Today's the Big Day!

Emperor Trajan said:
The Church teaches a great deal about sin in all areas of life, including sexuality. Porn, masturbation, fornication, adultery, etc. It doesn't single out any group on this - its all considered sinful and lustful. That's a commandment made to each individual, which, many are going to ignore, being people.

That's not the same thing as the Church actively trying to promote political bans and regulations. The only area it takes a firm stand on is abortion, because you've now strayed beyond the realm of individual sexuality into life and death situations.
Click to expand...
No wonder Catholic girls are so good in bed! :) They're taught how to sin right!
 
DamnYankee said:
Like you'd have experience there. Did you date a blind one?
Click to expand...
No....I married a lovely Catholic girl. :)


and yes...she's a very good lover. :)

Not the greatest cook though. OH well....you can't have it all.

Ya know...that is one odd thing about Catholic girls. Having dated quite a few Catholic girls in my life not one damned one of them was a decent cook. Hmmm, maybe that's a modern woman thing and not a Catholic thing?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No....I married a lovely Catholic girl. :)


and yes...she's a very good lover. :)

Not the greatest cook though. OH well....you can't have it all.

Ya know...that is one odd thing about Catholic girls. Having dated quite a few Catholic girls in my life not one damned one of them was a decent cook. Hmmm, maybe that's a modern woman thing and not a Catholic thing?
Click to expand...
I don't consider my Catholic wife to be a good cook, but a good chef. She rarely uses a cook book, and then again its just for ideas, then she makes up her own with healthy substitutions.
 
Socrtease said:
I think now, democrats should donate to Santorum's campaign. What last night showed, at least in Iowa, is that 75% of the voter DIDN'T want Romney. So the object, if you want Obama re-elected, is to help a repub candidate that independents and moderate Dems will NEVER vote for. That guy is Rick Santorum. Only in an Obama wet dream does he face Santorum in a General Election. As Bachman and Perry get out there fundamentalist voters have to go somewhere, Santorum would be the biggest beneficiary of those.
Click to expand...

Um... the vote was distributed with five of the candidates getting over the 10% threshold. 62% DIDN'T want Obama in 2008 by that measure and it was a three way heat with Edwards and Hillary at that point vs a five way. Even Bachman in sixth place had 5% which is more than double the amount the fourth place Richardson had in 2008.

That said, I don't think Santorum has a prayer in NH. He is going to be exposed and it will come down to Newt vs. Romney. Perry is done as he will not do well in NH either. The longer Paul hangs around, the better for Mitt.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No....I married a lovely Catholic girl. :)


and yes...she's a very good lover. :)

Not the greatest cook though. OH well....you can't have it all.

Ya know...that is one odd thing about Catholic girls. Having dated quite a few Catholic girls in my life not one damned one of them was a decent cook. Hmmm, maybe that's a modern woman thing and not a Catholic thing?
Click to expand...

I am a fabulous cook, you just ran into the wrong group of Catholic girls!
 
leaningright said:
This might derail the thread ... but I'm not for banning birth control anyway but I have a question? Have you (or anyone else) ever met women who carried condoms in their purse? I have encountered a few and made excuse to exit stage left when made aware.
Click to expand...

Why? Did the men who carry condoms scare you as well?
 
sedan said:
I have noticed that icedancer2theend will sometimes copy and paste from articles without indicating that she has done so.

Is this sloppy posting? Or is this a way to compensate for poor writing and appear more intelligent?

It's a mystery!
Click to expand...

You are not the first one to notice this, thanks.
 
Darla said:
Another post filled with nothing but blather. Your continued attempts at diversion are par for the course when you are desperately attempting to cover for your ignorance. I've always loved your habit of throwing out phrases you read on Townhall in the silly belief that anyone with any education wouldn't be able to see that you are a know-nothing.

Title x! State's rights! The Constitution!

Uh-huh. Let me know when you can cobble together a coherent thought on any of the above. Or on anything at all.

I have no interest in your continued nonsense. Just don't ever think you've fooled me. You have a very shallow knowledge-base and struggle to write over your head. And I know it. Always have.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know concepts that fully convey another persons positions when they don't gibe with yours is always just too confusing for you. Your ignorance about how birth control is funded and paid for is showing- but so what; just continue on with your shrill "I am woman hear me roar" rants for your audience of nobodies. Like I said to the idiot oncie- If Santorum attempts some national campaign to outlaw birth control he will reap the political back-lash. He isn't going to do that. But again, you are on one of your shrill rants, beating that nasty old hairy chest of yours, so there will be no shutting you up :D

Riddle us this bitch- am I supposed to let you know something or do you have no interest? If ever anyone needed a good dose of get over themselves it's you.

