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.
I said it was an "extreme stance"?One of these days you Trumpsters will actually quote me saying something that you think I believe.Just quoting you. Those are your words, and they're very helpful. You'll have to get over it.Still obsessed with me....you really need a new hobby. I am not a Trumpster....so.
.
Mac still thinks that him not wanting to secure the existence of his children makes him virtuous.
Oh well, that's what you get when a person believes that manners are more important than truth.
It may not be any time soon, of course, but I'll remain hopeful. Kind of. Given the proclivities of your leader, it obviously won't happen for a while.
.
Well, you quoted me as saying it is an extreme stance, so it is not difficult putting 1+1 together.
is time for a child sacrifice? Democrats are yearning for post birth abortions, new workers needed in Epstein island or whatever they have now. You could be a hero Mac.
Where did I say that?
Do you realize that you just made that up?
Do you guys even care about honesty, on any level, at this point?
Those are serious questions.
.
You just did it again. I assume you don't even realize it.I said it was an "extreme stance"?One of these days you Trumpsters will actually quote me saying something that you think I believe.Just quoting you. Those are your words, and they're very helpful. You'll have to get over it.
.
Mac still thinks that him not wanting to secure the existence of his children makes him virtuous.
Oh well, that's what you get when a person believes that manners are more important than truth.
It may not be any time soon, of course, but I'll remain hopeful. Kind of. Given the proclivities of your leader, it obviously won't happen for a while.
.
Well, you quoted me as saying it is an extreme stance, so it is not difficult putting 1+1 together.
is time for a child sacrifice? Democrats are yearning for post birth abortions, new workers needed in Epstein island or whatever they have now. You could be a hero Mac.
Where did I say that?
Do you realize that you just made that up?
Do you guys even care about honesty, on any level, at this point?
Those are serious questions.
.
Duh, you posted that list of quotes as stances so extreme that no sane person could hold them.
The rates of child sacrifice are now higher than ever. Pimping your kid as a drag queen gets nation wide coverage and superiority status for life in the left circles. What are you waiting for?
You just did it again. I assume you don't even realize it.I said it was an "extreme stance"?One of these days you Trumpsters will actually quote me saying something that you think I believe.Mac still thinks that him not wanting to secure the existence of his children makes him virtuous.
Oh well, that's what you get when a person believes that manners are more important than truth.
It may not be any time soon, of course, but I'll remain hopeful. Kind of. Given the proclivities of your leader, it obviously won't happen for a while.
.
Well, you quoted me as saying it is an extreme stance, so it is not difficult putting 1+1 together.
is time for a child sacrifice? Democrats are yearning for post birth abortions, new workers needed in Epstein island or whatever they have now. You could be a hero Mac.
Where did I say that?
Do you realize that you just made that up?
Do you guys even care about honesty, on any level, at this point?
Those are serious questions.
.
Duh, you posted that list of quotes as stances so extreme that no sane person could hold them.
The rates of child sacrifice are now higher than ever. Pimping your kid as a drag queen gets nation wide coverage and superiority status for life in the left circles. What are you waiting for?
I truly don't know how to communicate with someone who creates their own reality as they go.
.
Okay, got it. I told you, I don't know how to respond here. Thanks.You just did it again. I assume you don't even realize it.I said it was an "extreme stance"?One of these days you Trumpsters will actually quote me saying something that you think I believe.
It may not be any time soon, of course, but I'll remain hopeful. Kind of. Given the proclivities of your leader, it obviously won't happen for a while.
.
Well, you quoted me as saying it is an extreme stance, so it is not difficult putting 1+1 together.
is time for a child sacrifice? Democrats are yearning for post birth abortions, new workers needed in Epstein island or whatever they have now. You could be a hero Mac.
Where did I say that?
Do you realize that you just made that up?
Do you guys even care about honesty, on any level, at this point?
Those are serious questions.
.
Duh, you posted that list of quotes as stances so extreme that no sane person could hold them.
