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.
you as always are talking out you ass as to what you wish was my position was.dodge!bullshit it's not, he has the absolute right to make it for the very same reasons you have for disagreeing.Evangelical "Christanity" has no place in the 21st century.
Not your place to make that decision, and certainly not the Government's.
that's if you were not slapdick with an ax to grind...
my guess is that's why you said it, not for any noble cause.
I said "decision", not opinion. You and Mahr can bloviate all you want to on the evvvulls of religion, what you can't do is use government to try to enforce your belief that it should belong in this century.
That's besides the point that your hatred for other's belief structures implies you need to get a life.
btw the same hold true for you who would try to use the government to create a theocracy..
get a life! that's hilarious and ironic coming from you.
Why would I want to create a Theocracy? Unlike you I accept that other people actually may want to live their lives differently than me.
I have a feeling you have more of a desire to create a government hostile to religion than any desire I may have either way, again, I prefer live and let live, as opposed to "government gonna make you act like me", i.e. your position.
you as always are talking out you ass as to what you wish was my position was.dodge!bullshit it's not, he has the absolute right to make it for the very same reasons you have for disagreeing.Not your place to make that decision, and certainly not the Government's.
that's if you were not slapdick with an ax to grind...
my guess is that's why you said it, not for any noble cause.
I said "decision", not opinion. You and Mahr can bloviate all you want to on the evvvulls of religion, what you can't do is use government to try to enforce your belief that it should belong in this century.
That's besides the point that your hatred for other's belief structures implies you need to get a life.
btw the same hold true for you who would try to use the government to create a theocracy..
get a life! that's hilarious and ironic coming from you.
Why would I want to create a Theocracy? Unlike you I accept that other people actually may want to live their lives differently than me.
I have a feeling you have more of a desire to create a government hostile to religion than any desire I may have either way, again, I prefer live and let live, as opposed to "government gonna make you act like me", i.e. your position.
you are so fucking busy making false assumptions on every poster you disagree with you couldn't possibly know what they thought.
the live and let live shit you're pushing is a lie...
if it were true, it might.you as always are talking out you ass as to what you wish was my position was.dodge!bullshit it's not, he has the absolute right to make it for the very same reasons you have for disagreeing.
that's if you were not slapdick with an ax to grind...
my guess is that's why you said it, not for any noble cause.
I said "decision", not opinion. You and Mahr can bloviate all you want to on the evvvulls of religion, what you can't do is use government to try to enforce your belief that it should belong in this century.
That's besides the point that your hatred for other's belief structures implies you need to get a life.
btw the same hold true for you who would try to use the government to create a theocracy..
get a life! that's hilarious and ironic coming from you.
Why would I want to create a Theocracy? Unlike you I accept that other people actually may want to live their lives differently than me.
I have a feeling you have more of a desire to create a government hostile to religion than any desire I may have either way, again, I prefer live and let live, as opposed to "government gonna make you act like me", i.e. your position.
you are so fucking busy making false assumptions on every poster you disagree with you couldn't possibly know what they thought.
the live and let live shit you're pushing is a lie...
The truth hurts, doesn't it.
You don't make a statement like "Evangelical Christianity has no place in the 21st century" without being hostile to it, and probably religion in general.
Lets make this simple.
1) Do you think people who are religious are idiots?
2) do you think religion is something best practiced behind closed doors?
Yes or No will suffice.
if it were true, it might.you as always are talking out you ass as to what you wish was my position was.dodge!I said "decision", not opinion. You and Mahr can bloviate all you want to on the evvvulls of religion, what you can't do is use government to try to enforce your belief that it should belong in this century.
That's besides the point that your hatred for other's belief structures implies you need to get a life.
btw the same hold true for you who would try to use the government to create a theocracy..
get a life! that's hilarious and ironic coming from you.
Why would I want to create a Theocracy? Unlike you I accept that other people actually may want to live their lives differently than me.
I have a feeling you have more of a desire to create a government hostile to religion than any desire I may have either way, again, I prefer live and let live, as opposed to "government gonna make you act like me", i.e. your position.
you are so fucking busy making false assumptions on every poster you disagree with you couldn't possibly know what they thought.
the live and let live shit you're pushing is a lie...
The truth hurts, doesn't it.
