The World Cup scores a green goal. The event’s organizers “are earning praise for the event’s execution — and its environmental friendliness.”
Sen. John Kerry calls for the reopening of the CIA’s bin Laden unit. He writes, “Disbanding the bin Laden unit sends the message to the terrorists that they can kill thousands of Americans without being held to account.”
President Bush explains why he refuses to attend the funerals of fallen soldiers.
Wal-Mart has asked Al Gore to address company executives on global warming at the “retailer’s quarterly conference on sustainability.â€
Cheney’s investments indicate that he’s betting on large deficits to drive down the dollar, drive up interest rates, and cause inflation.
“Michelle Malkin is taking some heat from her compadres on the right because she failed to apologized after heaping a great deal of vitriol on a woman who subsequently committed suicide.†And then she smeared the woman again.
And finally: Check out “Permission,” a great PSA on marriage fairness that won an award at the recent Media That Matters Film Festival.
Bush hasn’t the balls to face the families of those he sent to die in his war. Chickenshit chickenhawk-in-chief.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:09 pmMy local paper has hired Michelle Malkin for its op-ed list of contributors.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:18 pmI would cancel my subscription, but I need the news.
This is Hastert country, the papers are all Republican, Bush-loving, Hastert supporters, and it is infuriating that Dems cannot get coverage of their news events. When Dems must be noted in a news article, it is always as a comparison to the Republicans, or hearsay report.
Mean-spirited Malkin will further the vitriol that fills the editorial pages and that is truly regrettable.
“Because which funeral do you go to? In my judgment, I think if I go to one I should go to all. How do you honor one person but not another?â€
July 6th, 2006 at 7:24 pmThat’s Georgie! All or nothing! Black and white. Take it or leave it.
He’d rather leave it for the families to mourn while he continues to make stupid irrelevant small talk with reporters.
In the lyrics of Pink,
President Bush explains why he refuses to attend the funerals of fallen soldiers.
I guess that lets us all off going to funerals, afterall, which funeral to attend?
July 6th, 2006 at 7:27 pmWhat an ass…
Sen. John Kerry calls for the reopening of the CIA’s bin Laden unit. He writes, “Disbanding the bin Laden unit sends the message to the terrorists that they can kill thousands of Americans without being held to account.â€
Yeah, I mean, we haven’t even shut down al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan, killed thousands of terrorist in Afghanistan and Iraq, and severely hampered their ability to do just about anything. Nope, the terrorists are definitely not being held to account at all Mr. Kerry, they are basically riding the gravy train straight to their 72 virgins.
I don’t know why they are disbanding the group that was supposed to find bin Laden, but it would be a genius trick to publicly say this to make bin Laden think we’ve given up on finding him….
July 6th, 2006 at 7:32 pmI’m listening to the Lamont/Lieberman debate. I think Lamont’s doing well. Lieberman doesn’t seem to do well in the debate format, and seems desperate.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:34 pmLeiberman’s using Reagan’s old phrase, “There you go again.” It’s not holding water.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:39 pmAs far as Bush and funerals, keep in mind that when his 3-year-old sister died, Babs and HW spent the next day playing golf. Then they packed up and headed to Texas where they stayed while the child was buried in Conn. Add to this the fact that they never even bothered to tell W his sister was sick before she died. Oh yea, and Babs “beautiful mind’ Bush refused to attend her own mothe’s funeral.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:52 pmZoo: “I’m listening to the Lamont/Lieberman debate. I think Lamont’s doing well.” - - I watched some of it too. Bug-eyed Lamont makes nattering seem like haiku.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:56 pm#11 - Wow, I guess your attitude explains a lot.
I only knew one boy growing up who shot someone with a bb gun. The other boy’s eye was almost put out, and the whole neighborhood was horrified. He had to go see a counselor. I don’t know what ever happened to him. As a parent I’ve known a bunch of rotten kids, but none of them shot other kids with bb guns, or killed animals.
Does anyone else know kids who behaved this way, and everyone thought it was just fine?
July 6th, 2006 at 8:01 pmI watched some of it too. Bug-eyed Lamont makes nattering seem like haiku.
Comment by Badmoodman
*snort*
July 6th, 2006 at 8:03 pmI can’t watch Lieberman because his immovable upper lip makes me nervous.
#10 - Lily,
July 6th, 2006 at 8:04 pmSo Babs and Lizzie Borden have something in common. Says volumes for family values!
Seixon,
NEVER ever would I shoot ANYONE with a bb gun, even as a kid.
And I had 3 older brothers that loved to delight in charley horses……
Exploding a frog???!!!??
Just plain mean.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:05 pmThe worst thing I ever did to an animal was cut a worm in half, because of the story about how both sides will simply slither away from each other, no problems……
W sounds pretty sick to me…
Lily,
July 6th, 2006 at 8:06 pmThat’s very interesting, and very telling.
Where did you find that information?
Anyone who would commit suicide over something that Michelle Malkin had to say had to be pretty screwed up to begin with.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:12 pm#5
July 6th, 2006 at 8:18 pmBush is a sociopath but so are a lot of people including the local used car salesman. Bush’s real problem is that he is a psychopathic, paranoid schizophrenic ( anyone else hear God talking to them out there?), sado-masochistic, closet queen. He is Caligula reincarnate.
Welll, I knew someone who chose to let a crayfish spend its last moments in Hydrogen Peroxide and recorded the event in hideous detail for a HS science project. He,not the crayfish, but the boy died when his mother’s station wagon sank into some muck in a smamp. Justice?
July 6th, 2006 at 8:19 pmtrueblue, it’s from Justin Frank’s book, Bush on the Couch”
July 6th, 2006 at 8:19 pmSorry, this is the best link I can provide:
http://www.amazon.com/ gp/ product/ 0060736704/ 102-6497181-5339331?v=glance&n=283155
That’s swamp, not smamp.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:20 pmPage 3 of the book.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:24 pmThanks Lily!
July 6th, 2006 at 8:27 pmHe,not the crayfish, but the boy died when his mother’s station wagon sank into some muck in a smamp. Justice?