The rates of child sacrifice are now higher than ever. Pimping your kid as a drag queen gets nation wide coverage and superiority status for life in the left circles. What are you waiting for?
I truly don't know how to communicate with someone who creates their own reality as they go.
.
No, you did it again. Pretending you did not post that list as extreme stances, when you did.
Okay, got it. I told you, I don't know how to respond here. Thanks.You just did it again. I assume you don't even realize it.I said it was an "extreme stance"?Well, you quoted me as saying it is an extreme stance, so it is not difficult putting 1+1 together.
is time for a child sacrifice? Democrats are yearning for post birth abortions, new workers needed in Epstein island or whatever they have now. You could be a hero Mac.
Where did I say that?
Do you realize that you just made that up?
Do you guys even care about honesty, on any level, at this point?
Those are serious questions.
.
Duh, you posted that list of quotes as stances so extreme that no sane person could hold them.
The rates of child sacrifice are now higher than ever. Pimping your kid as a drag queen gets nation wide coverage and superiority status for life in the left circles. What are you waiting for?
I truly don't know how to communicate with someone who creates their own reality as they go.
.
No, you did it again. Pretending you did not post that list as extreme stances, when you did.
.
Again simpleton the king was the Church of England.Do your attendants know you’re using the computer again???
Divine right means that God gave the king....a human being .....the right to rule.
The Church never...NEVER.....worshiped the king, or called him God.
Gads, you're a moron.
Actually if the King is divine he can not be challenged as he is or is the equivalent of God.
Seriously you are a natural blond right?
Even the Gods had to call the king God under English rule blondie. kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.”
Divine Right of Kings in England
While throughout much of world history, deified potentates have been the rule, in England, absolute monarchy never got a solid foothold, but there certainly was the attempt. Elements of British political theory and practice encouraged absolutism—the idea and practice that the king is the absolute law and that there is no appeal beyond him. Several movements and ideas hurried along the idea of absolute monarchy in England. One of those ideas was the divine right of kings,”
In England, the idea of the divine right of kings will enter England with James VI of Scotland who will come and rule over both England and Scotland as James I in 1603 and will commence the line of several “Stuart” monarchs. James had definite ideas about his role as monarch, and those ideas included the divine right of kings. Here are just a few of James’ statements that reflect his view that he ruled by divine right:
If we could do this for a thousand years you would still have a zero probability of proving me wrong even once
- Kings are like gods—“…kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.”
- Kings are not to be disputed—“…. That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power.”
- Governing is the business of the king, not the business of the subjects—" you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office."
- Kings govern by ancient rights that are his to claim—" I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . .”
- Kings should not be bothered with requests to change settled law—"…I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law…”
- Don’t make a request of a king if you are confident he will say “no.”—“… for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.” [1
But you keep smiling like the dopey blond that you are
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
If you could read and comprehend reality instead of living in your delusional schizzo haze you would be able to comprehend that you are wrong. See kid the Church of England was headed by the King, if someone said the King was not God they lost their head. This is common knowledge to normal Americans and was known to GW and his friends who set up a system where religion and the government are NOT connected. Most Americans comprehend this. You not being normal ever will. The really sad thing for you is that you believe that you are arguing with me, but are actually arguing the facts of history due to your delusions
Divine Right of Kings
In England, the idea of the divine right of kings will enter England with James VI of Scotland who will come and rule over both England and Scotland as James I in 1603 and will commence the line of several “Stuart” monarchs. James had definite ideas about his role as monarch, and those ideas included the divine right of kings. Here are just a few of James’ statements that reflect his view that he ruled by divine right:
Again in England even God called the King God...…………………
- Kings are like gods—“…kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.”
- Kings are not to be disputed—“…. That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power.”
- Governing is the business of the king, not the business of the subjects—" you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office."
- Kings govern by ancient rights that are his to claim—" I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . .”
- Kings should not be bothered with requests to change settled law—"…I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law…”
- Don’t make a request of a king if you are confident he will say “no.”—“… for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.”