You don't make a statement like "Evangelical Christianity has no place in the 21st century" without being hostile to it, and probably religion in general.
Lets make this simple.
1) Do you think people who are religious are idiots?
2) do you think religion is something best practiced behind closed doors?
Yes or No will suffice.
one the other hand it's excellent evidence of you propensity for making false accusations
1. I never said ""Evangelical Christianity has no place in the 21st century".
(false and almost slanderous accusation).
"do ou think people who are religious are idiots?
2. no, not all, but a good portion are, you included.
do you think religion is something best practiced behind closed doors
3. yes religion is a private matter, there is no need for public displays.
do you think religious people have the right to free exercise of their religion, this being protected by the government?
4.people are free to practice their faith if and until it infringes on other people right and beliefs.
You don't have to. God isn't poor.Gays should not do business with evangelicals. Don't give them a dime.
gee how'd I know that would be you answer and it false .if it were true, it might.you as always are talking out you ass as to what you wish was my position was.dodge!
btw the same hold true for you who would try to use the government to create a theocracy..
get a life! that's hilarious and ironic coming from you.
Why would I want to create a Theocracy? Unlike you I accept that other people actually may want to live their lives differently than me.
I have a feeling you have more of a desire to create a government hostile to religion than any desire I may have either way, again, I prefer live and let live, as opposed to "government gonna make you act like me", i.e. your position.
you are so fucking busy making false assumptions on every poster you disagree with you couldn't possibly know what they thought.
the live and let live shit you're pushing is a lie...
The truth hurts, doesn't it.
You don't make a statement like "Evangelical Christianity has no place in the 21st century" without being hostile to it, and probably religion in general.
Lets make this simple.
1) Do you think people who are religious are idiots?
2) do you think religion is something best practiced behind closed doors?
Yes or No will suffice.
one the other hand it's excellent evidence of you propensity for making false accusations
1. I never said ""Evangelical Christianity has no place in the 21st century".
(false and almost slanderous accusation).
"do ou think people who are religious are idiots?
2. no, not all, but a good portion are, you included.
do you think religion is something best practiced behind closed doors
3. yes religion is a private matter, there is no need for public displays.
do you think religious people have the right to free exercise of their religion, this being protected by the government?
4.people are free to practice their faith if and until it infringes on other people right and beliefs.
Ugh, it was old school that said that. I was wrong and I apologize.
As for the others
2. I am actually not very religious at all.
3. Religious does not have to be a private matter, it can be a public matter, as there is this whole freedom of expression some of us hold dear. You, on the other hand do not have freedom from being annoyed.
4. And here is where we find your definition of infringement is the key.
You are anti-religion, I am not taking that statement back, but I do withdraw 1, as I was wrong.
gee how'd I know that would be you answer and it false .if it were true, it might.you as always are talking out you ass as to what you wish was my position was.Why would I want to create a Theocracy? Unlike you I accept that other people actually may want to live their lives differently than me.
I have a feeling you have more of a desire to create a government hostile to religion than any desire I may have either way, again, I prefer live and let live, as opposed to "government gonna make you act like me", i.e. your position.
you are so fucking busy making false assumptions on every poster you disagree with you couldn't possibly know what they thought.
the live and let live shit you're pushing is a lie...
The truth hurts, doesn't it.
You don't make a statement like "Evangelical Christianity has no place in the 21st century" without being hostile to it, and probably religion in general.
Lets make this simple.
1) Do you think people who are religious are idiots?
2) do you think religion is something best practiced behind closed doors?
Yes or No will suffice.
one the other hand it's excellent evidence of you propensity for making false accusations
1. I never said ""Evangelical Christianity has no place in the 21st century".
(false and almost slanderous accusation).
"do ou think people who are religious are idiots?
2. no, not all, but a good portion are, you included.
do you think religion is something best practiced behind closed doors
3. yes religion is a private matter, there is no need for public displays.
do you think religious people have the right to free exercise of their religion, this being protected by the government?
4.people are free to practice their faith if and until it infringes on other people right and beliefs.
Ugh, it was old school that said that. I was wrong and I apologize.
As for the others
2. I am actually not very religious at all.
3. Religious does not have to be a private matter, it can be a public matter, as there is this whole freedom of expression some of us hold dear. You, on the other hand do not have freedom from being annoyed.
