In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[Plasmaball]

Ah yet another one with cognitive reading dysfunction. It seems to be contageious. I wonder if it is dangerous? Axtually I think it might be when it comes to our individual liberties. Maybe we need to take up a collection for therapy for some of these folks?

Perhaps you don't see a difference between a boycott and what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson. I continue to be grateful to those who do a see a difference.

Do have a nice day.

you mean Glaad voiced their opinion on Phil's opinion?

Oh noes.....where are your threads when an anti-abortion group does this? Or the NRA? You typically remain silent or declare these groups are allowed to have such opinions of dissent.

And thus we have come full circle of how you are nothing but a partisan hypocrite.

Why don't you read the thread and see what I've said about what and get back to me on that? Would that be asking too much? I really get tired of those who

a) Didn't read the OP and lack the ability to exercise common courtesy
b) Didn't read what another member said before verbally attacking and/or accusing him/;her
c) Are just general partisan idiots to begin with who lack the intelligence to read what is there and/or the basic human ability to communicate in any other way than as an angry, petty, idiot.

Thank you so much for understanding.

because its 39 pages long. Im not reading all that.
Ive read the OP and answered it.
I dont care what another member did.
i am intolerant of your stupidity. You didn't even get that did you?
Once again you decided to create a thread where you wanted to show off your lack of knowledge on things. You accomplished this nicely......again..

This is what you do as usual. You've been answered numerous times, and you just move the goal posts or whine about people being mean to you. Like a little crybaby. Then you circle around and claim nobody has really answered your question. When the reality is we haven't come in here and kissed your opinions ass for being the greatest thing on the internet since the internet.

You are a rubix cube of all the same color.

 

[Montrovant]

Can anyone say, or provide a link to, exactly what GLAAD did to get Phil Robertson suspended?

I'm not sure of the specifics, or if anyone not directly involved has access to the specifics. Did they threaten a boycott, a lawsuit, did they threaten to somehow exert personal influence with advertisers, what?

This speaks to the OP in that it gives specifics as to how GLAAD demanded tolerance. It's not necessarily important to the OP, but still related.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can anyone say, or provide a link to, exactly what GLAAD did to get Phil Robertson suspended?

I'm not sure of the specifics, or if anyone not directly involved has access to the specifics. Did they threaten a boycott, a lawsuit, did they threaten to somehow exert personal influence with advertisers, what?

This speaks to the OP in that it gives specifics as to how GLAAD demanded tolerance. It's not necessarily important to the OP, but still related.

Go to Breitbart. Montro. There are other sites but they do their homework and you can probably find it clearly outlined with sources there. I'm pretty sure folks posted links awhile back but I really don't want to take the time to go hunt them up.

 

[Foxfyre]

If they say things they know to be untrue or show a flagrant disregard for the truth, then they can be sued for damages.

You don't seriously believe it should be illegal for someone to say things that are truthful or reasonably their opinion without factual inaccuracies do you?

I can see you personally believing they should not do that as a reasonable opinion. But how could you criminalize free speech just because you don't like what they said? And even more, how could you give government, who abuses any and all power given to them, the power to enforce that? And the courts, wow, what a massive basis for even more legislating from the bench you would have given them. You realize government would only use that power to bolster free liberal speech and further shut down the dissent of anyone who questions socialism.

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinon was exprssed.

I don't understand why that simple concept is so difficult for some to understand. If I DO something that causes harm to somebody, then certainly I deserve whatever legal pressure is applied to persuade me to stop doing that something.

But if I express an opinion that somebody else doesn't like, that should not be cause to hurt me physically and/or materially.

It does not matter what opinions I have expressed at other times or in other contexts. It does not matter how crappy and cruddy a person I might be. It does not matter how much a NYC or CC or bgfn might hate me. I should have the right to express a personal opinion without fear that some mob, group, or organization will hurt me physically and/or materially.

If they threaten you or harm you physically, that is already a crime. If they hurt you materially, that goes again to whether they are truthful or disregard the truth and if it's the latter that's a civil offense.