Are you a dumb blond Britt?
LOL F.uck the queeny and her stinky underpants
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
This is why the Founding Fathers separated church and state.
Please try to deal with your disease
Look you ignorant fart, I know that the king of england was not god. However if you told him that you would lose your head in the public square. The head of the English church was the king.....Again simpleton the king was the Church of England.Actually if the King is divine he can not be challenged as he is or is the equivalent of God.
Seriously you are a natural blond right?
Even the Gods had to call the king God under English rule blondie. kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.”
Divine Right of Kings in England
While throughout much of world history, deified potentates have been the rule, in England, absolute monarchy never got a solid foothold, but there certainly was the attempt. Elements of British political theory and practice encouraged absolutism—the idea and practice that the king is the absolute law and that there is no appeal beyond him. Several movements and ideas hurried along the idea of absolute monarchy in England. One of those ideas was the divine right of kings,”
In England, the idea of the divine right of kings will enter England with James VI of Scotland who will come and rule over both England and Scotland as James I in 1603 and will commence the line of several “Stuart” monarchs. James had definite ideas about his role as monarch, and those ideas included the divine right of kings. Here are just a few of James’ statements that reflect his view that he ruled by divine right:
If we could do this for a thousand years you would still have a zero probability of proving me wrong even once
- Kings are like gods—“…kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.”
- Kings are not to be disputed—“…. That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power.”
- Governing is the business of the king, not the business of the subjects—" you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office."
- Kings govern by ancient rights that are his to claim—" I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . .”
- Kings should not be bothered with requests to change settled law—"…I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law…”
- Don’t make a request of a king if you are confident he will say “no.”—“… for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.” [1
But you keep smiling like the dopey blond that you are
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
If you could read and comprehend reality instead of living in your delusional schizzo haze you would be able to comprehend that you are wrong. See kid the Church of England was headed by the King, if someone said the King was not God they lost their head. This is common knowledge to normal Americans and was known to GW and his friends who set up a system where religion and the government are NOT connected. Most Americans comprehend this. You not being normal ever will. The really sad thing for you is that you believe that you are arguing with me, but are actually arguing the facts of history due to your delusions
Divine Right of Kings
In England, the idea of the divine right of kings will enter England with James VI of Scotland who will come and rule over both England and Scotland as James I in 1603 and will commence the line of several “Stuart” monarchs. James had definite ideas about his role as monarch, and those ideas included the divine right of kings. Here are just a few of James’ statements that reflect his view that he ruled by divine right:
Again in England even God called the King God...…………………
- Kings are like gods—“…kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.”
- Kings are not to be disputed—“…. That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power.”
- Governing is the business of the king, not the business of the subjects—" you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office."
- Kings govern by ancient rights that are his to claim—" I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . .”
- Kings should not be bothered with requests to change settled law—"…I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law…”
- Don’t make a request of a king if you are confident he will say “no.”—“… for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.”
Are you a dumb blond Britt?
LOL F.uck the queeny and her stinky underpants
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
This is why the Founding Fathers separated church and state.
Please try to deal with your disease
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Look you ignorant fart, I know that the king of england was not god. However if you told him that you would lose your head in the public square. The head of the English church was the king.....Again simpleton the king was the Church of England.The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
If you could read and comprehend reality instead of living in your delusional schizzo haze you would be able to comprehend that you are wrong. See kid the Church of England was headed by the King, if someone said the King was not God they lost their head. This is common knowledge to normal Americans and was known to GW and his friends who set up a system where religion and the government are NOT connected. Most Americans comprehend this. You not being normal ever will. The really sad thing for you is that you believe that you are arguing with me, but are actually arguing the facts of history due to your delusions
Divine Right of Kings
In England, the idea of the divine right of kings will enter England with James VI of Scotland who will come and rule over both England and Scotland as James I in 1603 and will commence the line of several “Stuart” monarchs. James had definite ideas about his role as monarch, and those ideas included the divine right of kings. Here are just a few of James’ statements that reflect his view that he ruled by divine right:
Again in England even God called the King God...…………………
- Kings are like gods—“…kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.”