Perhaps your fish rash is acting up again?
 
icedancer2theend said:
Yes, I know concepts that fully convey another persons positions when they don't gibe with yours is always just too confusing for you. Your ignorance about how birth control is funded and paid for is showing- but so what; just continue on with your shrill "I am woman hear me roar" rants for your audience of nobodies. Like I said to the idiot oncie- If Santorum attempts some national campaign to outlaw birth control he will reap the political back-lash. He isn't going to do that. But again, you are on one of your shrill rants, beating that nasty old hairy chest of yours, so there will be no shutting you up :D

Riddle us this bitch- am I supposed to let you know something or do you have no interest? If ever anyone needed a good dose of get over themselves it's you.

Perhaps your fish rash is acting up again?
Click to expand...

Uh-oh. Now it's incoherent and delusional.

Must have hit the Jack Daniels again. Getting an early start on Easter I guess. Good luck with that.
 
Darla said:
IMO it’s important to note the mainstreaming of so-called “State’s rights”. Once the most discredited of all ideologies, the extreme right has dug up that stinking corpse, slapped some lipstick on it, sprayed it with eau de horseshit, and are marching it around in some sort of bizzaro world’s Weekend at Bernie’s.

Now they have every moron and swindler in the world puffing up with importance and saying “state’s rights” as if that is some sort of get-out-of-the-looniebin-free card. It isn’t. They pretend it is a brave, principled position taken by those with integrity. It’s not.

The swindlers know its history, and in that category I count Damo. Damo is the King of both false equivalence and of the “who am i? where am i? how did I get here?” right wing hokey pokey. Just give him the beat and two seconds, and then watch him dance.

There is nothing principled about claiming that the federal government is tyrannical so we must create 50 different smaller states with tyrannical powers. Through its history from the very beginning, this ideology has been used to keep the n*ggers down, to keep the bitches in their place, and to empower and support a white, hierarchical, patriarchy. The idiots, and
I’ll let everyone figure out who those are, have never read the Federalist papers, and certainly not the anti-Federalist papers. They don’t know that the originating rallying cry of the anti-federalists, the “state’s rights” crew, was “they’ll free your n*ggers!” (Patrick Henry)

Just try running on a platform claiming it’s okay if individual states adopt laws that would punish the white male for glancing in what is deemed by some authority “ a sexual manner” at a black woman, by whipping him to death, and see what happens.

State’s rights has always been about empowering the ruling elite, and the white male, and disempowering the woman and the person of color. That is not principled. No one who supports it has “integrity”.

Then you have your 10th’ers like STY. STY is not an idiot, a swindler, or a hypocrite. He’s just bug-shagging nuts. He’s the guy you pray never moves in next door to you. But chances are he won’t because guys like him live on lots of land, in the middle of nowhere, and if you are on the spread next to his, you are probably thrilled he moved in and ran out to buy him the decoder book for your next double top secret underground meeting where you and three other nutballs are plotting to overthrow the government.

So you have your idiots, your liars and swindlers, and your nutballs.

Trust me, they are almost all white. Interestingly, they do have more female collaboration. However, historically this is not a mystery. White woman who collaborated with the patriarchy, embracing their own inferior position within that hierarchy, have always been rewarded, often quite handsomely. They could even have a black person tortured and killed for looking at them. And that’s power. The trick in later years, was fooling the lower classes of women to collaborate with this system which simply was never going to reward them. That was done with the culture wars which feed on hate and resentment.

State’s rights: a discredited, poisonous, and nonsensical ideology.
Click to expand...

So you have your idiots, your liars and swindlers, and your nutballs. :lol:

Great post!
 
If States Rights weren't a hallmark of the American Republic, there wouldn't be 50 States to begin with, nor a process for admitting any new ones. They would not figure into Article V's method for ratifying new amendments to the Constitution at all. I could go on without even mentioning the 10th Amendment, but the whole premise of American liberty is that local governments are less able to harm the citizens than distant ones, which is the reason why the Founding Generation protested the distant powers of Great Britain in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top