Comment by WaltTheMan
A bit excessive, in the justice department.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:29 pmtrueblue, Justin Frank also has a bunch of posts on Huffington Post. I think you can go there and put his name into the search thing, and they’ll all come up. Scary reading…
July 6th, 2006 at 8:31 pmHas anyone noticed the increased number and desperation of the trolls on left-leaning blogs? Is this a sign that big changes are on the horizon? Even Rush needed a Democrat in the White House–it was getting tough for him to keep trying to prop up Bush 41 by spending hour after hour bashing the Kennedys. With a Republican White House, Republican congress and right-leaning Supreme Court it must be hell trying to explain the insanity that is the failed Bush presidency. But, hey–freedom’s on the march, dudes.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:40 pmThanks, Zooey!
July 6th, 2006 at 8:43 pmI had unexpected company and missed the last half of the L&L debate. The first half had Joe looking belligerent and defensive, and using the same words repeatedly, “Who is Ned Lamont?”
July 6th, 2006 at 8:52 pmComments from viewers?
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/ 07/ 06/ washington/ 06cnd-delay.html?hp&ex=1152244800&en=9f37ca8ce6e4ebba&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Oh this is good!!
July 6th, 2006 at 8:54 pmTom Delay has to stay on the ballot this year!
He was trying to worm his way off the ticket so that another Repug could take his place.
It went to court, and the judge decided what he was trying to do was,… Guess What? WRONG!
Love it…
Reply to #30:
Marie, you didn’t miss much. The second half of the debate proceeded much like the first, with Lieberman looking increasingly belligerent and uncomfortable, and Lamont looking increasingly confident. The one major exception was when Lieberman asked Lamont if he would disclose his income tax information, and Lamont proselytized for a good minute but most noticeably failed to answer the question. That one question kept it from being a complete grand slam for Lamont.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:06 pmThanks, Tripmaster.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:08 pmI just checked MSNBC and many pundits agree with you too.
Marie, I wasn’t watching per se, but I was listening. Joe sounded aggravated, and whenever I did look at the screen, Joe looked a bit peeved that he even had to be there, and he kept interrupting Lamont and prematurely answering. To me that always looks bad — kind of desperate. Like Badmoodman said, Lamont is bug-eyed, but he came across as genuine to me.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:09 pmIn 1967, when he was a college senior, Bush branded fraternity pledges on their buttocks with red-hot coat hangers. One pledge (or the parent of a pledge) complained, and because Bush came from a famous family, a New York Times reporter interviewed him. Bush retorted that he didn’t understand what the big deal was, that what his victims suffered was “no worse than a cigarette burn.” Somehow, the reporter let that response stand.
From the Huffington search on Justin Frank….
July 6th, 2006 at 9:10 pmSo, Seixon, what do you think know?
This man is a sick f*ck.
Chaps,
July 6th, 2006 at 9:14 pmMom was not in the car. Brat lifted her keys and went on a joy ride. Parked the car over what looked like solid land and took a nap - it wasn’t.
Above the Clouds,
July 6th, 2006 at 9:21 pmOn some of the posts, I couldn’t even get through the comments, and just skipped over to another post. And they call the Left unhinged? Over the past 2 or 3 days they’ve gone from bad to worse.
The “What Does ‘GOP’ Stand For?” Contest results are in.
And the winners are:
1st Place: “George Orwell’s Prediction”
July 6th, 2006 at 9:31 pm2nd Place: “Gag Our Press”
3rd Place Tie:
- “Going Off to Prison”
- “Gospel Of Privilege”
- “Gay Obsessed Psychos”
- “Grotesque Orwellian Parody”
Which funerals should the President attend? How does one pick and choose? And of course, the diversity lobby would be demanding equal representation for every nitnoid subgroup. If he goes to a white soldier’s funeral, Jesse Jackson will holler. If he goes to a black soldier’s funeral, David Duke will holler. And if he doesn’t speak a bit of Spanish at every funeral, MALDEF, LULAC, and La Raza will holler.
There’s also a risk it would turn into a circus. Can you imagine the media frenzy? And, of course, crazies like Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, who’ve been picketing military funerals, couldn’t stay away. I suggest it’s sufficient for the President to occasionally visit the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to symbolize his presence in spirit at all military funerals.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:36 pmYeah… I don’t know of any young kids who ever did this sort of thing. Clearly any kid that would shoot a BB gun and mess around with frogs is a sociopath. Hmmm, wouldn’t that make most of the US population of men sociopaths? Although I never put a firecracker in a frog, I have caught bees and killed bees. I guess I’m a sociopath too, along with all those other crazy young boys who do similar things.
Seixon - yepper - you took the words right out of my mouth… you certainly are a sociopath.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:36 pmAll together, now. One, two, three… Happt Birthday, Mr. Resident.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:38 pm#12 Zooey - yeah, I once knew a kid that tortured animals and shot bbs at the other kids. When he became an adult, he stabbed both his parents to death. hummm…
July 6th, 2006 at 9:39 pmDarth Cheney wouldn’t capitalize on America’s misfortune. He wouldn’t withold knowledge of short-sold airline stocks,stand down the airforce when the US is under attack,sacrifice a network of CIA spies just for personal revenge,lie about WMD’s,shoot friends in the face, build personal use bunkers then try to start WWIII, illegally divide Iraqs oil fields up before 9/11 and ……………..
July 6th, 2006 at 9:47 pmOne can only wish that Cheney suffers the same fate as his buddy Ken Ley. Why does Cheney hate America? Why does Cheney want to destroy our nation?
July 6th, 2006 at 9:52 pmThanks for your responses about nut job kids, and good kids, too. I knew those things GWB did as a kid were unbalanced, and so do you.
I wonder where Seixon went?
Goodnight, all!
July 6th, 2006 at 10:38 pmThe World Cup scores a green goal. The event’s organizers “are earning praise for the event’s execution — and its environmental friendliness.â€
July 6th, 2006 at 11:37 pmWell, its Germany. They are concern about these things. Just take a look at their energy program in the future. By the way, I am so mad about the defeating of Argentina. Germany has nothing and the best team in the tournament flung due to Pékerman and the referee.