- Kings are not to be disputed—“…. That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power.”
- Governing is the business of the king, not the business of the subjects—" you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office."
- Kings govern by ancient rights that are his to claim—" I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . .”
- Kings should not be bothered with requests to change settled law—"…I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law…”
- Don’t make a request of a king if you are confident he will say “no.”—“… for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.”
Are you a dumb blond Britt?
LOL F.uck the queeny and her stinky underpants
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
This is why the Founding Fathers separated church and state.
Please try to deal with your disease
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
You got that bimbo?
This is why separation of church and state was implemented here.
However if you want to continue your verbal masterbating, please continue
Mac still thinks that him not wanting to secure the existence of his children makes him virtuous.
Oh well, that's what you get when a person believes that manners are more important than truth.
Lynching was a side-bar way of keeping law and order in a society corrupted by Radical Republican shit bags of post Civil War. After that justice was almost usually spot on but sometimes failed.1. Interesting that a Liberal, Michele Norris, an award-winning journalist and founder of The Race Card Project, and former host of the National Public Radio evening news program All Things Considered, penned an article for the WaPo on lynching.
It is the sort of thing government school either hides, or tells as a propaganda half-truth.
Warning....may be disturbing.
2. In the article, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a5fd2a-f5ae-11e9-ad8b-85e2aa00b5ce_story.html,
Ms. Norris notes....
"A lynching involved a man, but sometimes a woman or a child, who was dragged from home, heels in the dirt, body contorting, convulsing with fear.
It took a mob, a rabble, a group of several people to carry out the deed. To hold the victim.
Bodies were burned and blowtorched and branded. They were gutted and skinned like animals. They were castrated, scalped, dismembered. It was the justification for human bonfires and dismembering bodies and turning toes into key fobs and skin into lampshades.
Lynching was the work of “good people.” People who held positions of stature and authority. Who went to church. Who taught their children the golden rule about Jesus loving all the little children. A rule with exceptions and bylaws and fine print. A rule that applied only to people with white skin.
According to the NAACP, 4,743 people were lynched in the United States from 1882 to 1968. (Yes, 1968.) Of that number, 3,446 were black.
This is our history. Our history. We will never fully understand how far we’ve come as a nation until we accept and acknowledge the spectacular abominations that passed as normal."
This is accurate and well put......as far as it goes.
I guess an election is coming, and time to rile the voting block.
It is only half the truth....what one gets from Liberals, the media, government schools....
The other half in a moment.....
Look you ignorant fart, I know that the king of england was not god. However if you told him that you would lose your head in the public square. The head of the English church was the king.....Again simpleton the king was the Church of England.If you could read and comprehend reality instead of living in your delusional schizzo haze you would be able to comprehend that you are wrong. See kid the Church of England was headed by the King, if someone said the King was not God they lost their head. This is common knowledge to normal Americans and was known to GW and his friends who set up a system where religion and the government are NOT connected. Most Americans comprehend this. You not being normal ever will. The really sad thing for you is that you believe that you are arguing with me, but are actually arguing the facts of history due to your delusions
Divine Right of Kings
In England, the idea of the divine right of kings will enter England with James VI of Scotland who will come and rule over both England and Scotland as James I in 1603 and will commence the line of several “Stuart” monarchs. James had definite ideas about his role as monarch, and those ideas included the divine right of kings. Here are just a few of James’ statements that reflect his view that he ruled by divine right:
Again in England even God called the King God...…………………
- Kings are like gods—“…kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.”
- Kings are not to be disputed—“…. That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power.”
- Governing is the business of the king, not the business of the subjects—" you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office."
- Kings govern by ancient rights that are his to claim—" I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . .”
- Kings should not be bothered with requests to change settled law—"…I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law…”
- Don’t make a request of a king if you are confident he will say “no.”—“… for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.”
