but I certainly don't hope you lefties die.
quote:Maybe we should give them there own states cut off all federal funds to them and forget about them forever. Another words a banishment.
They have earned it
That's a great idea! Let's give you socialists the coasts and let the capitalists have fly-over country. We'll build a 50 foot fence along the new border to keep you lefties out after your socialist economy collapses. Oops, too late, the socialist state of California is already on the verge of economic collapse.
That's the Socialist California run by a Republican Governer right? LMAO. You are an imbecile. No question about it! You seem to have quite the knack for defeating your own idiotic ideals. Way to go!!
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
IP: Logged |
posted
That's a great idea! Let's give you socialists the coasts and let the capitalists have fly-over country. We'll build a 50 foot fence along the new border to keep you lefties out after your socialist economy collapses. Oops, too late, the socialist state of California is already on the verge of economic collapse.
LOL. you prove that you know absolutely nothing about the distribution of the US economy.
the tax base in the middle of the country would be decimated.
the middle US GDP is less than half of either coast.
i know, i've lived in the middle portion of the country for a total of 11 years the left coast for 7 and the east for well over 20...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage is between a man and woman plain and simple. Just because a few crybabies want to force their views on the majority doesnt mean it should change. They should have the same rights as married couples, but the term should remain how it has been for centuries. That is one thing that really bothers me about liberals is how much they cry and bit** about everything.
BTW a vegetarian is indian for lazy hunter!!
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds to me that the ones bytchin are the right-wingers.
What possible difference does it make to me or to you or to whomever if some couple want to call their marriage a "pairwise mutual contract" or a "leagized sexual relationship" or an "airplane" instead of a marriage?
posted
This a good one...be sure to read it all...PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT...
__________________________________________
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher here in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.
Harry Reid
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory. On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
'Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad.In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.'
NOW THAT is how it's done folks! That's real SPIN.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: This a good one...be sure to read it all...PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT...
__________________________________________
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher here in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.
Harry Reid
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory. On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
'Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad.In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.'
NOW THAT is how it's done folks! That's real SPIN.
First of all, being as this is America, not some European fiefdom, what the hell difference does it make who Reed's ancestors were or weren't or what they did or didn't do?
Second, isn't this one just another of those right-wing made up lies from the inner circle of far right-wing imagination and biased propaganda you are so fond of posting with no appropriate reference?
Third, there are more than just a few far right-wing extreme professional genealogy researchers spreading bull sh-t about non-republicans. (Yes, there are non-republican ones too, but the majority seem to be deep in the right-wing.) Claiming any validity or truth to your tale based on it supposedly being from a professional genealogy researcher is cheap spin of the worst sort. Why not toss in a claim of astrological precision too, while you are at it?
posted
This is just sick, and this is why im not some flaming liberal.
"Liberal Wisconsin capital would limit development, tree removal, fast food restaurants and parking to promote 'sustainability.' "
City of Madison, Wis. Eyes Draconian Zoning Ordinances to 'Adapt to Climate Change'
Call this a case of liberalism via central planning gone wild.
In one of the most politically left-of-center cities east of Berkeley, Calif., ideas put forth at city hall in Madison, Wis. would dramatically limit free enterprise and personal liberty, all in the name of environmental sustainability. According to the “Broad Strategies” section of a meeting agenda recently posted on the City of Madison Web site, an ordinance being considered would force city zoning to account for and mitigate climate change:
10. Zoning should adapt to meet the demands of climate change; use zoning to address ormitigate effects, or adapt to climate change; remove any barriers to mitigating the effects, adapting to climate change (trees, green space, mobility, renewable energy, land use).
Another item in the “Broad Strategies” section has a grim outlook for the future. It includes a proposal that spells out a doomsday scenario – allowing for the city to function should shortages in energy and food occur:
11. Write the code to allow the city to function when automobile travel will be severely limited and oil-related products, including food and heating fuel, become prohibitively expensive because of the scarcity and high-cost of fuel.