4. And here is where we find your definition of infringement is the key.
You are anti-religion, I am not taking that statement back, but I do withdraw 1, as I was wrong.
I'm not anti religious , the way you misuse freedom of expression is hilarious...
wrong again...why is it when people like you don't get the answer they want to hear it's a non answer ?gee how'd I know that would be you answer and it false .if it were true, it might.you as always are talking out you ass as to what you wish was my position was.
you are so fucking busy making false assumptions on every poster you disagree with you couldn't possibly know what they thought.
the live and let live shit you're pushing is a lie...
The truth hurts, doesn't it.
You don't make a statement like "Evangelical Christianity has no place in the 21st century" without being hostile to it, and probably religion in general.
Lets make this simple.
1) Do you think people who are religious are idiots?
2) do you think religion is something best practiced behind closed doors?
Yes or No will suffice.
one the other hand it's excellent evidence of you propensity for making false accusations
1. I never said ""Evangelical Christianity has no place in the 21st century".
(false and almost slanderous accusation).
"do ou think people who are religious are idiots?
2. no, not all, but a good portion are, you included.
do you think religion is something best practiced behind closed doors
3. yes religion is a private matter, there is no need for public displays.
do you think religious people have the right to free exercise of their religion, this being protected by the government?
4.people are free to practice their faith if and until it infringes on other people right and beliefs.
Ugh, it was old school that said that. I was wrong and I apologize.
As for the others
2. I am actually not very religious at all.
3. Religious does not have to be a private matter, it can be a public matter, as there is this whole freedom of expression some of us hold dear. You, on the other hand do not have freedom from being annoyed.
4. And here is where we find your definition of infringement is the key.
You are anti-religion, I am not taking that statement back, but I do withdraw 1, as I was wrong.
I'm not anti religious , the way you misuse freedom of expression is hilarious...
Thanks for the non-answer.
wrong again...why is it when people like you don't get the answer they want to hear it's a non answer ?gee how'd I know that would be you answer and it false .if it were true, it might.The truth hurts, doesn't it.
You don't make a statement like "Evangelical Christianity has no place in the 21st century" without being hostile to it, and probably religion in general.
Lets make this simple.
1) Do you think people who are religious are idiots?
2) do you think religion is something best practiced behind closed doors?
Yes or No will suffice.
one the other hand it's excellent evidence of you propensity for making false accusations
1. I never said ""Evangelical Christianity has no place in the 21st century".
(false and almost slanderous accusation).
"do ou think people who are religious are idiots?
2. no, not all, but a good portion are, you included.
do you think religion is something best practiced behind closed doors
3. yes religion is a private matter, there is no need for public displays.
do you think religious people have the right to free exercise of their religion, this being protected by the government?
4.people are free to practice their faith if and until it infringes on other people right and beliefs.
Ugh, it was old school that said that. I was wrong and I apologize.
As for the others
2. I am actually not very religious at all.
3. Religious does not have to be a private matter, it can be a public matter, as there is this whole freedom of expression some of us hold dear. You, on the other hand do not have freedom from being annoyed.
4. And here is where we find your definition of infringement is the key.
You are anti-religion, I am not taking that statement back, but I do withdraw 1, as I was wrong.
I'm not anti religious , the way you misuse freedom of expression is hilarious...
Thanks for the non-answer.
now that's a non answerwrong again...why is it when people like you don't get the answer they want to hear it's a non answer ?gee how'd I know that would be you answer and it false .if it were true, it might.
one the other hand it's excellent evidence of you propensity for making false accusations
1. I never said ""Evangelical Christianity has no place in the 21st century".
(false and almost slanderous accusation).
"do ou think people who are religious are idiots?
2. no, not all, but a good portion are, you included.
do you think religion is something best practiced behind closed doors
3. yes religion is a private matter, there is no need for public displays.
do you think religious people have the right to free exercise of their religion, this being protected by the government?
4.people are free to practice their faith if and until it infringes on other people right and beliefs.
Ugh, it was old school that said that. I was wrong and I apologize.
As for the others
2. I am actually not very religious at all.
3. Religious does not have to be a private matter, it can be a public matter, as there is this whole freedom of expression some of us hold dear. You, on the other hand do not have freedom from being annoyed.
4. And here is where we find your definition of infringement is the key.
You are anti-religion, I am not taking that statement back, but I do withdraw 1, as I was wrong.