The only person I knew as a kid who did anything cruel to animals was a distant cousin. In her early 20s, she was diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic. Coincidence? Probably. Nevertheless, as I said, I never knew anyone else who exhibited cruelties.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:40 pmi had a busy day away from the puter…just now catching up… must get some earlier sleep tonight… but it just wouldn’t be right without something from crooksandliars:
Harwood:Lieberman Used Republican Talking Points in the Debate; Lamont Polished
John Harwood spoke much more candidly than I thought he would have tonight after the debate. He pointed out that Lieberman used Ronald Reagan’s and George Bush’s talking point strategies in his debate with Ned Lamont which is right in line with his Republican influences. He said that Lamont spoke directly to the people and came off very polished.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:22 amvideo also…
so much for a biden run…
Biden: India and Dunkin’ Donuts
Joe Biden really knows how to work a group of people.
oh man…
July 7th, 2006 at 12:27 amI suggest it’s sufficient for the President to occasionally visit the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to symbolize his presence in spirit at all military funerals.
Comment by Anchorage Activist — July 6, 2006 @
You’re correct. It would be in character for him. After all, he joined the national guard “to symbolize his presence in spirit,” with those actually risking their lives fighting an enemy.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:30 amNoron with Cindy Sheehan
Norah O’Donnell was pretty off the wall in her interview with Cindy Sheehan yesterday. Why all the hostility? One can agree with her politics or not, but Noron really got worked up a couple of times and her questions were silly.
other good links too…
July 7th, 2006 at 12:32 amtwo versions of Pink’s “Dear Mr. President” :
Pink performs Dear Mr President Live in NYC (4:59)
http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=9eDJ3cuXKV4&search=Pink%2C%20Bush
excellent slide show - Pink and the Indigo Girls (4:33)
http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=lB_j5-Z2c78&search=Pink%2C%20Bush
g’nite…
July 7th, 2006 at 12:46 amI really liked the video that’s linked there. It gets the point across well, I think.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:27 amI hope Michelle Malkin swallows a turd.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:37 amWhat does North Korea want?
READ HERE
July 7th, 2006 at 5:20 amMichello who? Seriously, I have no idea who this person is.
July 7th, 2006 at 8:31 amMichele Malkin and Ann Coulter are only returning the vitriol the liberals have poured on conservatives for decades, and still do. Only yesterday, when two state Supreme Courts upheld laws or constitutional amendments that defined marriage as between one man and one woman, liberals went back to their decades old mantra that anyone who disagrees with them is some type of bigot - racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, etc. These labels are very hurtful to conservatives, both to themselves and their place in their communities, which is exactly why liberals hurl such labels. How can someone who wants to save Social Security necessarily a racist? How is someone who wants to preserve the institution of marriage necessarily a bigot?
Only when liberals stop hurling their own hate speech, should they demand that conservatives stop firing back. I am still stunned at how sensative liberals are, considering the scorn and vitriol they poured on conservatives and Christians for years. Liberals have finally awoken a sleeping giant, and they are about to be trampled.
July 7th, 2006 at 8:43 amWhy is there no thread on the Lieberman / Lamont debate? Did the moderators realize that Lieberman did what he needed to do to secure the moderates of his own party and independents as well? Are they afraid to discuss Joe’s invocation of Republican debate lines to make Lamont seem hysterical and flip-flopping? Have “progressives” reached their high water mark, and will now start receding with Lamont’s defeat on August 8?
Why are they afraid to discuss this?
July 7th, 2006 at 8:49 am#38, What does the GOP stand for?
July 7th, 2006 at 9:00 amHow ’bout
Greedy Old Pigs?
#12
I only knew one boy growing up who shot someone with a bb gun. The other boy’s eye was almost put out, and the whole neighborhood was horrified. He had to go see a counselor. I don’t know what ever happened to him. As a parent I’ve known a bunch of rotten kids, but none of them shot other kids with bb guns, or killed animals.
Does anyone else know kids who behaved this way, and everyone thought it was just fine?
Comment by Zooey aka Zookeeper — July 6, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
Forgive me for not being familiar with you, but I assume you are female?
Boys play rough, and when you put a bunch of them together—they do stupid things.
When I was a boy, about 10 to 12 of us would happen to get together on occasion with our BB guns. We’d divide into 2 teams, then ran around a wooded area—shooting the crap out of eachother. We never considered the idea that someone could get seriously injured, and fortunately for us, no one ever did. This activity was not sanctioned by anyone’s parents, nor did we let any of our parents know about it. We all knew we would be in trouble if they found out.
As for the killing of animals, I’d say that nearly every boy with a BB gun has experimented to see what his gun could do. Birds, frogs, rabbits, cats…all became targets at one time or another. The same holds true for firecrackers, eventually the fun wears off in just watching them explode before you start experimenting with them as well.
There was always a couple of boys who would cross over into the sick zone—the real sociopaths. I was unfortunate enough to witness two such occasions in my life, both involving cats. One boy caught a cat and kept throwing it in the air to see if it would land on its feet. When it grew too weary to stand anymore, another boy joined him, and they began kicking it back and forth. Horrified, the rest of us scolded them, and eventually quit playing with them all together. When I was a teenager, a couple of boys put gasoline on a cat and lit it on fire. It ran into a field and started a grass fire. In my revulsion, I left and never returned.
I only shared these stories to show the difference between a normal boy’s behavior, and an abnormal boy’s behavior. These particular boys were losers across the board. They always seemed to be in some kind of trouble or another, and their extreme behavior caused them to be shunned throughout their school years. They certainly weren’t the kind of kids that aspired to be President, or to do anything productive in life.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:06 am57 Jason
July 7th, 2006 at 9:10 amYes, liberals/progressives do stoop to name-calling at times and do use labels. However, not all labels are inaccurate nor vitriolic but descriptive, from both sides. For example, to say someone is a bigot for opposing equal rights of marriage to those of a different group, i.e. homosexuals, is correctly applying the definition of “bigot”. To call the supporter of such equal rights “unpatriotic” is not using an accurate label, while a term such as “gay activist” or “equalitarian” would be. As for “scorn and vitriol” on Christians, I believe the fundamentalist Christian right has done plenty of casting of aspertions on those of us Christians who don’t agree with their particular belief system. That’s one of the major reasons I strongly support separation of church and state. No law in the US should be based solely on religious belief which the “protection of marriage” laws are, making them religiously biased and bigoted.