Are you a dumb blond Britt?
LOL F.uck the queeny and her stinky underpants
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
This is why the Founding Fathers separated church and state.
Please try to deal with your disease
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
You got that bimbo?
This is why separation of church and state was implemented here.
However if you want to continue your verbal masterbating, please continue
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Look you ignorant fart, I know that the king of england was not god. However if you told him that you would lose your head in the public square. The head of the English church was the king.....Again simpleton the king was the Church of England.The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
This is why the Founding Fathers separated church and state.
Please try to deal with your disease
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
You got that bimbo?
This is why separation of church and state was implemented here.
However if you want to continue your verbal masterbating, please continue
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Again blondie, you are not arguing with me, you are rewriting history in your excuse for a brain
The divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch (e.g. a king) is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from a divine authority, like the monotheist will of God. The monarch is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only the divine authority can judge an unjust monarch and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict their powers runs contrary to the will of the divine and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch. Though this right does not make the monarch the same as a sacred king. The divine right has as such been a key element for legitimating many absolute monarchies
Divine right of kings - Wikipedia
Were you born stupid or did you drop lots of acid?
Indeed they are my words and I 100% stand by them because they are the truth. As usual you missed or ignored the part where I said I DO NOT SUPPORT TRUMP,I WON'T BE VOTING FOR HIM IN 2020!Just quoting you. Those are your words, and they're very helpful. You'll have to get over it.Still obsessed with me....you really need a new hobby. I am not a Trumpster....so.Excuse me, what was that?Everything I post is linked, sourced, and documented....that's why you couldn't find anything in my posts that folks shouldn't believe.The only people who believe this weird, transparent and comically disingenuous pap are Trumpsters. The party of traditional anti-minority racism, currently, today, at this moment, is the GOP, clearly. And I'll be happy to post my nice, long example of that -- a collection of posts from USMB Trumpsters -- upon request.
Reader's have found that your posts are never "The Whole Truth."
Slink away, dunce.
Did you say you wanted me to post those examples and then rub your goofy nose in it?
Happy to!
Your fellow Trumpsters, being all Trumpy 'n stuff!
This is pipe dream shit meant to feed the n-I-g-g-e-r-s and the s-p-I-c-s because they're stupid enough to believe that shit.
Sick of their shit and we should not hide it anymore. When they call me a fucking racist, and I say you damn right I am!!! Fuck those fucking people!
MAGA! This is great news! Everything is falling into place so we can build the Wall and thwart this invasion of brown diseease ridden third worlders who are a threat to our sovereignty, culture and American traditions.
Today blacks act like animals because they are BARELY evolved past the Ape and need a strong central figure (the white man) to keep them in place and acting like normal people.
“We swear muthafuckers, you take our beaners from us and we’ll come for your guns one day” Filthy fucks!
Being the elected representative of a bunch of dumbass ghetto Jungle Monkeys doesn't take intelligence. It take a ghetto dialect and a promise to get them more welfare. She does that well. However, normal to most humans she is dumber than a door knob.
The asians made fun of obama.....the asians refer to negroes as 'monkey people' and not in jest....they are serious....and why shouldn't they be?
Why do Browns ("people of color") feel compelled to steal, assault, rape, murder Whites, their obvious superior beings? Browns should be worshiping Whites instead of being jealous douchebag criminals.'
Pay the pavement ape or he will get very angry and burn his house down.
I thought she was an ape...Next you'll be telling me Mooch isn't really a shaved wookie.
Valerie Jarrett....Is she that light skinned negro who looks like that ape in Planet of the Apes (negroes?)
One of the weirdest things is when Negros have "beards" that contain less hair than an Italian woman's nipple or an Irish girl's vagina. It is like some scraggly under arm hair shit that they have on their face as if it looks good. Why? As the saying goes "expect the unexpected" and have your firearm ready if you are in the proximity of such savages.
I believe the black race is inferior to both the white and yellow races....I can prove it by taking a look at the world map and income, innovation/scientific discoveries, and prison populations.