Other proposals throughout the document would push for use of alternative energies (solar, geothermal and wind), conservation, electric cars and urban agriculture. Other more Draconian regulations throughout the document would:
Limit waterfront development in the name of water sustainability, Require two trees to be planted if one is removed from your property Limit the “number/density of fast food outlets and drive-through windows” in the name of public health Discourage individual parking options to promote public transportation usage
Madison is the state of Wisconsin’s capital and home of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. With a very low industrial base and few blue-collar workers, it has a reputation for being politically liberal, based on a high concentration of government employees, academics and students within its city limits.
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Marriage is between a man and woman plain and simple. Just because a few crybabies want to force their views on the majority doesnt mean it should change.
Yah, like banning gay marriage would stop people from being gay And if anyone is forcing their views on anyone is anti-gayers...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Raybond,
You are absolutely correct that the GOP must change or they will certainly die. However, you are 100% wrong in the way they must change! If the GOP wants to survive, they MUST get back to conservative, common sense values. It is clear (as you said) that you don't have a clue what "conservative means". Let me make it simple for you and list the issues from a conservative standpoint.
Conservatives are:
Pro-gun Against abortion Against gay marriage Pro-Christianity Against handouts to the lazy Against the scam of global warming For drilling for oil in the United States Pro-Israel Pro-Democracy Against Socialism Pro-Capitalism Pro-creationism Pro-business For the right to PURSUE happiness - against a guarantee of happiness For equal rights for all - against quotas for minorities
If you have any other questions, please ask. I AM a true conservative.
The GOP's stance on the issues that you have posted here PM IS the reason that they will most certainly DIE...
BTW...you are NOT a true conservative...you ARE a true idiot.
Exactly...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Neither capitalism not socialism nor fascism nor monarchy nor whatever ideal as a form of government works completely or uniformly anywhere, anytime, anyway.
.
Exactly, no system is perfect but a combination of systems works better and avoids disasters more imo.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: This a good one...be sure to read it all...PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT...
__________________________________________
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher here in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.
Harry Reid
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory. On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
'Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad.In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.'
NOW THAT is how it's done folks! That's real SPIN.
Seems you like many of the far right persuasion are nothing but gullible and don't bother to debunk things that coincide with your extreme views. Took all of 2 minutes to find this.
"Comments: This may come as a shock and a disappointment to some (while others will be shocked that anyone could possibly be shocked), but none of the above is true. It's an old joke, as a matter of fact, a bit of homespun political satire that has been circulating in various forms since 2000.
The image is actually a historical photo of the hanging of a New Mexico outlaw named Black Jack Ketchum in 1901.
The punchline ("Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform on which he was standing collapsed" — i.e, he was hanged) was borrowed from an even older joke that made the rounds in genealogical circles in the mid-1980s. Here's a variant published in Fonda Baselt's The Sunny Side of Genealogy in 1988:
A family historian who was writing his family history was dismayed to find that an ancestor had been publicly hanged. In a moment of inspiration he wrote, "He died during a public ceremony, when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed beneath him." The joke first emerged in a political context when an anonymous wag invented a character named "Remus Rodham" to lampoon Hillary Rodham Clinton's family tree. And the rest is history. . ."
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Marriage is between a man and woman plain and simple. Just because a few crybabies want to force their views on the majority doesnt mean it should change.
Yah, like banning gay marriage would stop people from being gay And if anyone is forcing their views on anyone is anti-gayers...
Where did I say anything about making people not be gay? Nowhere...so dont try to spin this as some sort of anti gay debate. I am saying keeping the term marriage between man and woman. That is the way it has been for what, thousands of years?! Now because a bunch are coming out of the closet and want to be in your face with it we all have to succumb? I dont think so. Equal benefits sure, but we dont need to go around changing things like this.
So sick of the agenda...the whole "were here were queer" attitude.
Dec. 11, 2008 -- The following was written by Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D., adjunct professor of religious studies in Arts & Sciences. Flinn is author of The Encyclopedia of Catholicism (2007) and has frequently appeared as an expert in court cases involving church and state issues.