#62 - Before someone complains about you use of “biased” and “bigoted” to describe those with whom you disagree concerning separation of church & state:
Biased - “to give a settled and often prejudiced outlook to” Based on this definition, the religious right is very biased.
Bigoted - “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” Yup, the religious right is also very bigoted.
Now, for all those ’sensitive Republicans” who decry the use of hateful terminology used to accurately describe their actions: when you stop, I’ll stop. The radical right has demonized and vilified the word “liberal” simply because they could. Now that their being called on their past behaviour, I find myself curiously unmoved by their exhortations about hoe “sensitive” they are to their own tactics being used against them.
If you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen!
July 7th, 2006 at 9:26 amBigoted - “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices†Yup, the religious right is also very bigoted.
Comment by Democratic Soldier — July 7, 2006 @ 9:26 am
And by this definition, you are not bigoted? This definition would apply to several individuals among the anti-religious left that post comments here. For the record, the religious right didn’t invent a bias towards homosexuality—the Bible clearly condemns it. If you don’t like it, take it up with God.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:05 am#62 - Antagonist
The boy I wrote about shot another boy from an upstairs window, sniper-style. He was only one in on the “joke.”
I can see the division you make between “normal” and “abnormal” play. I guess if a bunch of dorky boys want to go out and shoot each other, and they’re all aware of the game, more power to ‘em — until the medical bills come in. Killing helpless animals is never acceptable, and you’re right, there is a line that should never be crossed, and most certainly those crossing that line are not presidential material.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:09 am63 Antagonist
July 7th, 2006 at 10:16 am“Take it up with God” - YES!!! That’s exactly where it should be taken. Not to any secular court, legislature, executive branch and not even to the general public for a vote. Homosexuality in and of itself has no bearing on secular society. Further, some of us Christians do not believe homosexuality is a sin. I, for one, believe that God made homosexuals and would abhor our treatment of them or a homosexual “giving up his nature” to pass as a heterosexual in his/her choice of romantic partner. Finally, the Bible is a book for believers, not for non-believers, and, therefore, should not be the basis for any secular laws.
#64
Zooey aka Zookeeper
Your story is sort of typical with boys. Have you ever heard it said, “It seemed like a good idea at the time?” Too often boys don’t think before they act. I had a friend shoot me in the very same fashion, except I was hit in the thigh. I thought I got stung by a bee until I heard laughter from his bedroom window. Now that I think about it, his family was pretty dysfunctional, and he ended up going to prison a few years out of highschool for some drug charges…
July 7th, 2006 at 10:18 am#65
I challenge you to re-read your Bible. This time let it speak for itself, instead of inserting your own beliefs into the text.
“Take it up with God†- YES!!! That’s exactly where it should be taken. Not to any secular court, legislature, executive branch and not even to the general public for a vote.
How would that ever work, for or against same same sex marriage?
July 7th, 2006 at 10:33 amNow that I think about it, his family was pretty dysfunctional, and he ended up going to prison a few years out of highschool for some drug charges…
See what I mean, Antagonist!!
The sniper-boy in my story intended to cause harm to the boy he shot — he wasn’t playing a joke. It’s the intent that makes the difference here.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:34 amJuan C,
Yes, as a kid most people do something that isn’t PC. Oh well, it’s not like anyone here will admit to doing anything of the similar sort when they were a kid. All such things are conveniently forgotten when it’s time for demonizing Bush for doing something as a kid that many kids do.
Next you’ll pretend that hunting is unprecedented and that Dick Cheney is a sociopath for doing it. It’s all about pretending that fairly normal behavior is “weird” and then calling Bush or Cheney “evil” for having done it. History began November 2000 for you people.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:41 am67 Antagonist
It’s circular reasoning to say “let the Bible speak for itself”. The books of the Bible were written by humans, in a social context, in a particular language, with a particular audience targeted. Then the Bible was assembled by accepting some of the sacred writings and rejecting others. Again, this was in a particular social context. Then the Bible was interpreted, translated, and rewritten by other humans within other social contexts. You can’t just “read” the Bible. It must be interpreted and, most importantly, applied to your own individual life.
Same-sex marriage must be allowed by a non-discriminatory secular government. There is absolutely no compelling reason for society to prevent two consenting adults of any sexual orientation from committing themselves to each other legally. Actually, I would prefer that the government only register “civil unions” which can then be “sanctioned/sanctified” by individual churches if this is desired by the couple and the church.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:55 amZooey aka Zookeeper
This is pretty thought-provoking. Perhaps you can relate to this—you grow up, move out of state, establish your own life, and never really look back at your childhood friends through wiser eyes. I have to admit that I haven’t really made an effort to do that before—-Thanks for bringing this subject up! :)
July 7th, 2006 at 10:56 am#64 - “For the record, the religious right didn’t invent a bias towards homosexuality—the Bible clearly condemns it. If you don’t like it, take it up with God.”
For the record, the religious right picks and chooses which verses of the Bible to highlight. They’re quite careful to NOT disparage the Republicans that engage in extra-marital sex, but damn anyone other than Republicans when it suits them.
Why do they trumpet the sexual code only against same sex and completely ignore the articles against sex during “that time of the month”? Hmmm?
Could it be. . . . . . BIAS?!?!?!
Yes, it’s quite clearly a very unique and very excusionary bias, and one that will eventually bite them in the butt. If you’re going to claim to support the biblican codes, but only CERTAIN biblical codes to the exclusion of the ones with which you don’t particularly agree, then you’re only using the “Bible” as a bashing board and not a standard. They (religious right) claim the Bible is completely the word of God, has no mistakes, no contradictions, and is perfect. Why doesn’t the “perfect word of God” not apply when looking at certain verses?