I'm not anti religious , the way you misuse freedom of expression is hilarious...
Thanks for the non-answer.
It wasn't an answer, it was more "fuh fuh fuh" blathering about how you are not anti-religious, yet you want people to keep it to themselves, and how it is superseded by anything you define as 'infringing" on others.
now that's a non answerwrong again...why is it when people like you don't get the answer they want to hear it's a non answer ?gee how'd I know that would be you answer and it false .Ugh, it was old school that said that. I was wrong and I apologize.
As for the others
2. I am actually not very religious at all.
3. Religious does not have to be a private matter, it can be a public matter, as there is this whole freedom of expression some of us hold dear. You, on the other hand do not have freedom from being annoyed.
4. And here is where we find your definition of infringement is the key.
You are anti-religion, I am not taking that statement back, but I do withdraw 1, as I was wrong.
I'm not anti religious , the way you misuse freedom of expression is hilarious...
Thanks for the non-answer.
It wasn't an answer, it was more "fuh fuh fuh" blathering about how you are not anti-religious, yet you want people to keep it to themselves, and how it is superseded by anything you define as 'infringing" on others.
it is superseded when it infringes on other peoples rights not to harassed or impeded.
it's also a matter of discretion, a concept that eludes you.
btw I never fuh fuh fuh ...
asked and answerdnow that's a non answerwrong again...why is it when people like you don't get the answer they want to hear it's a non answer ?gee how'd I know that would be you answer and it false .
I'm not anti religious , the way you misuse freedom of expression is hilarious...
Thanks for the non-answer.
It wasn't an answer, it was more "fuh fuh fuh" blathering about how you are not anti-religious, yet you want people to keep it to themselves, and how it is superseded by anything you define as 'infringing" on others.
it is superseded when it infringes on other peoples rights not to harassed or impeded.
it's also a matter of discretion, a concept that eludes you.
btw I never fuh fuh fuh ...
What do you consider "harassed or impeded"?
asked and answerdnow that's a non answerwrong again...why is it when people like you don't get the answer they want to hear it's a non answer ?Thanks for the non-answer.
It wasn't an answer, it was more "fuh fuh fuh" blathering about how you are not anti-religious, yet you want people to keep it to themselves, and how it is superseded by anything you define as 'infringing" on others.
it is superseded when it infringes on other peoples rights not to harassed or impeded.
it's also a matter of discretion, a concept that eludes you.
btw I never fuh fuh fuh ...
What do you consider "harassed or impeded"?
you wish... st paddy's parade is only marginally religious, in reality that holiday is for eating hagus and getting drunk. speaking of vague and implausible your example is all that and more.asked and answerdnow that's a non answerwrong again...why is it when people like you don't get the answer they want to hear it's a non answer ?
It wasn't an answer, it was more "fuh fuh fuh" blathering about how you are not anti-religious, yet you want people to keep it to themselves, and how it is superseded by anything you define as 'infringing" on others.
it is superseded when it infringes on other peoples rights not to harassed or impeded.
it's also a matter of discretion, a concept that eludes you.
btw I never fuh fuh fuh ...
What do you consider "harassed or impeded"?
Nope. You vaguely reference infringement, and don't go into details. provide some details. For example, is the St patricks day parade infringing your ability to cross Manhattan without traffic? Is a street preacher infringing on you?
you wish... st paddy's parade is only marginally religious, in reality that holiday is for eating hagus and getting drunk. speaking of vague and implausible your example is all that and more.asked and answerdnow that's a non answerIt wasn't an answer, it was more "fuh fuh fuh" blathering about how you are not anti-religious, yet you want people to keep it to themselves, and how it is superseded by anything you define as 'infringing" on others.
it is superseded when it infringes on other peoples rights not to harassed or impeded.
it's also a matter of discretion, a concept that eludes you.
btw I never fuh fuh fuh ...
What do you consider "harassed or impeded"?
Nope. You vaguely reference infringement, and don't go into details. provide some details. For example, is the St patricks day parade infringing your ability to cross Manhattan without traffic? Is a street preacher infringing on you?
as for the street preacher yes he or she is, they often do by getting in the faces of passers by.
if I was as anti religion as you wish I was ,why would I live on a street that has five churches with walking distance?
one is less then 50 yards away.