Frank K. Flinn In November, citizens in the State of California passed Proposition 8 upholding the idea that marriage is defined as and limited to the union of one man with one woman. This vote has given encouragement to many in other states who want to pass similar legislation. The United States is about to enter upon a period of legal upheaval on the question of marriage in the civil law. Our problem is that we as a nation have failed to distinguish clearly between marriage and civil unions.
There is a simple solution to our problem. The churches are clamoring for the right to rule over the meaning and conditions of marriage. I recommend that we give marriage to them. Marriage then belongs to the realm of theology. This situation necessitates that the state completely withdraw from defining and legislating what marriage means and leaves that task to religion. Conversely, religion must also withdraw from telling the state what is a civil union.
The state's primary interest is in how people live together in peace and harmony. Provided that the contracts among individuals conform to general law, the state has no other interest than in maintaining the terms of the contract. People can form corporations, cooperatives or collectives, joint living arrangements, or any other kind of social grouping. What they need from the civil authority is a license that commits them to the terms of the contract. If some people then want to get "married" in the religious sense, they are free to do so extra-legally according to their particular religious tradition's definition of marriage.
The civil state is not the arbiter of theological conflicts. As Justice Douglas said so eloquently in U.S. v. Ballard (1944), "Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution." That the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is a theological claim, and has always been a theological claim, is clearly demonstrated by the fact that polygamy has been approved in other religious traditions for millennia, such as Islam, African traditional religion, and South American tribal religion. Religious groups asking the state to determine the definition of marriage are inviting the state to settle theological disputes, that is, to conduct heresy trials.
The U.S. Constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage or the definition of marriage. However, marriage sneaked into the backdoor as a constitutional issue through the notorious case of Reynolds v. U. S. (1878). Basing itself on a U.S. Territorial Statute (Revised Statutes 5352) outlawing bigamy, the court stated that the Mormon polygamist George Reynolds could not use the defense of religious duty in warding off charges of bigamy. Reynolds implicitly defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
I believe that Reynolds v. U.S. was wrongly decided. First, marriage is simply not a Constitutional matter. Second, certain religious segments of the U.S. population have monopolized the term "marriage" and have endowed it with a restrictive theological bias. As a result marriage is no longer a concept defining a civil institution but a theological status being fought over not only between religions but also between denominations within religions. Third, the state's interest is solely in lawfulness along with civil harmony and stability. The internal form of civil unions is beyond the interest or the competence of the state, most especially when disputes about the nature and conditions of "marriage" entangle the state in settling theological arguments. The state's function is simply to insure that civil unions outwardly conform to the rule of law.
The political executive branch in the United States is not a pope with his curia. Legislatures are not church synods or councils. Courts are not ecclesiastical rotas. Judges are not the arbiters of what is valid or invalid before God, nor are they arbiters of what is legal or illegal before the Supreme Being. They are arbiters of what is lawful before the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is not unalterable sacred scripture but a code of law handed on to us not by prophets or divinely-inspired lawgivers but by our Founding Fathers who foresaw that the law might need amendment from time to time.
My solution is simple: churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., are free to arbitrate "marriage" for their respective denominations, including monogamy, polygamy or same-sex marriage. This arbitration however is beyond the realm of the legal. Marriages are the business of the church; civil unions are the business of the state. The law should become blind to the theologically laden term "marriage."
IP: Logged |
posted
CCm...why does it matter, so much to you, if the definition of marriage changes?.. adapt,my friend, its no big deal. you will still be straight and everything in your micro world will stay the same. there is nothing to fear. when the human race advances with knowledge, we have to change some of the rules to accept our new found realities. This entire thing only concerns gays..you arent involved..so dont let it bother you.
It is bluntly obvious that "marriage", as it is defined by the religious right, who make up 95% of those demanding it be "between one man and one woman" (logically, they mean ONLY one man and Only one woman), whether knowingly or not, are being led to plea for that restriction not with any interest toward any end other than to force governmental recognition of a purely religious principle, thus defying the First Amendment of the Constitution in having the Government pass a law "respecting an establishment of religion".
On that basis alone, even the recently passed proposition in California requires that the Constitution Of the United States be ignored and is therefore illegal.