Sorry, you lose on that particular argument. Try again.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:11 amPLC (PatrioticLiberalChristian)
It’s circular reasoning to say “let the Bible speak for itselfâ€. The books of the Bible were written by humans, in a social context, in a particular language, with a particular audience targeted.
You left out the part that it was inspired by God. All scripture is inspired or God-breathed.
Then the Bible was assembled by accepting some of the sacred writings and rejecting others. Again, this was in a particular social context.
This was actually done in respect to the canon of scripture—separating the inspired writings from the non inspired.
Then the Bible was interpreted, translated, and rewritten by other humans within other social contexts.
The Bible was translated by a large body of scholars from the original writings, with no respect to social contexts. In fact every Authorized Version of the Bible in existence has been retranslated from the original manuscripts. Our English versions contain some translators errors, but they are minor and do not affect the clear message.
You can’t just “read†the Bible. It must be interpreted and, most importantly, applied to your own individual life.
When you read the Bible, you should be aware of who wrote the portion you’re reading, and who it’s written to. You also need to interpret the meaning within the context in which it was written. It is entirely possible to know exactly what the Bible is saying. There are lexicons and commentaries that can help with gaining a clear understanding of this as well. Jumping around the Bible, and cherry picking their favorite verses is how many come up with their own private interpretations, and according to Scripture there should be no private interpretations.
It is not circular reasoning to allow the Bible to speak for itself. To paraphrase—All scripture is given for doctrine, for reproof, and for instruction in righteousness. It is the standard to which we measure our traditions and our beliefs against. When a person runs across something that seems to go against what they believe, and then decides that “It can’t possible mean that, because I’ve been taught this, or I’ve always believed that,†then they are interpreting Scripture through their traditions, and through their beliefs, and not allowing the Bible to speak for itself. Personal beliefs and traditions are to be subject to the Bible, not the other way around.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:54 am#74
I agree with you whole-heartedly—in God’s eyes sin is sin. Homosexuality is no worse than adultry. However, adulterers are not seeking to redefine marriage, nor do they have an agenda that they’re attempting to foist upon society.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:01 pmAntagonist
July 7th, 2006 at 12:13 pmYour statement “according to Scripture there should be no private interpretations” is a perfect example of circular reasoning. Then should all Christians follow the Catholic or the Protestant canon since they are different? How can choosing the canon or making a translation not be done within a social context? If I tell you I stayed home today to fix my flat, what picture do you have in your mind? If you see me changing the tire on my car, you probably are American and interpreting my statement from that context. If you are British, you see me painting or otherwise working on my apartment. And these are contemporary phrases in the same language. The term “homosexual” did not exist in the 1890s and the meaning of the term has changed dramatically since then. What the Bible means in regard to homosexual practice must be interpreted in the language and context of the time as well as juxtapositioning what it says about the rest of our relationships with each other and with God. I do not believe that contempory issues regarding homosexuality are parallel to those of the Bible and, therefore, the Bible’s prohibitions do not fit either. I accept that the Bible is inspired writing. Can you accept that, perhaps, my opposition to some of the interpretation of that writing may also be inspired by God?
Thanks for bringing this subject up! :)
Comment by Antagonist
Thanks! I’m glad I did, it proved thought provoking. :)
July 7th, 2006 at 12:19 pmI’d like to take some of the arguments further. I don’t believe God did condemn homosexuality. In the case of Sodom and Gomorah, these men used raped as a way to show domination over others, in the same was as inmates in prisons do. The inmates, in the vast majority are not homosexual. They are exhibiting control behavior. In S & G, there was no need to exert this control over women in like manner. Society did it for them. The behavior is very clearly evidenced in their reaction to the angels who delivered God’s message to Lot. They wanted Lot to send them out, not to have a caring relationship with them, but to rape them. I find it very difficult to believe God condemned homosexuals for having a loving tender relationship with each other, while the only virtuous man in the city had sex with and impregnated his 2 daughters.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:21 pm77 Antagonist
July 7th, 2006 at 12:24 pmCome on, sure adulters are “redefining marriage” from a pledge of faithfullness until “death do us part” to “until I find someone else interesting”. Homosexuals are not trying to “foist” anything on society. They are trying to lift off themselves the yoke society as placed on them, to join in the society of marriage. Religious organizations should not be foisting their right to refuse to sanctify homosexual relationships onto society as a whole. Further, can you be absolutely, positively sure that God doesn’t bring homosexual couples together? I can’t and so as a Christian I don’t want to get in the way of any homosexual wishing to marry. I leave it to God to bless the union or not.
PLC & Lily - Excellent comments.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:25 pm#77 - “Jumping around the Bible, and cherry picking their favorite verses is how many come up with their own private interpretations, and according to Scripture there should be no private interpretations.”
I agree wholeheartedly. It’s something that the religious right and religious left are both quite fond of. It’s the religious right that “claims” to not be doing this, so I consider them much more hypocritical.
“Personal beliefs and traditions are to be subject to the Bible, not the other way around.”
Some “traditions” listed in the Bible are no longer valid. Do you kill your children when they “curse” you? You’re anti-Bible if you don’t!
Do you allow your slaves to worship the God of their choice? You’re anti-Bible if you don’t!
The biggest problem between right and left religious is how dogmatic they are towards their opposition.
The right considers anyone who disagrees with them “evil”, “anti-Christian” and “anti-God”.
The left considers anyone who disagrees with them “wrong”, “anti-personal-choice” and “wrong headed”.
I know which side is more forgiving to different view.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:28 pm80 Lilly
Exactly! Further, the admonition against homosexuality to the early Hebrews has to be related to the fact that homosexual behavior was part of the fertility rites of the Baal worshippers, who were the biggest “competitors” to early Judaism. The Baal temples used temple prostitutes, male and females, and the priests were also involved in the rites. The early Jews were trying to set themselves apart from other cultures and the lure of any sexual encounter as part of a religious ceremony had to be quite a challenge!