As long as someone is truthful, they want to boycott your business because they are liberal and you're not or they don't like your policies then it goes to whether people agree with them or not. If they say they just don't like you because, that's unpersuasive.

Freedom of speech means freedom from government, it doesn't mean freedom from the reactions of people who heard it. Again, as long as they don't commit another crime in the process.

Thanks for a well stated, civil, comprehensive argument even though I'm going to disagree with you a wee bit here.

This is NOT a free speech issue. It isn't even a legal issue, much less a constitutional issue EXCEPT as it pertains to the Founders' original intent. When I say I would like for what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson be illegal, that is because I think what they did was cruel, hateful, wrong, and indefensible and not because I would know how to write a law to deal with what they did without taking away our rights to legitimate peaceful protest.

The Founders wanted us to have a country in which our unalienable rights, among which included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, condensed to 'blessings of liberty' in the Preamble of the Constitution, would not be violated by government or each other. They wanted us to be a country in which each citizen would be allowed his/her opinions, convictions, and perceptions and would be able to be who and what he or she was.

Phil Robertson did not himself seek to harm gay people in any way. He threatened nobody, wished no harm on anybody, and stated he loved his gay brothers and and sisters along with everybody else. His ONLY sin was to state what he believed the Bible said when he was asked about it in an interview with GQ Magazine. It was not him who then put his opinions out for public consumption, but it was GQ Magazine.

In my view, his interpretation of scripture is incorrect and I cannot appreciate how he stated it; something he has since apologized for. But his stated opinion had nothing to do with GLAAD. It had nothing to do with Duck Dynasty or A&E. And he should have every right to be who and what he is without fear of some mob, group, or organization demanding that he be physically andmaterially harmed for nothing more than he stated an opinion they didn't like.

As a freedom loving people, all of us should denounce GLAAD for that, not because of who and what they are or what they think or what they believe or what they say. But for what they DID to a guy who was just expressing an opinion. Robertson didn't DO anything. He expressed an opinion.

 

[MeBelle]

[MENTION=31178]MeBelle60[/MENTION] - this is open thread on an open forum, where any member can contribute. If that bothers you too much and you want your conversation with someone in particular to be private, then I suggest you get a room...

Thanks for not answering my question and the unsolicited lecture.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

Well, that was already explained, you just need at least 2 brain cells to rub together to understand it. Care to try again?

Who am I? I am a member of USMB.
Who are you? Why, you are also a member of USMB.
What is this? This is an open thread on an open forum, where ALL members can give input.

Getting all pissed off just because a third party inputs on an open thread is, well, childish. But I never get in the way between a person and the fool he wants to be. Have at it. Enjoy.

If you think that is a lecture, well, fine.

Saith Yoda: "A fuck I give not."

Peace be unto you, oh unquiet soul.

You think I am pissed off?

Live up to the words you post and agree with:

Second that. You can't GUARANTEE civility in an armed conflict. But when FACED with a frontal attack on your person or your credibility -- it's time to pull out a LINK, something with powerful FACTS and ANALYSIS -- rather than reciprocate.. Works every time to EXTEND the civility of the moment..

Guaranteed to stretch the civility further. If it doesn't work -- FlaCalTenn will refund all your money for the tip..

Gets the 2013-2014 Statistikhengst Seal of Approval!

Thanks for the insults, arsch!

 

[Londoner]

you must love me, or else - is a motto of all the totalitarian regimes of the past century, which ALL happened to be left at it's economic base.

Hitler believed that the Liberal Tolerance of the Weimar Period had lead to the over assimilation of Jews inside Germany. He believed that Jews and other non-Germans were eroding German Borders, Language and Culture. He divided the world into Real Germans and anti-Germans. He believed that by tolerating Jews, Germany had lost its soul. He offered himself and the Nazis as a kind of moral renewal from the corrupt Liberalism that held Jews equal to Germans. The liberals inside Germany believed that Jews had every right to decide the trajectory of German culture. Hitler disagreed. He believed that there was only one Real Germany. The American Right feels the same way. They believe that there is only one Real America, which is infused by single set of values (mostly by Christian and Market orthodoxy). Hitler constantly provided a list of non-Germans who needed to be excluded, exiled, destroyed. Your side has a similar list of horribles, i.e., gays, liberals, socialists, atheists, non-whites, non-Christians, etc.