It is time to stop the attacks on the Constitution by these radical religious extremist. There is no proper place in our society for any group that aggressively seeks to destroy the Constitution or any part of it and it is time we made that known to them.
Teaching children to hate and despise our government by Christian fundamentalist is no more acceptable that the same efforts by Muslim fundamentalist.
IP: Logged |
from your recent pix that you posted? my bet is that you are too
i walk thru most cities, they are dirty, and i don't just mean litter, ever look real hard at white buildings in most cities? they are covered in grime. that grime is primarily auto exhaust.
fast food? that's something i eat when i have no other choice. it's usually about ten times a year and because i'm on the road and in hurry...
the only real test is to let them do it and see if they prosper isn't it?
it migh tbe inbteresting to see if th epeople move there or leave based o nthose laws.
my bet is that people will move there and business will prosper...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
from your recent pix that you posted? my bet is that you are too
i walk thru most cities, they are dirty, and i don't just mean litter, ever look real hard at white buildings in most cities? they are covered in grime. that grime is primarily auto exhaust.
fast food? that's something i eat when i have no other choice. it's usually about ten times a year and because i'm on the road and in hurry...
the only real test is to let them do it and see if they prosper isn't it?
it migh tbe inbteresting to see if th epeople move there or leave based o nthose laws.
my bet is that people will move there and business will prosper...
Glass, I am not against the acts of cleanliness. I am not against a lot of things. However, making laws against businesses like fast food because fat people cant responsibly eat or because environmentalists dont want cars to idle at drive throughs....just blows my mind.
If they are so worried about cars idling then what about stop lights? Those produce most idling of all. It isnt an argument, but you can see how silly this stuff is getting. It is OVERKILL.
IP: Logged |
from your recent pix that you posted? my bet is that you are too ;)
i walk thru most cities, they are dirty, and i don't just mean litter, ever look real hard at white buildings in most cities? they are covered in grime. that grime is primarily auto exhaust.
fast food? that's something i eat when i have no other choice. it's usually about ten times a year and because i'm on the road and in hurry...
the only real test is to let them do it and see if they prosper isn't it?
it migh tbe inbteresting to see if th epeople move there or leave based o nthose laws.
my bet is that people will move there and business will prosper...
Glass, I am not against the acts of cleanliness. I am not against a lot of things. However, making laws against businesses like fast food because fat people cant responsibly eat or because environmentalists dont want cars to idle at drive throughs....just blows my mind.
If they are so worried about cars idling then what about stop lights? Those produce most idling of all. It isnt an argument, but you can see how silly this stuff is getting. It is OVERKILL.
Your arguments have been used before.
And just as inappropriately.
Once, almost in the same debasing and insulting terms, laws to stop deposits of horse crap along city streets was called silly and denounced as overkill.
Louis Pasteur's scientific evidence on the causes of diseases by bacteria and germs received almost the same illogical hatred and disdain in his day as you smear on global warming or whatever other scientific target you and your kind are attacking at the moment because the far rigfht-wing propaganda machine directs you to.
A few decades ago, almost every town in the country had some sort of law making spitting in public illegal. It wasn't, as it might seem to be on the surface, a move to stop tobacco chewing or lewd behavior, it was out of abject fear of how tuberculosis might be passed from person to person. At the time, it simply wasn't known how it is transmitted.
I was young before before Salk and when polio was rampant. No one knew what it was, let alone how it moved in the population and all sorts of inadequate proposals were brandied to slow it down, almost all nonsense, but inevitably a darling of the anti-science crowd and fundamentalist religious groups .
Recently, we had many many localities and religious groups jumping on the bandwagon to fight AIDS by all sorts of supposed ways, without the benefit of scientific knowledge, to stop its transfer. They didn't work.
Even within your lifetime, I'm certain you heard tons of propaganda claiming smoking wasn't the evil scientist said it was. It was called silly and overkill, just as you are describing things you don't understand now. Turns out, the scientist were right on target.
Think about it. Time and again acting out of political or wanna-be-truths has proved to be faulty and dangerous, and scientific data and interpretations turned out to be correct. The success record is not questionable. Yet, again and again, you chime in vociferously on the side of superstition and "political wants" to denounce solid scientific evidence. You clearly don't like the science and clearly can't understand it.