BTW, if we don’t interpret the Bible in context NONE of us should get married. Saint Paul thought the second coming was going to happen in his life time and, therefore, advocated that believers who were unmarried remain so and dedicate their remaining time to worship.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:35 pmAddition to 84
July 7th, 2006 at 12:42 pmLeviticus is the primary book of the Bible prohibiting homosexuality. The Levites were the tribe of the Hebrews chosen to be the priests for all the tribes. So, isn’t it possible that God was actually telling the Hebrew priests to not be like the Baal priests? Maybe those Levite priests just thought no one else should be able to do what they couldn’t. :}
GOP stands for GODS OWN PEOPLE !
July 7th, 2006 at 12:49 pmNo post 87 > GOP means Greedy Oil Perverts > lol.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:28 pm#78 PLC (PatrioticLiberalChristian)
If you were to write a book, you would establish canon. If the chapters of your book were to somehow become separated, and perhaps even mixed in with chapters from other books, your book could be reestablished because of your writing style and subject matter, or canon.
The writings of specific authors in the Bible were recognized this way, but an additional canon is also recognized in each of the books of the Bible as well—God’s authorship. This is how we can determine what is inspired and what is not.
I’m not sure what you mean by social context, but the original manuscripts were interpreted into the language of the day. The King James version is in Old English—basically an archaic language, difficult for many to understand. That is why there are newer translations—each going back to the same original manuscripts and reinterpreting. If you’re not exactly sure what a word means in a particular portion of Scripture, you can look it up in a lexicon and see the word in its original language, and the interpretation. Beyond that, that average person can go no further. But to use your example of fixing your flat, I would know whether you meant your apartment or your car by the context that statement is in, but not when it is isolated from that context. Many Christians wrench verses from their context to fit their beliefs.
As to your defense of homosexuality, the meaning is pretty clear here. So as to not be accused of taking this out of context, I’ll provide some of the some of the surrounding verses, but highlight the specifics;
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
This was written by the Apostle Paul in a letter to the Roman Christians. He opens with a traditional greeting, he then expresses his desire to visit them, then he mentions how God’s righteousness is revealed in the Gospel, then he contrasts that with God’s anger towards mankind in the portion I posted. He goes on to talk about God’s judgment in the next chapter.
This was also penned by Paul in 1 Corinthians Chapter 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
I mean no offense, but I simply cannot accept your opposition to this interpretation, and that it somehow may also be inspired by God.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:31 pm“George Orwell’s Predictionâ€
From #39, above, by Avenging Angel
July 7th, 2006 at 1:31 pm88 Antagonist
July 7th, 2006 at 2:25 pmI am perfectly comfortable with us having different interpretations and I take no offense personally. I just don’t think our government should be dictating which we should follow and setting limits on personal freedom, including marriage, on the basis of one interpretation. As for St Paul, remember that he was steeped in the Jewish faith prior to his conversion, a social context, and uses this as the basis for his comments. Further, Greeks and Romans of the time had a practice called pederasty in which single men took boys into their home to train and educate in politics, military matters, and sex until a prescribed age and then the men would marry. Thus, they “abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another”. Finally, the Greek word (I can’t remember it off the top of my head) that is translated as “homosexual” actually refers to only the passive male in a homosexual act. I just don’t think it’s a clear and straightforward as you see it. Regardless, may God bless both of us!
#90
In our country, the government is by the people and for the people. Apparently the majority is still against same-sex marriage for the time being. I believe that eventually those who oppose this will become a persecuted minority.
If I remember correctly, some translations of the Bible indentify both roles within homosexual relationship as “Abusers of themselves with mankind,” (dominant male) and “effeminate.” (passive male)
Consider this for a moment—If God had consistently condemned homosexuality throughout the Bible, at what point did it become acceptable? Don’t you think He would let us know if He had changed his mind about this? You’d think that God being all knowing, and with His infinite wisdom, He’d know that this would be an issue today.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:51 pmOr…could it be that He has already spoken on this matter and many refuse to accept it?
Antagonist
July 7th, 2006 at 3:15 pmOur country is supposed to be of, by, and for the people as you state. But that does not mean the majority are to have the power to limit the rights of any minority. The fact is that we, as Christians, disagree on this issue so why should religious views of homosexuality be the basis for a secular government. Further, if government has the power to regulate on the basis of religious belief, it is not too far from having the power to regulate the religion itself. Separation of church and state is protection of both. I’ll check back to see if you have a response but I’ve got to go. I’ve enjoyed this very civil discussion.
#92 - So, what you’re saying is that the people who were against allowing inter-racial marriages became a persecuted minority.
If I recall, in the book of Judges there is a story that is almost exactly the same as the story of Sodom & Gamorrah except for one small detail: the city was not burned afterwards. So it does seem as if God was lightening up.
Maybe, it’s like many of the things that we’ve changed since the time the Bible was written. We can now eat pork, used to be we weren’t supposed to. Could it be the change in hygine and food storage? There was a time it was acceptable to kill the women and children after a war and not just the army. Could it be a chance in our perspective of who we consider to be a combatant? There was a time that it was considered acceptbale to kill people for not believing in the christian version of God. Now almost everyone understands that this is unacceptable behavior.
I support your right to read and interpret the Bible in your way, so please support me in interpreting it my way.
“For God sent his Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” John 3:17
July 7th, 2006 at 3:27 pm#92 & #93
I remain firm on what I believe is a Biblical stance, however I’ll say this;
I have nothing against homosexuals or lesbians, I know some of each, and consider them to be nice, likeable people. I don’t think for an instant that I am in any way better than they are. I don’t agree with their lifestyles, (for lack of a better word) but I know it is not for me to judge them—I can find my own sins in the list I provided earlier from Romans chapter 1.
I accept you both as fellow-human beings—equals.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:51 pm94 Antagonist
July 7th, 2006 at 4:00 pmI’m guessing you think Democratic Soldier and I are both homosexuals by your last comment. I am a happily married definitely heterosexual with a child. I just think homosexuals as Americans deserve the same rights as heterosexuals and, yes, I think God has called me to claim this to my fellow Christians. If you meant, and I hope you did, that you accept homosexuals as equals, then please join us in demanding that our secular laws respect their fundamental right to marry whom they choose. If your congregation/church will not sanction that marriage, fine as that is your right as well. My last post here. Thanks for the debate.