I don't talk shit to them as they pass by or do complain when they have and outdoor meeting.
as long as it's on their property and the don't harass no believers imo they can worship any way they please.
wrong! again! that was no assumption ,assuming falsely is your gig.you wish... st paddy's parade is only marginally religious, in reality that holiday is for eating hagus and getting drunk. speaking of vague and implausible your example is all that and more.asked and answerdnow that's a non answer
it is superseded when it infringes on other peoples rights not to harassed or impeded.
it's also a matter of discretion, a concept that eludes you.
btw I never fuh fuh fuh ...
What do you consider "harassed or impeded"?
Nope. You vaguely reference infringement, and don't go into details. provide some details. For example, is the St patricks day parade infringing your ability to cross Manhattan without traffic? Is a street preacher infringing on you?
as for the street preacher yes he or she is, they often do by getting in the faces of passers by.
if I was as anti religion as you wish I was ,why would I live on a street that has five churches with walking distance?
one is less then 50 yards away.
I don't talk shit to them as they pass by or do complain when they have and outdoor meeting.
as long as it's on their property and the don't harass no believers imo they can worship any way they please.
So a street preacher is infringing on you?? What if it was an activist for something you approved of? I noticed you had to assume a street preacher is going to get "in your face"
LOL, get a spine, Wimpy L. Wimpington.
dodge!bullshit it's not, he has the absolute right to make it for the very same reasons you have for disagreeing.Evangelical "Christanity" has no place in the 21st century.
Not your place to make that decision, and certainly not the Government's.
that's if you were not slapdick with an ax to grind...
my guess is that's why you said it, not for any noble cause.
I said "decision", not opinion. You and Mahr can bloviate all you want to on the evvvulls of religion, what you can't do is use government to try to enforce your belief that it should belong in this century.
That's besides the point that your hatred for other's belief structures implies you need to get a life.
btw the same hold true for you who would try to use the government to create a theocracy..
get a life! that's hilarious and ironic coming from you.
Why would I want to create a Theocracy? Unlike you I accept that other people actually may want to live their lives differently than me.
I have a feeling you have more of a desire to create a government hostile to religion than any desire I may have either way, again, I prefer live and let live, as opposed to "government gonna make you act like me", i.e. your position.
you're as big a bullshit artist as he is.dodge!bullshit it's not, he has the absolute right to make it for the very same reasons you have for disagreeing.Not your place to make that decision, and certainly not the Government's.
that's if you were not slapdick with an ax to grind...
my guess is that's why you said it, not for any noble cause.
I said "decision", not opinion. You and Mahr can bloviate all you want to on the evvvulls of religion, what you can't do is use government to try to enforce your belief that it should belong in this century.
That's besides the point that your hatred for other's belief structures implies you need to get a life.
btw the same hold true for you who would try to use the government to create a theocracy..
get a life! that's hilarious and ironic coming from you.
Why would I want to create a Theocracy? Unlike you I accept that other people actually may want to live their lives differently than me.
I have a feeling you have more of a desire to create a government hostile to religion than any desire I may have either way, again, I prefer live and let live, as opposed to "government gonna make you act like me", i.e. your position.
Exactly.
wrong! again! that was no assumption ,assuming falsely is your gig.you wish... st paddy's parade is only marginally religious, in reality that holiday is for eating hagus and getting drunk. speaking of vague and implausible your example is all that and more.asked and answerdWhat do you consider "harassed or impeded"?
Nope. You vaguely reference infringement, and don't go into details. provide some details. For example, is the St patricks day parade infringing your ability to cross Manhattan without traffic? Is a street preacher infringing on you?
as for the street preacher yes he or she is, they often do by getting in the faces of passers by.
if I was as anti religion as you wish I was ,why would I live on a street that has five churches with walking distance?
one is less then 50 yards away.
I don't talk shit to them as they pass by or do complain when they have and outdoor meeting.
as long as it's on their property and the don't harass no believers imo they can worship any way they please.
So a street preacher is infringing on you?? What if it was an activist for something you approved of? I noticed you had to assume a street preacher is going to get "in your face"
LOL, get a spine, Wimpy L. Wimpington.
activists, preachers, anybody, it's still wrong.
speaking of reaching the shit you are asking is improbable as being mauled by a polar bear and a black bear in the same day.