What you are is against science, zealously, loudly, insultingly, and bluntly, and nothing more and nothing less. You and your kind have a long long record of having been wrong, time after time, while science has the record of repeated almost perfect correctness. When its use is found to be incorrect, it is always because of misapplication, not failure of the science.
When you misapply the science behind global warming, you get nonsense....that doesn't disprove anything about the science behind global warming.
For example, Newtons laws were not incorrect. What Einstein's efforts did was not disprove Newton's work or any part of it. Einstein's work shows where Newton's equations cannot apply and proves that assuming they are correct in all conditions is a misinterpretation. Newton's equation remain 100% correct. Attempting to use or apply them where they do not hold is what is wrong.
Scientific "interpretation" is correctable. Dogma, due to its very definition, is not.
(By the way, Newton's laws holds exactly the same position in science as does the theory of relativity. They are both natural physical "laws" or "theories" and which term is used does not change them. The terms are interchangeable. That same thing holds for the theory of evolution. A scientific theory does not become questionable due to the use of the word theory, whatever or however the terms may be used or not used elsewhere.)
What you need to do is to either accept that you are not qualified to make judgments on science or learn enough science to stop misrepresenting it and attempting to apply it out of context.
IP: Logged |
posted
bdgee, my "kind" and your "kind" are much different. My "kind" built this nation, and your "kind" has been the one crying the whole way.
Sometimes there are just things that should be without using math or science to question it. There are many things that scientists have been wrong on. Your mindset is that of the typical liberal berkley professor type. Burnt out hippies drunk on "fighting the man".
Live a little you might not be as grumpy as you usually are. You are not a very happy person, and it is really sad to see you in such a angry state 24-7.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: bdgee, my "kind" and your "kind" are much different. My "kind" built this nation, and your "kind" has been the one crying the whole way.
Sometimes there are just things that should be without using math or science to question it. There are many things that scientists have been wrong on. Your mindset is that of the typical liberal berkley professor type. Burnt out hippies drunk on "fighting the man".
Live a little you might not be as grumpy as you usually are. You are not a very happy person, and it is really sad to see you in such a angry state 24-7.
come on, ccm..you cant really belirve that!
You're feeling a little intimidated and inferior at the moment..thats understandable. Beegs words were beautifully written and well thoughtout. He is obviously more knowledgeable than I, and (admit it) you too..and so you try to defend your position anyway you know how. But please dont...you're embarassing yourself.
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: bdgee, my "kind" and your "kind" are much different. My "kind" built this nation, and your "kind" has been the one crying the whole way.
Sometimes there are just things that should be without using math or science to question it. There are many things that scientists have been wrong on. Your mindset is that of the typical liberal berkley professor type. Burnt out hippies drunk on "fighting the man".
Live a little you might not be as grumpy as you usually are. You are not a very happy person, and it is really sad to see you in such a angry state 24-7.
"My "kind" built this nation, and your "kind" has been the one crying the whole way."
That's pure selfish crap! You are an egotistical self centered jerk!
MY kind has been the cornerstone of this country since before it was independent. (I am a direct decedent of Sam Adams, are you?)
"Your mindset is that of the typical liberal berkley professor type. Burnt out hippies drunk on "fighting the man"."
That's absolute and intentional insult as are 90% of your post. I have no idea what you might mean by "drunk on "fighting the man"", who might be this " man", or why anyone would want to fight him.
"Live a little you might not be as grumpy as you usually are. You are not a very happy person, and it is really sad to see you in such a angry state 24-7."
More of your name calling slander and hate and insult. I am now and have ever been quite happy. I plan to always be. I am open to almost anything for discussion or consideration, while you are determined to to slander and insult anyone or anything that doesn't adhere to your fundamentalist political religious mania.
You display always a radiance of hate and a vast wealth of ignorance.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Good Luck]](graemlins/goodluck.gif)
And if anyone is forcing their views on anyone is anti-gayers...![[Were Down]](graemlins/weredown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