Antagonist and PLC,
Thank you both for an enjoyable debate! I was a bit busy at work, or I’d have participated more.
I don’t expect Antagonist to “accept” gay marriage. Marriage is something that exists in the heart, not on a piece of paper. I would hope that, eventually, America would not consider my sexual orientation an impediment to making a committment with my partner, but I’m not holding my breath. ;-)
Peace!
July 7th, 2006 at 4:39 pmThat is why there are newer translations—each going back to the same original manuscripts and reinterpreting.
Comment by Antagonist
Whereas I accept different people interpret what they read in different ways, the above is not true. With very few exceptions, newer translations were updated from previous translations. It’s only been in the past few decades that attempts have been made to go back to the original transcripts, where possible.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:30 pmI don’t know why they are disbanding the group that was supposed to find bin Laden, but it would be a genius trick to publicly say this to make bin Laden think we’ve given up on finding him….
Comment by Seixon
July 7th, 2006 at 9:13 pm=====================
I’ll have to admit,the same thought crossed my mind.
I don’t know about the genius attribution,though.
Bush’s real problem is that he is a psychopathic, paranoid schizophrenic ( anyone else hear God talking to them out there?), sado-masochistic, closet queen. He is Caligula reincarnate.
Comment by purvis ames —
July 7th, 2006 at 9:22 pm======================
Lol! That’s quite a laundry list of pathology(excluding the “queen” reference).
Can’t say I disagree(except,again,with the homosexual label).
According to Bush’s brother Jeb, W used to shoot his younger siblings with bb guns and delight in stuffing firecrackers into frogs and blowing them up. This is a classic description of a sociopath, a person with no conscience. A person who can manufacture the appearance of feelings, but who feels no empathy or sympathy for other people.
Comment by Bluedog49 —
**********
As far as Bush and funerals, keep in mind that when his 3-year-old sister died, Babs and HW spent the next day playing golf. Then they packed up and headed to Texas where they stayed while the child was buried in Conn. Add to this the fact that they never even bothered to tell W his sister was sick before she died. Oh yea, and Babs “beautiful mind’ Bush refused to attend her own mothe’s funeral.
Comment by Lily
July 7th, 2006 at 10:11 pm=====================
If true,I wish this information had been more widely know before the 2000 election.
It could very well have changed the outcome,and saved many lives.
Steve53:
Good points.
July 8th, 2006 at 2:36 amAnd thanks again for your clarification on another thread.
Fu*k it!
I hope and pray Malkin does the right thing and…
…jumps from the same building…
…after all- after Ann(drew) Coldsore- she’s the second most miserable bi*ch on the planet…
July 8th, 2006 at 10:45 amI told you all about that thieving corrupt TREASONOUS basta*d L’il Dick…
…he’s stealing money effortlessly…
…these war drums are music to that sick mofo’s ears…
…and the sh*t-for-brains conservative TRAITORS eat his sh*t up non-stop…
…straight up with no chaser…
…only God can stop these TREASONOUS sons of bi*ches now…
…POVERTIZE them ALL!
July 8th, 2006 at 10:50 amThat is why there are newer translations—each going back to the same original manuscripts and reinterpreting.
Comment by Antagonist
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2006/ 03/ 04/ AR2006030401369_4.html
The Bible simply wasn’t error-free. The mistakes grew exponentially as he traced translations through the centuries.
…
Most of these are inconsequential errors in grammar or metaphor. But others are profound. The last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark appear to have been added to the text years later — and these are the only verses in that book that show Christ reappearing after his death.
…
For a man who believed the Bible was the inspired Word of God, Ehrman sought the true originals to shore up his faith. The problem: There are no original manuscripts of the Gospels, of any of the New Testament.
see “Misquoting Jesus”, Bart Ehrman
July 8th, 2006 at 2:28 pmThis is probably a bit late, but Antagonist shows his complete and total ignorance of all things related to the Bible when he refers to the KJV as “Old English”. NO!!!!! The KJV is actually written in MODERN English. Old English is the language in which the epic “Beowulf” was written.
July 8th, 2006 at 2:54 pm“Hwaet! We Gardena in geardagum, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon, hu ða aeþelingas ellen fremedon.”
Now, THAT is an example of Old English (aka Anglo-Saxon). (The full text can be found on a number of websites, but I selected http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~beowulf/main.html. Just click on the link marked “The Text”, then “Old Text” for the particular section you want to read.)
The KJV (as with the entirety of the works of Shakespeare) is written in what linguists term Early Modern English and while it may appear to be an “archaic” form of English, it is just as “modern” as anything that appears in any contemporary English-language newspaper, magazine or book.
Now, having disposed of that little pet peeve, I’d further like to correct Antagonist on his understanding of the Bible itself. The Bible is NOT “the word of God” and I refuse to accept the notion that it is “divinely inspired”; without any slighting of your personal religious beliefs, there is no more “divine” inspiration to the Bible than there is “The Epic of Gilgamesh” or the Egyptian (or even Tibetan) “Book of the Dead”. HUMANS wrote those words, based on HUMAN knowledge and biases. All one has to do to disprove the Bible’s “divine” inspiration is to read the first two chapters of Genesis. Read them very carefully and you walk away with two DIFFERENT accounts of creation. Go on. Take a few minutes now if you don’t believe me. I’ll wait.
(Humming the “Jeopardy” theme about 10 times.)
Okay, then. Did you notice how in one account, man and woman appear at the same time, while in the other man comes first with woman coming from his side? Genesis 1:27–”So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created He them.” Genesis 2:7–”And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Genesis 2:22–”And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” And, for the record, the intervening passages in Genesis 2 note that God made the animals AFTER the man which disputes Genesis 1’s accounting that man was God’s final creation.
Now, I’m not sure how you would define “divinely inspired”, but I wouldn’t ascribe two different accounts of the same incident (presumably by the same divine being) to show any “divinely inspired” accounting.