So is this language acceptable when coming from a negro? Do two wrongs make it right? Does Kambaba Parris understand that Trump is leaving office in 2024? Yawn, Kambala wants every African American crack addict to have their own home while White, Red, and Yellow Americans some disabled vets rot on the street.
Nigga's acting like a Nigga...must be part of the Thugery... most blacks don't act like that!
Everyone who is sane agrees with the 14 words.
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children"
Im convinced the most strident anti-white supremacists on this forum have never met a black american before. Otherwise they wouldn't be in such denial about their behavior.
Rub rub rub!
Rub rub rub!
.
.
Look you ignorant fart, I know that the king of england was not god. However if you told him that you would lose your head in the public square. The head of the English church was the king.....Again simpleton the king was the Church of England.
This is why the Founding Fathers separated church and state.
Please try to deal with your disease
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
You got that bimbo?
This is why separation of church and state was implemented here.
However if you want to continue your verbal masterbating, please continue
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Again blondie, you are not arguing with me, you are rewriting history in your excuse for a brain
The divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch (e.g. a king) is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from a divine authority, like the monotheist will of God. The monarch is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only the divine authority can judge an unjust monarch and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict their powers runs contrary to the will of the divine and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch. Though this right does not make the monarch the same as a sacred king. The divine right has as such been a key element for legitimating many absolute monarchies
Divine right of kings - Wikipedia
Were you born stupid or did you drop lots of acid?
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Look you ignorant fart, I know that the king of england was not god. However if you told him that you would lose your head in the public square. The head of the English church was the king.....The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
You got that bimbo?
This is why separation of church and state was implemented here.
However if you want to continue your verbal masterbating, please continue
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Again blondie, you are not arguing with me, you are rewriting history in your excuse for a brain
The divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch (e.g. a king) is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from a divine authority, like the monotheist will of God. The monarch is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only the divine authority can judge an unjust monarch and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict their powers runs contrary to the will of the divine and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch. Though this right does not make the monarch the same as a sacred king. The divine right has as such been a key element for legitimating many absolute monarchies
Divine right of kings - Wikipedia
Were you born stupid or did you drop lots of acid?
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Again blondie the Church of England was headed by the king who was called God by God himself. If you said what you just did your head rolls. Which in your case would be an improvement.
Seriously of course the king is not God, but he declared himself to be God and was the head of the English church.
So have you been schizophrenic for long? Ever taken Chlorpromazine?
Try it
My lesson to you.Look you ignorant fart, I know that the king of england was not god. However if you told him that you would lose your head in the public square. The head of the English church was the king.....
You got that bimbo?
This is why separation of church and state was implemented here.
However if you want to continue your verbal masterbating, please continue
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Again blondie, you are not arguing with me, you are rewriting history in your excuse for a brain
The divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch (e.g. a king) is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from a divine authority, like the monotheist will of God. The monarch is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only the divine authority can judge an unjust monarch and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict their powers runs contrary to the will of the divine and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch. Though this right does not make the monarch the same as a sacred king. The divine right has as such been a key element for legitimating many absolute monarchies
Divine right of kings - Wikipedia
Were you born stupid or did you drop lots of acid?
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Again blondie the Church of England was headed by the king who was called God by God himself. If you said what you just did your head rolls. Which in your case would be an improvement.
Seriously of course the king is not God, but he declared himself to be God and was the head of the English church.
So have you been schizophrenic for long? Ever taken Chlorpromazine?
Try it
OK.....one more lesson for you.....then you must really change your avi to "Imbecile."
In 1215, the royalty forced the king to sign a document and swear to God, that they would have rights.
If the King were God, you moron, why would the king have to swear his oat to God????
1.Three millennia ago, due to the start of monotheism, humanity began to construct the ‘house’ we live in today, the palace known as Western Civilization. Genesis 1:26 suddenly made every individual special, and made the argument against slavery.
