![]() |
Quote:
You authored the introduction of the post, and stated "The Full Article Here(link)". You then went on with an inflammatory header in bold print, and stated "This was reported in Reuters..." The original article is about an un-inflammatory as dust bunnies. That was an attempt to misconstrue an article from 2009, and now give an "I didn't write it" adekian excuse. :lame: I know... "adekian" and the latter smilie used here are redundant, but I do apologize to the creator of the smilie. |
Good news!
Code:
Susan Rice ends bid to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State @Lamplighter: Already stated, I did not author this: Subject: Obama Takes First Step in Banning All Firearms On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States. That was an example of the "yellow journalism" that gun owners were seeing red about in 2009. Sticking with the color metaphors today. ;) |
Quote:
I get emails that have been forwarded over and over (sometimes a hundred addresses on them), which can disproven with one quick Google search. Sometimes they even contain links that totally disprove them, but nobody bothers to click, they just forward in a rage because it says what they want to hear. |
Quote:
Take personal responsibility for what you say. |
Quote:
It was the content of the website that had the link to the article. I brought it here, to show WHY gun owners were so alarmed, in 2009, and calling their representatives, in Washington, about it. |
And just HOW LIBERAL are YOU?
Carlos in Ocala Florida has decided to fight in court for his civil right to have sex with his "consenting" Donkey: http://www.ocala.com/article/2012091...CLES/120919696 Which is REALLY funny, because Conservative Roger Hedgecock (of the RH Show), said this would happen, if gay marriage rights were granted, many years ago. <ROFL!> :eek: :eek: |
On the fiscal cliff negotiations, Obama is now engaged directly in the negotiations, but it makes no difference.
Not one penny <note the bettre spelling, you grammar Nazi's!> has been offered in spending cuts. All the "cuts" that have been offered to date, are for cuts in the amount of deficit spending. So we continue to race into insolvency, but at a slightly slower pace. Obama - the true liberal, will not countenance any ACTUAL spending cuts, so far. |
Quote:
"Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it, that is a perversion. "). Bestiality is not new, nor is it condoned the man when to jail and had is donkey taken away. Furthermore, the whole thing that is missed in the arrangements against marriage equality is that it is NOT ILLEGAL TO ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUALITY; everything that het married couples do homo couples to as well, they just pay hire taxes for doing it. So really you just want a buttsex tax. |
Adek is sounding more Merc-ian all the time.
Obama is no longer a Socialist, but now is called out as a "true liberal" ! Yea ! I felt there was hope for him all along. But how long will it be until we have a post about Obama having sex with a donkey That post will connect the donkey, as an allegory of a consenting Democrat, with a link to an article that Michelle is pregnant again... whether she is or not. Culpability will be denied.... such is the adekian way |
That's not just a bit of a donkey ... that's a mighty fine piece of ass!
|
Quote:
The donkey story was just for a laugh. The real comedy is that Roger Hedgecock has been stating that this civil rights claim would be made, if the gay rights movement made progress. People have been "beating" Roger up about this prediction, for years now. Now, here it is, just as Roger predicted. Funny stuff! :D |
Quote:
What other "true" terms shall we throw about ? |
1 Attachment(s)
Truvia is sweet
|
Quote:
I love slippery slope arguments. Everyone makes them, for and against. Guns, abortion, you name it. I'm sure someone made the donkey argument in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down miscegenation laws against interracial marriage. The point is that it always comes the the 'reasonable person' argument. That middle of the road man or woman who draws the line. Adak, I'm pretty sure I know where you would have come down on Loving v. Virginia. The reason you don't say so now is the same reason no one else does - that what seemed radical, heretical, and against tradition to a large number of people turned out to be rational public policy. Look at the 'biblical' justification by the segregationist judge ruling against the couple. The wave of ignorance coming off a man in a position of trust is terrifying. Quote:
|
Jesus was all for the mixing of races and equality. God was against the mixing of animals, and wearing clothing made from more than one fabric.(But that is OT stuff and we are supposed to live in the spirit of the law not bounded to the letter so I think wool and manbearpig is still ok)
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.