Like Hitler, the American Right does not tolerate a plurality of peoples, cultures, languages and beliefs.

Did it ever occur to you that there is no Real America and no Real Americans; rather, there are only free American citizens who should have the freedom to choose why they love this great nation. You are free to love it for its free markets, and I am free to love it for the New Deal. You are free to love it for the Vietnam War, and I am free to love it for the citizens who had the freedom and courage to oppose that war. There are many Americas, not just one Real America to be imposed by you, God or Washington.

 

[MeBelle]

Well stated!

Welcome back...now go make me a sammich!

Phil has the right to his opinion, and the people reacting towards his opinion have the right to theirs. A&E also has the right to control their network they see fit. More over if said group shuns said opinion, then that is what the public decides. Not all opinions are equal, nor should they be. This is a general statement not about what Phil said.

The internet and the Fox news style ( they created the medium we have for good or ill ) format is why people think all opinions have equal weight and should have equal time to be stated. The internet created our bubbles we have today in our political factions. You see it here on the right more and you'd have to go to the DU in order to see it more with the left. Regardless both do it, and its even in this thread on page 1.

Their is no more tolerance of intolerance because their is no public shaming of said opinion. Said person can run back to their group that agrees with them. Their minds not changed not their voices drowned out, mocked and put out to be ignored as legit.

Intolerant opinions should be mocked and shunned. 1+1=2 not 47.

 

[Plasmaball]

Well stated!

Welcome back...now go make me a sammich!

Phil has the right to his opinion, and the people reacting towards his opinion have the right to theirs. A&E also has the right to control their network they see fit. More over if said group shuns said opinion, then that is what the public decides. Not all opinions are equal, nor should they be. This is a general statement not about what Phil said.

The internet and the Fox news style ( they created the medium we have for good or ill ) format is why people think all opinions have equal weight and should have equal time to be stated. The internet created our bubbles we have today in our political factions. You see it here on the right more and you'd have to go to the DU in order to see it more with the left. Regardless both do it, and its even in this thread on page 1.

Their is no more tolerance of intolerance because their is no public shaming of said opinion. Said person can run back to their group that agrees with them. Their minds not changed not their voices drowned out, mocked and put out to be ignored as legit.

Intolerant opinions should be mocked and shunned. 1+1=2 not 47.

note the OP ignores an actual answer that doesnt jive with her bias.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

However they don't lie about companies and people in order to shut them down because they don't like the religion of the owners, and to *punish* them for daring to speak out about their religion.

That's a lefty fascist forte.

Oh, and:

You loons are eternally surprised that you're just an extremist minority...you're so used to being an oppressive minority that you've forgotten that you really constitute a TINY FRACTION of the population of the US. It makes me have a sad for you.

The American Family Association, a Christian special interest group, is currently pushing a boycott against Radioshack

for not using the word 'Christmas'.

That is correct. The mob at the AFA is trying to physically and materially harm Radioshack because they don't say a certain word.

Foxfyre thinks that should be illegal. Do you?

Conservative Group Calls For Boycott Of Radio Shack For Not Using ?Christmas? In Ads

Well slight correction. They are calling for a limited one-month boycott of Radio Shack. But yes, if they are lobbying outside their own memership to do this, even that should be illegal if there was some way to make it illegal without opening up a whole other can of worms that would be abused by unethical people or groups to prevent legitimate lobbying against bad ACTS, not just 'bad' opinions.

Obviously you’re unaware of the fact that this is prima facie un-Constitutional, not to mention it would be completely impossible to implement and completely ineffective.

The right of the people to express themselves in any manner they see fit – including boycotts and petitioning sponsors – has always applied to both bad acts and bad opinions.

I support the American Family Association’s boycott of Radio Shack, however inane and idiotic its premise, provided they don’t seek legislative sanctions against the company; and I would weigh in on the side of the American Family Association in court should anyone indeed seek to compel the state to preempt their boycott of Radio Shack.

What you fail to understand is that it was the Framers’ original intent that the conflicts and controversies of the day be resolved in the context of private society, absent interference by the state or the courts. The Framers gave us a Republic for this very purpose, as opposed to a democracy, where the people might engage in unrestricted, full-throated debate safeguarded by the rule of law, were citizens needn’t fear that the passions and emotions of a given issue not spillover into actual laws all must obey.

The irony of this, of course, is it comports with fundamental conservative political dogma and conservative legal jurisprudence: let the people alone decide, not the government or the courts.

 

[MeBelle]

Well stated!

Welcome back...now go make me a sammich!

Phil has the right to his opinion, and the people reacting towards his opinion have the right to theirs. A&E also has the right to control their network they see fit. More over if said group shuns said opinion, then that is what the public decides. Not all opinions are equal, nor should they be. This is a general statement not about what Phil said.

The internet and the Fox news style ( they created the medium we have for good or ill ) format is why people think all opinions have equal weight and should have equal time to be stated. The internet created our bubbles we have today in our political factions. You see it here on the right more and you'd have to go to the DU in order to see it more with the left. Regardless both do it, and its even in this thread on page 1.

Their is no more tolerance of intolerance because their is no public shaming of said opinion. Said person can run back to their group that agrees with them. Their minds not changed not their voices drowned out, mocked and put out to be ignored as legit.

Intolerant opinions should be mocked and shunned. 1+1=2 not 47.

note the OP ignores an actual answer that doesnt jive with her bias.

Didja' read all 39 pages?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ah..so you were lying.

You said he ranted against gays, by saying GAYS are this, and GAYS are that.

But he didn't.

As I said.


"
“They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

THEY are sinners. Gays included, cuz we all sin. It just happens that homos IDENTIFY themselves by the sin they commit. So they think everyone should dump the bible to save them from having to hear about it.


Read more: ?Duck Dynasty? star Phil Robertson anti-gay video emerges as A&E beefs up security amid threats - NY Daily News

First of all, I find it funny that you insist he's referring to all sinners, including you btw, and calling you a faithless, insolent, arrogant, senseless, truthless God-hater,

and that's supposed to make it better? Are you really all those things?

Secondly, if you understood English grammar and usage, you would understand that I'm right and you're wrong. Robertson chose to alter Paul's words from Romans I. Paul's actual words are a reference to people who had abandoned God.

Paul is saying that homosexuality is a symptom of abandoning God. Paul is making a vicious, sanctimonious, arrogant attack on homosexuals and others. Robertson refined that message.

Contrast that with Pope Francis's opinion on homosexuals -

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

Now I'm not a Christian, but if I were analyzing the attitudes of both of the above, in the context of who more closely reflects the teachings and beliefs of Jesus,

I'd say the Pope wins in a rout.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Perhaps you don't see a difference between a boycott and what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson. I continue to be grateful to those who do a see a difference.

Do have a nice day.

No, because neither you nor anyone who professes to agree with you has ever identified, specifically, what you think is the difference,

which is not even imply that any difference matters.

A boycott is an attempt to do what you call physically and materially harm someone. All you keep ranting about is that GLAAD did, or tried to do, something to physically/materially harm Phil Robertson and/or A&E because of their association with him.

I'd be fascinated to know how you would propose to make boycotts illegal. Would you force people to continue to watch the show??? Would you force people to patronize their sponsors?

Everyone has to buy a duck call to prove that they're not trying to harm Phil Robertson's livelihood?

Are you mad? Seriously, have you ever been examined by a head doctor?

 

[BDBoop]

/lightbulb moment

Ooh! "Judge not, lest you be judged."

"By the same measure with which you judge, you will be judged."

"He that is without sin, cast the first stone."

Looks like Phil got hit by boomerang-judgment!

 

[Iceman]

/lightbulb moment

Ooh! "Judge not, lest you be judged."

"By the same measure with which you judge, you will be judged."

"He that is without sin, cast the first stone."

Looks like Phil got hit by boomerang-judgment!

Those are excuses for moral relativism.

 

[Bfgrn]

Can anyone say, or provide a link to, exactly what GLAAD did to get Phil Robertson suspended?

I'm not sure of the specifics, or if anyone not directly involved has access to the specifics. Did they threaten a boycott, a lawsuit, did they threaten to somehow exert personal influence with advertisers, what?

This speaks to the OP in that it gives specifics as to how GLAAD demanded tolerance. It's not necessarily important to the OP, but still related.

Go to Breitbart. Montro. There are other sites but they do their homework and you can probably find it clearly outlined with sources there. I'm pretty sure folks posted links awhile back but I really don't want to take the time to go hunt them up.

Yea Montro, you could go to Breitbart's right wing propaganda site, or you could seek the TRUTH. FF saw the articles I posted, she just chose to ignore them because the truth doesn't fit her attack on liberty and freedom.

And FF has not commented on Sean Hannity giving out the numbers on the air of Dubuc and A&E Chairwoman Abbe Raven.

Phil Robertson's ‘bestiality' remark earned ‘Duck Dynasty' suspension

Nancy Dubuc, the CEO of A&E Networks, ultimately reached the suspension decision because Robertson’s remarks were in conflict with “the fundamental values of the company.” Dubuc’s response was, at least in part, prompted by concerns of company employees, the executive said.

Report: A&E CEO Suspended Robertson for Sake of Gay Employees
Nancy Dubuc, currently receiving death threats, said she had to take action out of respect for A&E's LGBT employees.

A&E CEO Nancy Dubuc suspended Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson for spouting off on gays partly because her LGBT employees were livid, according to a report from TMZ.

Dubuc felt compelled to take action out of respect for her numerous LGBT employees, including those directly involved with Duck Dynasty, angered by Robertson's comments in GQ. That may be true, but reports also indicate A&E has long been aware of Robertson's extreme far-right views on minorities, which include sweeping generalizations on African-Americans and extreme vitriol against gays; he called the latter sinful, God-less murderers in a 2010 "sermon." Another report indicated the network is hoping the scandal blows over so they can get a few more years out of the cash cow, which is not only a ratings winner, but a merchandising juggernaut.

Regardless of the intention, Dubuc is incurring much blowback, including death threats, from conservative viewers who agree with Robertson's views. No final announcement on Robertson's employment or the future of the show has been made.


Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwate

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again what I would like to be illegal is immaterial. It is my own opinion. But even if there was some way to accomplish it without unintended negative consequences, it would not be criminalizing free speech though. It would be criminalizing organized efforts to harm somebody for no other reason than an opinion was expressed.

...

You want to criminalize boycotts?

Are you serious??

She has no problem with boycotts that serve a productive purpose, those that benefit the greater good, not the individual need. Those that have only the intent of harming someone materially or otherwise should be, not "need to be," criminal. But yet again, you and your liberal friends continue to spread your cognitive dissonance and choose not to address the core of this thread. Her views on boycotts and the nature thereof are irrelevant.

Is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance?

And who are you or anyone else to determine whether a boycott serves a ‘greater good’ or an ‘individual need.’

What nonsense.

A private citizen may call for a boycott of Walmart because the sky is blue, if he wants to. And it’s then up to private society to determine the merits of the boycott and respond accordingly, to either ignore the call because it’s predicated on idiocy, or to join the boycott because the merits warrant it.

Private society as a whole will determine whether a call for a boycott serves the ‘greater good’ or an ‘individual need,’ not government or a particular class of partisans fearful of open, unbridled public debate.

