Calling everyone RELIGIOUS FREAKS is as offensive
Posted By: HumBuggle on 2009-03-08
In Reply to: If the religious freaks forced me to have it, - - smsg
As me calling you a S L U T for your supposed 'rape.'
Get over yourself. Too bad your mother supported your abortion, instead of having one of her own.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
If the religious freaks forced me to have it, -
I'd stomp on it the moment it popped out.
Do you religious freaks only care about the fetus and not of
the woman that got raped, the real VICTIM?
How about ASKING HER what she wants to do with this fetus of a rapist and let her decide. Last not least it is HER body and her FETUS (at least half of it, the second half is that of a rapist), who belongs in prison!
Name calling? Point out 1 instance of "nasty name calling" in response to your posts
Your childlike accusations are patently false - but you are indeed welcome to your own opinion. I just don't have to agree.
O a dangerous man? He freaks me out.
So it could get worse if he is president? Yes, he is very intelligent. He knows how to manipulate and knows exactly what to say and what people want to hear. He now wants to "change the WORLD." He is now trying to "kill people's expectations" of him. Some of the things he is now saying is like we are going to have to make sacrifices. What that is? I am afraid to find out. I don't want America to change the way he wants it to change. I love the USA, but the O is scary and I am afraid to the point that I was considering (if I can) moving to Canada if he is our new president.
Get a clue people. This FREAKS ME OUT.
I am off the board. This is it. Our United States will never be the same. You want change, you are going to get your change. Downhill from here. Hope you all like the Hitler years. Maybe the O is the messiah, anti-Christ, whatever. This is not a normal political election. Major movement going on. Nothing like this is posted about McCain. Everything on this board is trying to convince everyone of horrible things about O. Nothing about McCain and if McCain comes up, it is so petty. I think some of you like the thrill of what will happen in the next year if O makes it. GOD HELP US ALL if he does. Probably God's wrath will be on us. At least that is what I have been reading on CBN, Kay Arthur, etc.
Whacked out Jesus freaks?
Boy, what a clever girl you are. Did you string all those words together yourself?
Here's one:
Trashy little crack ho's.
You know, like all those girls getting abortions.
Relgious Freaks? Do you mean Muslims?
Or is it only OK to bash Christians in America?
The number of abortions due to rape is so minescule compared to the massive quantities by women who are just too plain lazy or stupid to get themselves on birth control, it's a total joke. Add into that, the inordinate number of women who cry 'rape' when they actually just got wasted and laid, and there's a whole lot of unnecessary suffering going on.
Here's a compromise - I'll support morning-after pills for rape victims - and you support SELF-CONTROL. Sadly, in America these days, self-control is as foreign an idea as thrift and personal responsibility.
What about the life of the raped woman,,,you are hypocritical freaks!...nm
nm
No you are offensive
You did not say a homosexual/heterosexual relationship. You called us homo's. That is offensive. And I could care less whether or not you approve of our lifestyle. I find your church-going backwards thinking offensive, and that my friend will never change. You impose your bible beliefs upon everyone else and expect that everyone should live like you do. You think we should just turn the "homo button" off and live just like you do. Were you around in the biblical times of Sodom and Gomorrah, I highly doubt it, so don't even proclaim of knowing what was or wasn't offensive back during that time.
And the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality.
"The greatest sin of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah may have been their lack of hospitality towards guests visiting their city, and not sexual deviance"
The truth about Sodom and Gomorrah -
http://www.whosoever.org/v2i3/sodom.html
Yep....that's just about as offensive...(sm)
as insinuating people who don't believe are somehow second class citizens or that people who have different beliefs are not entitled to the same rights. Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to actually threaten me with the wrath of God when I don't even believe in God? Using religion and God as a threat (as the above poster did) is nothing but trying to bully the rest of us based on beliefs that don't hold water with us.
I will, however, apologize to you and M if I offended you because I understand where you are coming from and respect that. However, you should be aware that my father was the easter bunny ;) I have a thing for colorful eggs and things that hop.
I am sorry if my being pro life is offensive to you...
however, I have not called any individual a profane and hateful name. Defend it if you like. Birds of a feather.
