Balloon guy 158 Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Bold is 100% and I honestly can't see anyone seeing it any other way.I tried watched the above links but I could not get through them. It amazes me everyday that people out there think like this.I didn't either. The second link was readable, with some obvious slanting.It is funny that in the other forum I am being told about how schools are just supposed to teach facts and in this one I'm being told schools are supposed to promote social issues that are in vogue'. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 No, the agenda of the gay community is to force the teaching of homosexuality to children as young as 7.Here's the video they are sharing with teachers who are gay to help them bring it up often in class and promote the agenda. This video was made for the gay teachers conference when they realized they wanted to start shoving their sexual orientation on children.And here is the result in Mass of the gay agenda being promoted in schools.Sure if some causal conversation comes up, teachers should be either factual or neutral, but never engage in social experimentation.Go back a few posts. Bachmann says homosexuality is wrong because a kid could find out from a teacher that homosexuality means boys liking boys, and since they like boys, they'll be gay, and that is child abuse.Your argument against that: an activist group thinks that teachers should bring up their sexual orientation to 7-year olds, and discuss it in detail.I didn't either. The second link was readable, with some obvious slanting.It is funny that in the other forum I am being told about how schools are just supposed to teach facts and in this one I'm being told schools are supposed to promote social issues that are in vogue'.You are strawmanning your own strawman now. Seriously! You've assumed what my response will be to a situation you made up, which was irrelevant to the original point.Pretty sure no one here is arguing either way about teachers actually teaching homosexuality. Though I'm glad their not. Hope we can get those goddern niggers and jews out of the textbooks too. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Go back a few posts. Bachmann says homosexuality is wrong because a kid could find out from a teacher that homosexuality means boys liking boys, and since they like boys, they'll be gay, and that is child abuse.Your argument against that: an activist group thinks that teachers should bring up their sexual orientation to 7-year olds, and discuss it in detail.Taking a flowing argument and going back to try to pretend that the flow didn't change the discussion is the first sign of admitting defeat.You are strawmanning your own strawman now. Seriously! You've assumed what my response will be to a situation you made up, which was irrelevant to the original point.Pretty sure no one here is arguing either way about teachers actually teaching homosexuality. Though I'm glad their not. Hope we can get those goddern n and jews out of the textbooks too.So the real truth comes out, you hate black jews.Admitting it is the first step Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Taking a flowing argument and going back to try to pretend that the flow didn't change the discussion is the first sign of admitting defeat.So the real truth comes out, you hate black jews.Admitting it is the first stepWhat? Posting a random string of words that ends with "is the first sign of defeat" would...normally be a sign of defeat.The flow changed the discussion? Do the waves move the ocean?I love black jews. They're awesome. Almost as cool as black french people. Black non-jews and non-black Jews are the awful ones. Link to post Share on other sites
CindyLou 11 Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Bakker vs. Milken, part two. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Bakker vs. Milken, part two.I think you mean liberal hypocrisy, part two million Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Pretty sure no one here is arguing either way about teachers actually teaching homosexuality.You think they're just supposed to learn this stuff on the job? Link to post Share on other sites
LimbaughGod 0 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Does anyone here ever fact-check anything that is said? I can't believe it just slips by as "fact" that nobody asked Kennedy if he would submit to the Pope:"Question, sir: Do you subscribe to the doctrine of mental reservation which I have quoted from the Catholic authorities? Do you submit to the authority of the present Pope which I have quoted from in these quotations?"SourceOf course they asked him, as they should. Catholicism is a bastardization of Christianity, and it's important we know if our candidate is godly, that is to say taking direction from the LORD, or whether they follow some con man in a funny hat. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Does anyone here ever fact-check anything that is said? I can't believe it just slips by as "fact" that nobody asked Kennedy if he would submit to the Pope:"Question, sir: Do you subscribe to the doctrine of mental reservation which I have quoted from the Catholic authorities? Do you submit to the authority of the present Pope which I have quoted from in these quotations?"SourceOf course they asked him, as they should. Catholicism is a bastardization of Christianity, and it's important we know if our candidate is godly, that is to say taking direction from the LORD, or whether they follow some con man in a funny hat."I would be glad to state to you that no one can direct me in the fulfillment of my duties as a public official under the United States Constitution."There, that wasn't so hard, was it Michele? Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 The Taiwanese Animators Present Your Hilarious Guide To Rick Perry Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 The Taiwanese Animators Present Your Hilarious Guide To Rick PerryI missed the hilarious video, maybe I clicked the wrong one. Was it the one where he branded the Mormon? Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 I missed the hilarious video, maybe I clicked the wrong one. Was it the one where he branded the Mormon?I'm sure BG found the branding hilarious. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTZrMNPhQAc...eature=youtu.beDid anybody play the Reagan and taxes drinking game during last night's GOP debate ? Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTZrMNPhQAc...eature=youtu.beDid anybody play the Reagan and taxes drinking game during last night's GOP debate ?if the Reagan model is followed to clean this mess we will all come out of it good shape. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 if the Reagan model is followed to clean this mess we will all come out of it good shape.Nah, I don't think we need any more deficit spending and increases in the size of government. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Nah, I don't think we need any more deficit spending and increases in the size of government.Plus you should see a list of all the nice things Reagan said about unions. Considering how much akoff hates unions, I'm surprised he likes Reagan at all. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Plus you should see a list of all the nice things Reagan said about unions. Considering how much akoff hates unions, I'm surprised he likes Reagan at all.nobody is perfect! Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Watched 5 minutes of the Republican debate during Patriots-Dolphins halftime; felt nauseous. So the cnn.com movie-viewer thing whatever has a button that says "sound off." This button does not turn the sound off. Rather it allows you to join some chatroom or some bullshit and "sound off" with your opinions. It's hard to think of a more confusing title they could have used which would also make logical (albeit confusing) sense.Newt Gingrich just makes me angry at humanity I think, is what brought this out.EDIT: Also, for over ten minutes, the top story on the website (the debate) has said this, at the very top of their home page: A battle over Social Security carried over into tonight's CNN/Tea Party Debate, with Gov. Rick Perry defending calling the program a "Ponzi scheme."Fuuuuuuuuuufajdsofidsfad;dkldk. He either did one thing or he did the opposite! Who knows! Journalism!2nd EDIT: HOLY SHIT THEY EDITED IT AND IT'S STILL WRONG, POSSIBLY EVEN WORSE. I SWEAR TO FSM THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS NOW:Mitt Romney and Rick Perry jousted over Social Security in tonight's CNN/Tea Party Debate, with Perry defending calling it a "Ponzi scheme." Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 2nd EDIT: HOLY SHIT THEY EDITED IT AND IT'S STILL WRONG, POSSIBLY EVEN WORSE. I SWEAR TO FSM THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS NOW:??? What is incorrect about the headline? Link to post Share on other sites
LimbaughGod 0 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 2nd EDIT: HOLY SHIT THEY EDITED IT AND IT'S STILL WRONG, POSSIBLY EVEN WORSE. I SWEAR TO FSM THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS NOW:Are you this sites resident jester? i see your inability to read or think isn't confined to the religion forum. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 ??? What is incorrect about the headline?It's a blatant typo? Was he defending it or was he calling it a Ponzi scheme? The word "defending" should not be there and it makes the sentence extremely confusing. EDIT: Now it says: "Gov. Rick Perry defended his position on Social Security at a CNN/Tea Party Debate as his fellow White House hopefuls tried to chip away at his lead."This is a sensible statement. The previous ones I quoted were not. At the very least they were missing an important comma after "defending," but even then they both read very strangely and are very unclear. Are you this sites resident jester? Obvious troll is obvious. Keep trying, maybe someday you'll succeed at annoying me.Are you this site's resident cuntrag? Link to post Share on other sites
LimbaughGod 0 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 It's a blatant typo? Was he defending it or was he calling it a Ponzi scheme? The word "defending" should not be there and it makes the sentence extremely confusing.*sigh*Perry had ALREADY CALLED IT A PONZI SCHEME. MULTIPLE TIMES. IN HIS BOOK and IN THE PRIOR DEBATE. He was DEFENDING [HIS] CALLING IT A PONZI SCHEME. Dear Lord in Heaven, please help this kid's brain heal from whatever injury it must have suffered in its infancy. Amen. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 *sigh*Perry had ALREADY CALLED IT A PONZI SCHEME. MULTIPLE TIMES. He was DEFENDING [HIS] CALLING IT A PONZI SCHEME.By any measure it is a horribly-written, confusing sentence. The fact that you're defending it as totally awesome is funny, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with you hating me for no reason. Harts. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 Tim, think you are reading that wrong there buddy. It's pretty clear what it's saying. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I mean, that's a nice line and all in terms of political strategy, but social security is obviously not actually a Ponzi scheme. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now