• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Cinderella story. Outta nowhere...

You're not done answering mine, punchy. Then explain this little rant:

To be honest, I wouldn't vote for a homosexual. The way I see it, they don't align with what I believe. Now, if I had no knowledge of their homosexuality and I agreed with their opinions on the issues I probably would vote for them. I don't see anything wrong with this.

Apparently, this means you don't vote for people who don't "align with what you beleive", which in your distorted homophobic world means "un-Christian" and Jewish is the very definition of un-Christian. So, does this mean you'll vote for someone who doesn't align with what you believe as long as they're straight? Seems a tad hypocritical to me. You'll vote for someone who doesn't follow Christ but not for someone who kisses someone of the same gender.
 
You're not done answering mine, punchy. Then explain this little rant:

To be honest, I wouldn't vote for a homosexual. The way I see it, they don't align with what I believe. Now, if I had no knowledge of their homosexuality and I agreed with their opinions on the issues I probably would vote for them. I don't see anything wrong with this.

Apparently, this means you don't vote for people who don't "align with what you beleive", which in your distorted homophobic world means "un-Christian" and Jewish is the very definition of un-Christian. So, does this mean you'll vote for someone who doesn't align with what you believe as long as they're straight? Seems a tad hypocritical to me. You'll vote for someone who doesn't follow Christ but not for someone who kisses someone of the same gender.

Being of the Jewish faith is not a sin. Being a homosexual is. Now would I prefer to have a Christian than a Jewish person in office? Absolutely. I don't find my attitude to be hypocritical at all. Sorry if you do.

Now, what are you registered as? R, D, I?
 
Then you're against sinners...unless they're Republicans.

Here's a sin. Refusing to let Jesus reign over you. Lk 19:14,27; 20:9-18. Or this one, "not keeping the words of Jesus", Jn 14:24. I could go on and on...but there's an entire Testament regarding what Christians do and do not consider a sin...I'm pretty sure not being a Christian falls into that entire idea.


And there is no party registration in Virginia.
 
Then you're against sinners...unless they're Republicans.

And there is no party registration in Virginia.

Which republican sinner am I for again?
McCain. The guy who cheated on his handicapped wife. That guy.
I remember you saying you were a republican who voted for Obama. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Sorry.
I was a Republican, but only by voting history...I was never registered as such.
 
Chill, people. No personal attacks and no "sockpuppet" accusations, please.

It's always unfortunate when a Republican wins an election, of course, but this was not unexpected. The combination of a bad campaign and having Joe Kennedy on the ballot made it almost inevitable. They just need a better candidate to take it back in the next election.

Meh, Joe Kennedy only got ~1% of the vote. That didn't make a difference.
He made a difference. He was about 25% of the reason she lost. :rommie:
 
Then you're against sinners...unless they're Republicans.

And there is no party registration in Virginia.

Which republican sinner am I for again?
McCain. The guy who cheated on his handicapped wife. That guy.
I remember you saying you were a republican who voted for Obama. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Sorry.
I was a Republican, but only by voting history...I was never registered as such.

McCain asked for forgiveness and acknowledged his sin. I would vote for ANY person who acknowledged their sin and asked worked to change their life.
 
Chill, people. No personal attacks and no "sockpuppet" accusations, please.

It's always unfortunate when a Republican wins an election, of course, but this was not unexpected. The combination of a bad campaign and having Joe Kennedy on the ballot made it almost inevitable. They just need a better candidate to take it back in the next election.

Meh, Joe Kennedy only got ~1% of the vote. That didn't make a difference.
He made a difference. He was about 25% of the reason she lost. :rommie:

:lol: Almost. She has enough with her inept past and embrace of far left policies to turn away thinking voters.

I was hoping Joe would quit and throw support behind Scott. I understand why he didn't but I'm also glad the race wasn't any tighter.
 
According to some political scientists at UCLA, Brown is more liberal than Snowe.
These figures come thanks to the hard work of UCLA political scientist Jeff Lewis who keeps an archive of almost up-to-the-minute votes in Congress, and Stanford political scientist Simon Jackman who calculates current ideological scores for all members of Congress in the current 111th Congress, past and present.

...

Before yesterday’s election, the 60th senator was Ben Nelson. This ranking made Nelson uniquely powerful . . . After Brown’s election, however, the picture changes. Mark Kirk, the appointed temporary replacement for Edward Kennedy who is estimated to be the third most liberal Senator, leaves. Brown, who’s to the left of Snowe but to the right of Nelson, enters. He therefore becomes that pivotal 41st vote to sustain a filibuster and deadlock legislation (or the 60th vote to end a filibuster and pass it).
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/scott-brown-is-more-liberal-than.html

Well done teabaggers.
 
I didn't come up with it...the teabaggers did on last February. "Teabag the fools in DC on Tax Day" is what reteaparty.com titled a blog entry and Griff Jenkins of Fox News put it on TV on March 14. Naturally, one who "teabags" is a "teabagger" in the same way one who "runs" is a "runner".

It's not my fault teabaggers are morons.
 
teabaggers.

You keep using that word. I don'ta think it means whata you think it means.

Although with the infantile insult, I'd rather be the teabagger than the teabaggee. Enjoy. :)

As would I.

What's the choice? Either be a tea party participant or a person who believes in stealing from our children and our children's children? All to give to those not willing to provide for themselves.

It doesn't matter though, the radical agenda that led to Brown's victory is falling apart like the Dallas Cowboys defense. The monstrosity that was H.R. 3200 is finished. Done. Over.

Score one for the good guys.

Thank God.
 
Last edited:
I didn't come up with it...the teabaggers did on last February. "Teabag the fools in DC on Tax Day" is what reteaparty.com titled a blog entry and Griff Jenkins of Fox News put it on TV on March 14. Naturally, one who "teabags" is a "teabagger" in the same way one who "runs" is a "runner".

It's not my fault teabaggers are morons.

Yes, I'm going to believe you meant it in the same frame of reference.

Whatever. I'm just glad to see Obama's agenda coming undone because of Sen Scott Brown's election. So sweet.
 
I don't care what you believe. You engage in something that deals with bags of tea and I'm going to call you someone who puts your balls in mens' mouths.

The lesson here? Don't be an idiot.
 
Although with the infantile insult, I'd rather be the teabagger than the teabaggee. Enjoy. :)

As would I.
You're in great company!

Link
1253168317867.jpg

They pick such great leaders.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top