Xrazy Xtians Declare Jihad on America
Why do I hate the Xrazy Xtians? Like that Xrazy Woman, VD(J)?
Easy. Just listen to these clips of VD(J) from this morning.
Jimmy Carter (D-not a Xtian)
Bill Moyers (D-not a Xtian)
Jessie Jackson (D-not a Xtain)
Thomas Jefferson (U-not a Xtian)
Thomas Paine (unknown - not a Xtian)
Charles Darwin (S-not a Xtian)
Dan Rather (R-not a Xtian)
Benjamin Hooks (D-not a Xtian)
Claire McKaskill (D-not a Xtian)
and on and on and on ....
And how about the REAL Xtians?
Billy'sBoyToyRoy (R-Xtian)
Jack Abramoff (R-Xtian/Jew)
Da' Dukester (R-Xtian)
Katherine Harris (R-Xtian)
Georgie (R-Xtian)
Bob Ney (R-Xtian)
and on and on and on.
VD(J) is a Xtian idiot. He is a combined idiot because he doesn't even know, like all good repugs should know, how to get rich in public office. Maybe that's because others see him as a Xtian idiot.
What a vile disgusting, chickenshit, woman he is.
Easy. Just listen to these clips of VD(J) from this morning.
Jimmy Carter (D-not a Xtian)
Bill Moyers (D-not a Xtian)
Jessie Jackson (D-not a Xtain)
Thomas Jefferson (U-not a Xtian)
Thomas Paine (unknown - not a Xtian)
Charles Darwin (S-not a Xtian)
Dan Rather (R-not a Xtian)
Benjamin Hooks (D-not a Xtian)
Claire McKaskill (D-not a Xtian)
and on and on and on ....
And how about the REAL Xtians?
Billy'sBoyToyRoy (R-Xtian)
Jack Abramoff (R-Xtian/Jew)
Da' Dukester (R-Xtian)
Katherine Harris (R-Xtian)
Georgie (R-Xtian)
Bob Ney (R-Xtian)
and on and on and on.
VD(J) is a Xtian idiot. He is a combined idiot because he doesn't even know, like all good repugs should know, how to get rich in public office. Maybe that's because others see him as a Xtian idiot.
What a vile disgusting, chickenshit, woman he is.
posted by John Stone at 9:11 AM
10 Comments:
To say you are a democrat does not say you uphold every single issue in the democratic party. How many Republicans are upset with Gov. Blunt or Pres. Bush.
Republicans are Christians and Democrats are not. Jesus would be so proud of his party, Im sure. It is all so very upsetting for so many reasons.
Yeah, Gran ... that's why I put a U by his name. The Unitarians are fond of that view and they have some evidence to support it. The Unitarians and the Congregationalists were the "intellectuals" of the day and it makes sense that Jefferson whould have found kinship. Then too his razor-blading of the New Testament to remove all references to the divinity of Jesus, now clearly understood to have been inserted at various times after the Council of Nicea. And the one quote I can think of (paraphrased) that his wish was for that in the future all Americans would be Unitarians. Other than that I consider the record to be pretty thin for him, and even thinner for the others.
The claim of deism, that you often hear nowadays, seems to not be right to me. At least in in no way the deism that we think of today. His was more of a deep respect for nature and science like you would find in a scientist, who needs no explanation of nature outside itself.
An interesting read is the battles fought at the Council of Nicea between Arius and Aristophenes (I think that was his name) is an interesting story of how the great comprimise of the Trinity was made and then became Canon. And it was a comprimise, otherwise the whole thing would have broken up and Constantine would not have been able to claim divinity for himself.
He was trying to give reasons this morning about why to vote for Jim Talent. Isn't the main one that if you are Christian you cannot possibly now, in the past, or in the future vote for a democrat or else you completely lose your status as a Christian and will go to hell and can never ever ever speak to him on the radio?
Are all Christians, idiots? Or just the ones in public office?
Not all Muslims are terrorists... but, most terrorists are Muslim.
There's no good way to PC out of that fact. ;)
"Not all Muslims are terrorists... but, most terrorists are Muslim"
Kinda' like that Libertarian anti-gov guy Tim McVeigh I suppose. Anarchists fit right in ... maybe I should start including them.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Um... McVeigh was not one of us. Ask Knapp, he'd say the same. Nor would we WANT a McVeigh in our ranks... we had Lindstedt, remember? That was bad enough.
But let's backtrack a bit: If most terrorists aren't Muslim... what *are* they? There are only so many White Supremacists with Delusions of Grandeur. There are only a few Klansmen left, compared to when Robert Byrd was one of 'em. The Irish Republican Army isn't up to much these days. And there can't be that many Earth Liberation Front members who actually go around destroying property, in order to save it... or something like that.
So... what's wrong with stating the obvious, re: "Not all Muslims are terrorists... but, most terrorists are Muslim"?
And say what you will about Christians, but they don't do the following:
Lop off the heads of non-believers
Attack Jews for the crime of living and breathing
Stone female rape victims to death for the crime of... being raped
That, alone, should earn them some leeway...
Lokk ... let's face the facts Lib-guy ... the modern Libs ARE anarchists ... maybe a little nicer than the Sacco and Vanzetti bomb throwers of yesteryear, but exactly the same general idea.
It ain't the lib Party of the 1970's that I knew.
And you should have seen Knapp back about 10 years ago on ORION trying to deny it ...
Finally he admitted it and changed his position to a more moderate one, you need to do the same. Party purity won't get you many votes.
Jesus, John... get a dictionary. "Anarchist" means "no government". The LP platform does not advocate "no government".
Not to insult you, but you've just used the same kind of anti-third-party tactics I've seen from Michael Medved and FreeRepublic types, though I don't have time to sift through DemocraticUnderground, nor do I wish to become a member in order to merely use their "search" function... I suspect some on there feel the same way, b/c libertarianism doesn't sit well with them, either.
As for "party purity", I'm not a practicioner. I'm not an open-borders type. I'm pro-life (well, 99.999% pro), though I think it should be a states' rights issue and not that of the Almighty FedGov. Same for drug legalization/decrim - should be up to the states. And I'm for civil unions, but not gay marriage.
I'm a Libertarian b/c I can't be a Dem or a Repub. I don't think it's the job of the Fed to run our lives for us, and your guys and Bush's guys want to do just that... in different ways, of course, but the endgame is similar: A bloated, hungry, many-eyed creature that mollycoddles us from cradle to grave, lest we poke our eyes out with sharp sticks or engage in consenting-adult-only funtime activities. And that's just the tip of the Titanic-sinker for the RepubliCrats... they always want more power, more control.
No, thanks. I like what freedom I have left.
Post a Comment
<< Home