As for this notion of God’s displeasure with homosexuality, reread the account of Sodom and Gomorrah with an open mind rather than your preconceived homophobic notion. First off, God BARGAINS with Abraham to spare the cities from destruction if 50 “good men” can be found, and eventually agrees to spare the cities if only 10 good men can be found (note that since God’s messengers only visit one of the two, it seems rather unfair that both cities are destroyed because of the bad hospitality on the part of only one). Boy, that Abraham sure was a special guy, what? Getting God to spare the cities when the Big Guy was determined to do so.
Then, there’s the point that Lot offers his virgin daughters to the mob instead of the “strangers”. Sorry, but I don’t see how that makes Lot a very “good man” (within the context of ancient rules of hospitality it does, but with a modern mindset it seems very criminal indeed). And, for the final capper, there’s the point that Lot’s daughters get themselves pregnant by daddy after they’ve seen all that they know destroyed. Now, it’s interesting that this little bit of incest (which will later become as heinous under the Law as written in Leviticus as any “homosexuality”) gets the “divine” A-okay (especially as poor Onan–who violates another ancient, but very bizarre by modern understanding, law regarding sexual behavior and marital relations–is struck dead by the Big Guy).
The Bible is mostly a book of myth, that even the ancient Hebrews understood was not literal truth. There is historical truth in certain books (primarily the Books of Judges, the Kings and the Chronicles) but most of the Bible is figurative. (When you figure that an accounting of Moses’ death is included in what’s commonly referred to as the “Books of Moses”–the first five books of the Bible–literal interpretation of the Bible must be taken with a very large grain of salt.)
And thanks again for your clarification on another thread.
Comment by Sybil
July 8th, 2006 at 4:37 pm================
You’re welcome,Sybil.
I’d like to take some of the arguments further. I don’t believe God did condemn homosexuality. In the case of Sodom and Gomorah, these men used raped as a way to show domination over others, in the same was as inmates in prisons do. The inmates, in the vast majority are not homosexual. They are exhibiting control behavior. In S & G, there was no need to exert this control over women in like manner. Society did it for them. The behavior is very clearly evidenced in their reaction to the angels who delivered God’s message to Lot. They wanted Lot to send them out, not to have a caring relationship with them, but to rape them. I find it very difficult to believe God condemned homosexuals for having a loving tender relationship with each other, while the only virtuous man in the city had sex with and impregnated his 2 daughters.
Comment by Lily
July 8th, 2006 at 5:14 pm===================
Very well presented,imo.
[…] Michelle Malkin has no soul - “Michelle Malkin is taking some heat from her compadres on the right because she failed to apologized after heaping a great deal of vitriol on a woman who subsequently committed suicide. (And then she smeared the woman again.)†[…]
July 8th, 2006 at 8:39 pmthe first five books of the Bible–literal interpretation of the Bible must be taken with a very large grain of salt.)
Comment by JosephW — July 8, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Man that was a great post! I mean it. Could you give us your views on the book of “Revalation”? I am not a Bible student but I seem to remember it was actualy a letter to the Catholic church stating with great displeasure what would befall it if they didn’t change its ways. Could have been my Mark?
July 8th, 2006 at 10:11 pmThere are all sorts of things that are ‘forbidden’ in the Bible. Eating Lobster is a no-no. Pigs are off limits as well. Men are forbidden to cut their sideburns. If a son is disobedient to his mother and father, mom and dad are supposed to take him before the village elders, and tell them that sonny is a bad boy. The village elders (all male), then take the boy to the gates of the city, and stone him to death. Seems a tad excessive to me, but that is what the Bible says to do. Or, say that you have an “indentured servant” working for you. If, at he end of his time of service, he chooses to leave, he can, but if he was married, with children, he had to leave them behind, they were not part of the deal. But if he chose to stay with his ‘master’ the ‘master was to take an awl, and drive it through the earlobe of the servant, pinning him to the door, thus declaring that the servant belonged to the master for all time. There is all kinds of wacky things like this in the Bible. Most of which, if you actually did, you would end up in prison, or a mental hospital. I learned most of this from a website called “The Brick Testament” There is a section dedicated to biblical laws. Funny, but scary. And it really exposes the ’selective enforcement policy’ that is so common with ‘religious’ people. They can’t have it both ways, follow ALL the rules, or shut the hell up. Simple.
July 9th, 2006 at 5:02 am# 110. Cyra:
Why don’t you try reading the ”real” Bible and not your comic books.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:19 amThen come back,in a couple years,and give us your commentary;not this tripe you’ve posted above.
# 110. Cyra:
Why don’t you try reading the ‘’real’’ Bible and not your comic books.
Then come back,in a couple years,and give us your commentary;not this tripe you’ve posted above.
Comment by Si Byl #111
Cyra,
Remember…
…this inbred Bushite demon (Sh*t Ball)…
…is a liar…
July 11th, 2006 at 4:11 pmMarkus…
It was quite useful reading, found some interesting details about this topic. Thanks….
December 8th, 2006 at 5:10 amgolf tournament format
Sounds like an idea of the month!
March 16th, 2008 at 7:11 amFree Porn Free Cartoon Pokemon Porn 100 Free Porn
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 10:04 amSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 6:15 pmLesbians Lesbian Girls Lesbian Twins
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 4:30 pmYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 8:55 pmTeen Girls Teen Chat Teen Panties
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 5:00 pmYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 6:24 pmFree Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend’s Hot Mom
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 6:26 pmLesbian Sex Lesbian Anime Teenage Lesbian
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 6:51 amMilf Milf Ass Lesbian Milf
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 amKds Bbs Pics Underage Porn Kid Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:16 pmYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:21 amSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:28 pmLesbian Sex Free Lesbian Porn Blonde Lesbians
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 pmSheila
…If that person isnt available, a message will be taken…
March 24th, 2008 at 11:27 pmGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 4:24 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 7:50 pmcorporate training event
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:01 pmAnimal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 1:59 amFree Mental Golf Game Instruction
This is similar to comment spam but avoids some of the safeguards designed to stop the latter practice.) Some individuals or companies
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 pmKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 2:17 amNutritional Supplements Weight Loss Weight Loss
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 12:58 pmTexas Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Laws
This article sounds well, but how everything is related together?
April 6th, 2008 at 8:55 pmGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 12:55 amKds Bbs Pics Childporn Underage Nudist
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm