i have no clue who that is but the OP is shit tbh
Well, I'm sorry I didn't live up to your standards.
your OP is fox news style...which you cry about. gj
This is Weazel News. It's what we do.
watTurquoise wrote:
it's someone who claims masturbation is wrongJohnG@lt wrote:
Holy shit! Someone had sex! Halt the presses!
she claims it is the same as adultery.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
watTurquoise wrote:
it's someone who claims masturbation is wrongJohnG@lt wrote:
Holy shit! Someone had sex! Halt the presses!
Personally, things I do at night with women rarely reflect upon my job performance. With a few exceptions. Further I believe She never said masturbation is wrong she said it qualified as a sin. She is running against an entrenched democrat. It wouldn't matter if he was accused of rape, they take care of their own.Turquoise wrote:
it is kind of funny that we keep finding out that she's not nearly as conservative in her lifestyle as she claims to support in policy.?
No, she did. She said that it counted as lust and is hence sinful.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Thank you, that is what I said.Spark wrote:
No, she did. She said that it counted as lust and is hence sinful.
Well, that would rather imply that it is wrong.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
exampleSpark wrote:
Well, that would rather imply that it is wrong.
I know intercourse out of wedlock is a sin to the catholic church, Do you think its wrong ?
I don't think it's wrong, but I don't care whether the Catholic Church calls it sinful or not. But in calling it sinful, obviously they do.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
exampleSpark wrote:
Well, that would rather imply that it is wrong.
I know intercourse out of wedlock is a sin to the catholic church, Do you think its wrong ?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I don't believe she has a position as a church official or is seeking one so it is a moot point.Spark wrote:
I don't think it's wrong, but I don't care whether the Catholic Church calls it sinful or not. But in calling it sinful, obviously they do.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
exampleSpark wrote:
Well, that would rather imply that it is wrong.
I know intercourse out of wedlock is a sin to the catholic church, Do you think its wrong ?
*facepalm*
The point is that the fact that she goes out of her way to label it sinful indicates that she thinks it is wrong.
Get it?
The point is that the fact that she goes out of her way to label it sinful indicates that she thinks it is wrong.
Get it?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The quest for a sane Tea Partier is a neverending story.
that cartoon may have an entirely different punch line tomorrow morning
Good luck. You're going to need it.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
that cartoon may have an entirely different punch line tomorrow morning
no kidding... If nothing else, we may return to a golden age of political satire.Ticia wrote:
Good luck. You're going to need it.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
that cartoon may have an entirely different punch line tomorrow morning
So wait. She doesn't have sex so it's not a one night stand?
So when Clinton got a blow job you weren't saying that it was adultery?
Changing your standards to suit your side of an argument is pathetic. I agree that this article is dumb, pointless, and obvious smear, but that's all you have to say... But it's election season, this is standard. An irony was highlighted through it, albeit weakly. Defending O'Donnell is a position you're not going to want to take often, for realz...
Comparing Gore to O'Donnell is what's really sad...
Lemme guess, you really think Gore said he invented the internet too?
So when Clinton got a blow job you weren't saying that it was adultery?
Changing your standards to suit your side of an argument is pathetic. I agree that this article is dumb, pointless, and obvious smear, but that's all you have to say... But it's election season, this is standard. An irony was highlighted through it, albeit weakly. Defending O'Donnell is a position you're not going to want to take often, for realz...
Comparing Gore to O'Donnell is what's really sad...
Lemme guess, you really think Gore said he invented the internet too?
Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2010-11-02 12:56:02)
Well, people understandably see Gore as hypocritical for promoting environmental protection but not practicing what he preaches, whereas O'Donnell does the same with social issues but to a lesser extent.
Granted, Gore is much more intelligent than O'Donnell and has accomplished more than her.
Granted, Gore is much more intelligent than O'Donnell and has accomplished more than her.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-11-02 13:00:45)
Understood.
Gore said these are things we shouldn't be doing, and did them.
O'Donnell said these are things we shouldn't be doing, and did them.
I just think O'Donnell's actual choice of the things we shouldn't be doing, don't compare to Gore's. She's saying we shouldn't be immoral sexually, which comes directly from her religion. Gore is saying we shouldn't be immoral environmentally, which is directly tied, (proven, game over, don't care if he doesn't follow it, we ARE contributing to our climate change, even if we're not the original cause) to our survival.
Apples and Oranges.
Gore said these are things we shouldn't be doing, and did them.
O'Donnell said these are things we shouldn't be doing, and did them.
I just think O'Donnell's actual choice of the things we shouldn't be doing, don't compare to Gore's. She's saying we shouldn't be immoral sexually, which comes directly from her religion. Gore is saying we shouldn't be immoral environmentally, which is directly tied, (proven, game over, don't care if he doesn't follow it, we ARE contributing to our climate change, even if we're not the original cause) to our survival.
Apples and Oranges.
Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2010-11-02 13:12:26)
I can agree with that, but good luck explaining that to about half of the population.oChaos.Haze wrote:
Understood.
Gore said these are things we shouldn't be doing, and did them.
O'Donnell said these are things we shouldn't be doing, and did them.
I just think O'Donnell's actual choice of the things we shouldn't be doing, don't compare to Gore's. She's saying we shouldn't be immoral sexually, which comes directly from her religion. Gore is saying we shouldn't be immoral environmentally, which is directly tied, (proven, game over, don't care if he doesn't follow it, we ARE contributing to our climate change, even if we're not the original cause) to our survival.
Apples and Oranges.
The same goes for evolution as well.
In short, most people are idiots.
Global Warming or what ever they want to call it now has been exposed as has gore. He is a fraud and a total hypocrite, O'Donnell has been professionally smeared. It remains to be seen what she is.
O'Donnell has done a good enough job smearing herself. Honestly, what career politician would talk about their interest in witchcraft in a country as theocratic as the United States?
Ignoring her other crazy views.
Ignoring her other crazy views.