- Messages
- 721
there's three stupid things.......bipartisan politics. organized religions, and the people who argue about both of them. ive been guilty in the past for sure.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no. i don't think so.Don't know what you're talking about. I've never expressed any anti gay opinions at any point in my discussions on this Board. I'm pro gay marriage and have a libertarian viewpoint on the vast majority of LGBTQ issues.
A plea for mercy is a lecture? Interesting.It's my opinion that the Bishop would have been more effective (from her perspective) to preach the message of Christ (love, compassion, empathy, etc.) without the lecture. Let him hear the message and let him connect the dots and perhaps, change his mind. No one (certainly not Trump) responds well to being lectured to and told what to do and what not do. Why not be a bit more subtle and less MSNBC.
As I have said, it was a religious service in the National Cathedral as part of the official Inauguration ceremony. I'm expressing an opinion that a lecture to POTUS in that setting is not appropriate for a Bishop presiding over an official setting.
She chose to lecture and nag POTUS and be a liberal hero for a day. That's her right I get it. Trump and his party, for their part, sat there and were respectful.
Sincere question, then: any particular reason why you continue to grace us all with your presence on a message board that...primarily discusses politics with a heavy dose of religion? If you're so enlightened as to be above it all, what's your purpose for being here?there's three stupid things.......bipartisan politics. organized religions, and the people who argue about both of them. ive been guilty in the past for sure.
It can be both. And as stated, if your sincere goal is mercy, better to save the lecture for another time. Maybe her goal was to disguise the lecture in a plea for mercy. If so, it appears as if she succeeded.A plea for mercy is a lecture? Interesting.
Sounds more to me like a bunch of hit dogs hollering.It can be both. And as stated, if your sincere goal is mercy, better to save the lecture for another time. Maybe her goal was to disguise the lecture in a plea for mercy. If so, it appears as if she succeeded.
I've asked another Christian poster this and now I'll ask you, too. How do you consider Jesus's own words to be "lecturing" in a negative connotation? As a person of Christian faith myself, that seems so antithetical to what I would believe that other Christians should/would feel. I'm not criticizing you- just trying to sincerely understand.It can be both. And as stated, if your sincere goal is mercy, better to save the lecture for another time. Maybe her goal was to disguise the lecture in a plea for mercy. If so, it appears as if she succeeded.
Since this is a #HypocrisyFreeZone, and our right wing posters are never hypocritical in any way, I am certain that Franklin Graham delivering that same exact sermon would have caused equal consternation on the right! I just know it!Sounds more to me like a bunch of hit dogs hollering.
1. True.Since this is a #HypocrisyFreeZone, and our right wing posters are never hypocritical in any way, I am certain that Franklin Graham delivering that same exact sermon would have caused equal consternation on the right!
duh to reassure myself of how enlightened i am.......and it amuses me. any more questions, sir?Sincere question, then: any particular reason why you continue to grace us all with your presence on a message board that...primarily discusses politics with a heavy dose of religion? If you're so enlightened as to be above it all, what's your purpose for being here?
You are one annoying little prick you know.You left out the part where he put out hits on five people, which was an aggravating factor in the sentencing that was credited by the Second Circuit
Just one. Is there literally nothing else going for you that could replace this as a hobby? Surely someone as enlightened and sophisticated as you should have a myriad of hobbies available to you that would be more fulfilling and satiating than spending so much time reading and posting on a message board where the primary topics are something which you consider beneath you.duh to reassure myself of how enlightened i am.......and it amuses me. any more questions, sir?
I admire the passive aggressiveness. Franklin Graham's prayer was very much inappropriate in the same manner. Not sure how other righties feel about it.Since this is a #HypocrisyFreeZone, and our right wing posters are never hypocritical in any way, I am certain that Franklin Graham delivering that same exact sermon would have caused equal consternation on the right! I just know it!
I can get the amusement and you amuse me as well but if you need reassurance about anything, you really don't. You're missing the quality already.duh to reassure myself of how enlightened i am.......and it amuses me. any more questions, sir?
But did Graham cite the actual words of Jesus Christ in his prayer? I don't believe that he did, which makes the comparison a moot point, IMO.I admire the passive aggressiveness. Franklin Graham's prayer was very much inappropriate in the same manner. Not sure how other righties feel about it.
nothing and no one is above me and nothing/no one is beneath me....my perspective is what separates me from the rest of our fucked up society. see you think you are better than the trumpsters whether morally, intellectually, or both. do you really think you are going to change their minds re trump etc? its the same ol pissing contests, not discussions. i ll let you know when a real discussion takes place.Just one. Is there literally nothing else going for you that could replace this as a hobby? Surely someone as enlightened and sophisticated as you should have a myriad of hobbies available to you that would be more fulfilling and satiating than spending so much time reading and posting on a message board where the primary topics are something which you consider beneath you.
WTF? You posted an analysis that was incomplete. You were doing so, presumably, to convince people that the pardon of Ulbrecht was justified. And thus you put your opinions out in public to be tested. It's not my fault you left out that exceedingly important part of the story.You are one annoying little prick you know.
Yep and I said it was inappropriate, because of the power differential, for the federal government to "ask" a private business to remove posts.to be fair, i think that was zen, not rouser. but your overall point still stands.