Because I find it offensive
I see the sam squad btch and complain when weary posters seek to ban her from the board when she is outnumbered, rally to her defense and smugly proclaim themselves conquering heroes and then turn right around and behave the same way toward the left-side version of sam. Of course, this is entirely predictable when considering that hypocrisy is inbred amongst the pubs. It is that genetic trait that I feel compelled to point out because it has much larger political implications relative to the broader issues that pubs spend so much time avoiding. In case you missed it the first time around, let me point out that this is not a whine, but rather an observation and criticism of hypocrisy and double standard that the pubs seek to promote as legitimate campaign rhetoric (NOT). It is that legitimate campaign rhetoric to which I now turn my attention.
Not any more offensive than Obama using the...
campaign plane and campaign dollars for personal business, when he is personally wealthy and could afford to pay his own way. She is not personally wealthy and there is no way to recoup jet fuel. At least the clothes can be donated to charity. Let's exhibit a little fairness here.
THIS IS VULGAR AND OFFENSIVE
x
Exactly. Is 'hetero' offensive?
x
I won't even go into how offensive and wrong this statement is. sm
and I mean wrong ethically, morally and spiritually.
If ignorance is offensive, then yes. You do offend. nm
I am sorry that you find the truth offensive....
but it is the truth, nevertheless. This is on the Democratic website:
Civil Rights & Justice
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That's why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws (not true) and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.
On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight (not true, in fact, quite the opposite). We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.
Sometimes a reminder is justified, as the DNC seems to have a lapse of memory concerning where the party once stood.
Why not be honest? Why not say they have things in their past they are ashamed of (as all of us do), or just leave that part out? Why put an untruth on the website?
You say one party was not responsible for causing it...no, NO "party" was responsible for causing it, but one party was responsible for keeping it in place until a civil war was fought, and even for 90 years AFTER that war conspired to keep African Americans from the vote. It happened, it is history, denying it does not change it. And they are still denying it, as you are, to this day.
As to loving to argue that the Democrats voted for the war too...that is ONLY when people try to assert that President Bush alone was responsible for the war in Iraq. And if you will be fair, when you look at my posts, DW, I said Congress was responsible, BOTH sides. I never tried to say the Democrats alone were responsible.
As to African Americans knowing what happened then...I doubt they do. And being human, you are right, in the grand scheme of things they care about the now, like most humans.
However, it DID happen. And if you have to be offended, you should be offended at those in your party who, no matter WHEN they did it, at one point sought to enslave and then oppress African Americans. It happened. Be offended that they did it, not that someone posted it.
Or do not be offended at all, own up to the fact it was done, admit that Republicans did a the right thing for the right reason at a time when this country sorely needed someone to do the right thing for the right reason.
You clearly don't understand what offensive means
Or maybe you are the original poster. I don't know and I don't care, but your statement enforces what I wrote. You are defending the poster and you clearly don't care that it offends people. And by the way, what in the world does bring Barack's middle name into the conversation have anything to do with the post. Yes, we all know his name is Hussein or maybe you like HUSSEIN. It's a beautiful name. It means "good, small handome one". Anyway, it was never mentioned in the original post, so my question is what is your motive for bringing it up, and if you bring Barack's middle name "Hussein" into the conversation why don't you bring in Joe's middle name "Robinette". This sounds like another scare tactic I would expect to come out of the McCain camp.
Also, not sure I understand what John McCain and Kerry's wife have anything to do with each other. I know Kerry's wife's family is the Heinz ketchup people, but I don't know what John McCain has to do with that.
So maybe instead of defending the poster (and sounding like a McCain supporter - I don't know you and you may not be, but when you defend the poster it sounds like you are), maybe you ought to think how people feel about such a dispicable comparison.
By the way...this is a board where we can express our opinions so don't tell me if I don't like the subject get on with it and don't read it...maybe you should get on with it and stop trying to defend something so offensive.
This mole hill would not have been made into a mountain if the original poster had simply written, I'm sorry it offended you and left it at that, but no, they had to defend themselves and start bashing me, and then others decided they would chime in.
So I guess you don't know what offensive is and that what you may think is "freaky" or "funny" is offensive to other people. I'd say drop the conversation.
No, what is offensive and vulgur is your continued
moaning and harping and complaining. Lighten up. What we need is for you people to give something a little bit of a chance before you drown everything and everybody with your doom and gloom predictions. I was merely suggesting something more constructive!
The only thing that is vulgar and offensive
is what you substituted for " ****** " in your own mind. Talk about projection.
WOW, RACIST MUCH?! That's incredibly offensive. nm
.
Sign is clear, concise, and not offensive.
This sign represents the feelings of many US citizens. As such, it belongs alongside all of the other religious displays at this time of year. Personally, I love it!
BTDT. This is an equally offensive opportunity.
x
your choice of words in this post is offensive
What's next using the "f" word, and do you call African American's the "N" word.
We all don't "have" a choice in whom we choose to love. You evidently do not understand what it is to be gay, and without any knowledge it would be better for you to not post at all because you are offensive in more than just this post. The others were bad enough but calling us homo is like calling a black person a "n_____".
Rosa Parks could not change her color and gay people cannot change how they feel towards another human being. We don't have a "gay" button we can turn on and off.
Enough with your disrespectful comments towards other people who don't agree with you and calling us slanderous names. If you can't control the words you choose maybe the moderator can.
There are other choices. I find Obama and McCain equally offensive, so I am voting for Ralph Nader.
Bob Barr might also be a good choice.
and I'd like to keep my religious freedom sm
without having to answer to the Christian right. If they had their way, we'd all be wearing babuskas and having a kid or two every year, paying homage to them at a tithe of 10% and having to hate all other religious ideologies.
If Coulter is so religious...
...why doesn't anyone know her at the church she says she attends?
No, not a religious board.
I'm referring to posts on the conservative political board under the post about Michelle Malkin.
What is a religious wacko?
Someone who believes that a fetus is a human being? Your label "religious wacko" is very disrespectful and unkind. I am pro-life and I am not mentally unstable.
Like it or not, the fight to protect the unborn will NEVER EVER stop.
A religious wacko is...
Someone who does not understand the separation between church and state, that freedom of relgion also means freedom FROM religion, sees nothing wrong with imposing/ legislating their own religious beliefs and values on everyone else, goes bannas whenever anybody disagrees with them, and would just as soon replace our democratic system with Christian theocracy.
Can we say religious whacko.....
xx
I am not even religious. I like Palin because she is
nm
Religious Right has already messed up too much in this
and the rest of the misguided 'faithful' to step out of the picture so that our leaders can actually do their jobs, without all the holy rollers tripping them up.
Religious freedom.
dd
You don't have to be religious to be hated by
xx
This was not a religious post, but..(sm)
since you mentioned it, it is actually possible to have hope without God. Athiests represent only a small portion of the general public as well as Obama supporters. Your post assumes that everyone who supports Obama must be athiest. You might want to revise that one. LOL.
Religious Right and Gay Marriage
Gay marriage is an important issue for the religious right.
What exactly do they want a president to do about it?
Take this to the religious board
Many of us do not believe that. Many on the religious board do not believe that, but this is a religious statment. Show me the proof of what you just said.
Religious hierarchy...
I wonder what they call the homosexual henchmen who try to browbeat everyone who doesn't love and accept their behavior?
I am not even religious. Take your useless
nm
Sorry you have no religious beliefs....... that is sad!
--
Do you actually believe only religious people think
--
Many religious people are pro-choice.
.
I SAID most religious people...I did NOT say most Christians.
You guys don't rule the world, ya know. Just your little corner...just your own lives, not everyone else's.
Religious Protest from the Left
A Religious Protest Largely From the Left
Conservative Christians Say Fighting Cuts in Poverty Programs Is Not a Priority
By Jonathan Weisman and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 14, 2005; A08
When hundreds of religious activists try to get arrested today to protest cutting programs for the poor, prominent conservatives such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell will not be among them.