In 1215, the Magna Carta underscored the premise with this language:
“Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs,….”
1215: Magna Carta - Online Library of Liberty
2.We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively.
“If you believe that government has no right to intrude upon the exercise of your individual will, that you have a moral duty to be virtuous, that human beings are capable of bettering the world through the use of reason, you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.”
Ben Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27
In 1215, the Magna Carta underscored the premise with this language:
“Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs,…. TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:”
1215: Magna Carta - Online Library of Liberty
Before Genesis, the ruler was god, and above all mankind.
Not since the Bible, and at no time for the Church of England.
My lesson to you.The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Again blondie, you are not arguing with me, you are rewriting history in your excuse for a brain
The divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch (e.g. a king) is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from a divine authority, like the monotheist will of God. The monarch is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only the divine authority can judge an unjust monarch and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict their powers runs contrary to the will of the divine and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch. Though this right does not make the monarch the same as a sacred king. The divine right has as such been a key element for legitimating many absolute monarchies
Divine right of kings - Wikipedia
Were you born stupid or did you drop lots of acid?
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Again blondie the Church of England was headed by the king who was called God by God himself. If you said what you just did your head rolls. Which in your case would be an improvement.
Seriously of course the king is not God, but he declared himself to be God and was the head of the English church.
So have you been schizophrenic for long? Ever taken Chlorpromazine?
Try it
OK.....one more lesson for you.....then you must really change your avi to "Imbecile."
In 1215, the royalty forced the king to sign a document and swear to God, that they would have rights.
If the King were God, you moron, why would the king have to swear his oat to God????
1.Three millennia ago, due to the start of monotheism, humanity began to construct the ‘house’ we live in today, the palace known as Western Civilization. Genesis 1:26 suddenly made every individual special, and made the argument against slavery.
In 1215, the Magna Carta underscored the premise with this language:
“Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs,….”
1215: Magna Carta - Online Library of Liberty
2.We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively.
“If you believe that government has no right to intrude upon the exercise of your individual will, that you have a moral duty to be virtuous, that human beings are capable of bettering the world through the use of reason, you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.”
Ben Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27
In 1215, the Magna Carta underscored the premise with this language:
“Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs,…. TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:”
1215: Magna Carta - Online Library of Liberty
Before Genesis, the ruler was god, and above all mankind.
Not since the Bible, and at no time for the Church of England.
Diana dead - Bing images
I wish you could tell the king he wasn't god...
I would love to see if your mouth still moved after being separated from your body
My lesson to you.Again blondie, you are not arguing with me, you are rewriting history in your excuse for a brain
The divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch (e.g. a king) is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from a divine authority, like the monotheist will of God. The monarch is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only the divine authority can judge an unjust monarch and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict their powers runs contrary to the will of the divine and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch. Though this right does not make the monarch the same as a sacred king. The divine right has as such been a key element for legitimating many absolute monarchies
Divine right of kings - Wikipedia
Were you born stupid or did you drop lots of acid?
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Again blondie the Church of England was headed by the king who was called God by God himself. If you said what you just did your head rolls. Which in your case would be an improvement.
Seriously of course the king is not God, but he declared himself to be God and was the head of the English church.
So have you been schizophrenic for long? Ever taken Chlorpromazine?
Try it
OK.....one more lesson for you.....then you must really change your avi to "Imbecile."
In 1215, the royalty forced the king to sign a document and swear to God, that they would have rights.
If the King were God, you moron, why would the king have to swear his oat to God????
1.Three millennia ago, due to the start of monotheism, humanity began to construct the ‘house’ we live in today, the palace known as Western Civilization. Genesis 1:26 suddenly made every individual special, and made the argument against slavery.
In 1215, the Magna Carta underscored the premise with this language:
“Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs,….”
1215: Magna Carta - Online Library of Liberty
2.We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively.
“If you believe that government has no right to intrude upon the exercise of your individual will, that you have a moral duty to be virtuous, that human beings are capable of bettering the world through the use of reason, you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.”