 

[Bfgrn]

you must love me, or else - is a motto of all the totalitarian regimes of the past century, which ALL happened to be left at it's economic base.

Hitler believed that the Liberal Tolerance of the Weimar Period had lead to the over assimilation of Jews inside Germany. He believed that Jews and other non-Germans were eroding German Borders, Language and Culture. He divided the world into Real Germans and anti-Germans. He believed that by tolerating Jews, Germany had lost its soul. He offered himself and the Nazis as a kind of moral renewal from the corrupt Liberalism that held Jews equal to Germans. The liberals inside Germany believed that Jews had every right to decide the trajectory of German culture. Hitler disagreed. He believed that there was only one Real Germany. The American Right feels the same way. They believe that there is only one Real America, which is infused by single set of values (mostly by Christian and Market orthodoxy). Hitler constantly provided a list of non-Germans who needed to be excluded, exiled, destroyed. Your side has a similar list of horribles, i.e., gays, liberals, socialists, atheists, non-whites, non-Christians, etc.

Like Hitler, the American Right does not tolerate a plurality of peoples, cultures, languages and beliefs.

Did it ever occur to you that there is no Real America and no Real Americans; rather, there are only free American citizens who should have the freedom to choose why they love this great nation. You are free to love it for its free markets, and I am free to love it for the New Deal. You are free to love it for the Vietnam War, and I am free to love it for the citizens who had the freedom and courage to oppose that war. There are many Americas, not just one Real America to be imposed by you, God or Washington.

The Moral Majority is nothing NEW…

“If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ...
We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress.”

“I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right.
We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!”

Jerry Falwell
"Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984

"The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."

"Today Christians... stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ah..so you were lying.

You said he ranted against gays, by saying GAYS are this, and GAYS are that.

But he didn't.

As I said.


"
“They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

THEY are sinners. Gays included, cuz we all sin. It just happens that homos IDENTIFY themselves by the sin they commit. So they think everyone should dump the bible to save them from having to hear about it.


Read more: ?Duck Dynasty? star Phil Robertson anti-gay video emerges as A&E beefs up security amid threats - NY Daily News

You clipped off the words he said just before that. He was referring to gays and lesbians. Not unexpected of you.


But lets go it your way.

All sinners.

Everyone is

...full of murder

full of envy,

full of strife,

full of hatred

is insolent

is arrogant

is a God hater

is ruthless

is faithless

are heartless.

senseless.

ruthless.

and invent ways of doing evil.


Everyone.

Because everyone is a sinner.



You run with that.

What a dumb ass you are.

He was listing types of sin. As stated previously, he was listing the various types of sin running amok in the USA. WTF is wrong with people like you that you have to lie all the damn time?

 

[The T]

Ah..so you were lying.

You said he ranted against gays, by saying GAYS are this, and GAYS are that.

But he didn't.

As I said.


"
“They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

THEY are sinners. Gays included, cuz we all sin. It just happens that homos IDENTIFY themselves by the sin they commit. So they think everyone should dump the bible to save them from having to hear about it.


Read more: ?Duck Dynasty? star Phil Robertson anti-gay video emerges as A&E beefs up security amid threats - NY Daily News

You clipped off the words he said just before that. He was referring to gays and lesbians. Not unexpected of you.


But lets go it your way.

All sinners.

Everyone is

...full of murder

full of envy,

full of strife,

full of hatred

is insolent

is arrogant

is a God hater

is ruthless

is faithless

are heartless.

senseless.

ruthless.

and invent ways of doing evil.


Everyone.

Because everyone is a sinner.



You run with that.

What a dumb ass you are.

He was listing types of sinners in America. WTF is wrong with people like you? Do you deny there is sin in America? WTF?

Practitioners of SIN are the first to question...

 

[The T]

Well stated!

Welcome back...now go make me a sammich!

note the OP ignores an actual answer that doesnt jive with her bias.

Didja' read all 39 pages?

As a matter of course? NO.