That is a great relief to Republican leaders, who have dismissed the burgeoning protests as the work of liberals. But it raises the question: Why in recent years have conservative Christians asserted their influence on efforts to relieve Third World debt, AIDS in Africa, strife in Sudan and international sex trafficking -- but remained on the sidelines while liberal Christians protest domestic spending cuts?
Conservative Christian groups such as Focus on the Family say it is a matter of priorities, and their priorities are abortion, same-sex marriage and seating judges who will back their position against those practices.
It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important, said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, Dobson's influential, Colorado-based Christian organization. But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that.
Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees, he said. They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical.
At issue is a House-passed budget-cutting measure that would save $50 billion over five years by trimming food stamp rolls, imposing new fees on Medicaid recipients, squeezing student lenders, cutting child-support enforcement funds and paring agriculture programs. House negotiators are trying to reach accord with senators who passed a more modest $35 billion bill that largely spares programs for the poor.
At the same time, House and Senate negotiators are hashing out their differences on a tax-cutting measure that is likely to include an extension of cuts in the tax rate on dividends and capital gains.
To mainline Protestant groups and some evangelical activists, the twin measures are an affront, especially during the Christmas season. Leaders of five denominations -- the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church USA and United Church of Christ -- issued a joint statement last week calling on Congress to go back to the drawing board and come up with a budget that brings good news to the poor.
Around 300 religious activists have vowed to kneel in prayer this morning at the Cannon House Office Building and remain there until they are arrested. Wallis said that as they are led off, they will chant a phrase from Isaiah: Woe to you legislators of infamous laws . . . who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan.
To GOP leaders and their supporters in the Christian community, it is not that simple. Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said yesterday that the activists' position is not intellectually right.
The right tax policy, such as keeping tax rates low on business investment, grows the economy, increases federal revenue -- and increased federal revenue makes it easier for us to pursue policies that we all can agree have social benefit, he said.
Dobson also has praised what he calls pro-family tax cuts. And Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian group Concerned Women for America, said religious conservatives know that the government is not really capable of love.
You look to the government for justice, and you look to the church and individuals for mercy. I think Hurricane Katrina is a good example of that. FEMA just failed, and the church and the Salvation Army and corporations stepped in and met the need, she said.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the government's role should be to encourage charitable giving, perhaps through tax cuts.
There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. There is no dispute of that fact, he said. But it does not say government should do it. That's a shifting of responsibility.
The Family Research Council is involved in efforts to stop the bloodshed in the Darfur region of Sudan as well as sex trafficking and slavery abroad. But Perkins said those issues are far different from the budget cuts now under protest. The difference there is enforcing laws to keep people from being enslaved, to be sold as sex slaves, he said. We're talking here about massive welfare programs.
The Rev. Richard Cizik, a vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, returned yesterday from the Montreal conference on global climate change, another issue of interest to evangelicals. Frankly, I don't hear a lot of conversation among evangelicals about budget cuts in anti-poverty programs, he said. What I hear our people asking is, why are we spending $231 million on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska and can't find $50 million for African Union forces to stop genocide in Darfur?
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
We certainly wouldn't want a president whose religious
Or impact how they view society or race relations or even science. We surely would not want religious beliefs to impact political decisions on any level, including voters.
Religious people go to church
Religious people who go to work check their religion at the door. The constitution specifically instructs Congress to do the same. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means keep religion out of federal legislative codes. Implied therein is the concept that the nation is not theocratic in nature.
The original poster is well understood in the expressed wish that this not be forgotten and remain unchanged. It is difficult to understand what is meant by the statement that religion will be in the White House under any leadership. Clearly, religious people, some to a greater degree than others, will inhabit the White House and the chambers of Congress. However, religion is constitutionally prohibited from entering the body of our laws and does not provide a foundation for our governmental institutions. The constitution has given indivuals immunity from federally mandates on religion. Wise men of great vision, our forefathers.
BINGO... that's why the rabid Religious Right does
They're as bad as the fundamentalist Islamics...'It's OUR way, or the highway'!
Sheep.
Are you saying only religious people are pro life?
If so, you are wrong.
It's only a "political" issue to religious
|