Ben Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27
In 1215, the Magna Carta underscored the premise with this language:
“Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs,…. TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:”
1215: Magna Carta - Online Library of Liberty
Before Genesis, the ruler was god, and above all mankind.
Not since the Bible, and at no time for the Church of England.
Diana dead - Bing images
I wish you could tell the king he wasn't god...
I would love to see if your mouth still moved after being separated from your body
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
My lesson to you.The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Again blondie the Church of England was headed by the king who was called God by God himself. If you said what you just did your head rolls. Which in your case would be an improvement.
Seriously of course the king is not God, but he declared himself to be God and was the head of the English church.
So have you been schizophrenic for long? Ever taken Chlorpromazine?
Try it
OK.....one more lesson for you.....then you must really change your avi to "Imbecile."
In 1215, the royalty forced the king to sign a document and swear to God, that they would have rights.
If the King were God, you moron, why would the king have to swear his oat to God????
1.Three millennia ago, due to the start of monotheism, humanity began to construct the ‘house’ we live in today, the palace known as Western Civilization. Genesis 1:26 suddenly made every individual special, and made the argument against slavery.
In 1215, the Magna Carta underscored the premise with this language:
“Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs,….”
1215: Magna Carta - Online Library of Liberty
2.We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively.
“If you believe that government has no right to intrude upon the exercise of your individual will, that you have a moral duty to be virtuous, that human beings are capable of bettering the world through the use of reason, you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.”
Ben Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27
In 1215, the Magna Carta underscored the premise with this language:
“Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs,…. TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:”
1215: Magna Carta - Online Library of Liberty
Before Genesis, the ruler was god, and above all mankind.
Not since the Bible, and at no time for the Church of England.
Diana dead - Bing images
I wish you could tell the king he wasn't god...
I would love to see if your mouth still moved after being separated from your body
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
I remember the day that I taught you that the founding fathers were members of the church of England. The moment they said no to the king their was a war.
Again simpleton only one of us has a disorganized brain pattern resulting in paranoid delusions
My lesson to you.Again blondie the Church of England was headed by the king who was called God by God himself. If you said what you just did your head rolls. Which in your case would be an improvement.
Seriously of course the king is not God, but he declared himself to be God and was the head of the English church.
So have you been schizophrenic for long? Ever taken Chlorpromazine?
Try it
OK.....one more lesson for you.....then you must really change your avi to "Imbecile."
In 1215, the royalty forced the king to sign a document and swear to God, that they would have rights.
If the King were God, you moron, why would the king have to swear his oat to God????
1.Three millennia ago, due to the start of monotheism, humanity began to construct the ‘house’ we live in today, the palace known as Western Civilization. Genesis 1:26 suddenly made every individual special, and made the argument against slavery.
In 1215, the Magna Carta underscored the premise with this language:
“Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs,….”
1215: Magna Carta - Online Library of Liberty
2.We’ve built western civilization on two pillars: God created every human in His image and human beings are able to investigate and make rational conclusions about the world. These two ideas were born in Jerusalem and Athens, respectively.
“If you believe that government has no right to intrude upon the exercise of your individual will, that you have a moral duty to be virtuous, that human beings are capable of bettering the world through the use of reason, you are a product of Jerusalem and Athens.”
Ben Shapiro, “The Right Side Of History.”
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27
In 1215, the Magna Carta underscored the premise with this language:
“Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs,…. TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:”
1215: Magna Carta - Online Library of Liberty
Before Genesis, the ruler was god, and above all mankind.
Not since the Bible, and at no time for the Church of England.
Diana dead - Bing images
I wish you could tell the king he wasn't god...
I would love to see if your mouth still moved after being separated from your body
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
I remember the day that I taught you that the founding fathers were members of the church of England. The moment they said no to the king their was a war.
Again simpleton only one of us has a disorganized brain pattern resulting in paranoid delusions
You've never taught anyone anything, dunce.
Any who read this quote of yours knows that:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
