 |
Re: OFF TOPIC - Do Not Respond if the Subject Matter Offends You
Author: Rudi Toot Toot
Date: 06-22-2022 - 10:19
> I have no objections to the words "under God" being part of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Big deal, but you obviously haven't figured out yet that none of us value your opinions, particularly the ones designed to stir up non-RR s**t.
> Do you? If so, why?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ". This means all religions, including the monotheistic revealed religions (known as Jewish, Christian, Moslem, and Bahai). Monotheism is inherently intolerant; it even says so in the Old Testament.
>If someone has no problem with the words "In God We Trust" on our money, does that make them a McCarthy-esque Right Wing Nut Job?
You are dumber than a box of rocks. It's the McCarthy-ists and the conservotards who actively promote this sort of religiosity in the Gubmint.
> ** This is the second time I've had to pose these questions to you, as you completely skirted around them in your last response.
I'm merely aping your examples of discussion pivoting, and you don't like it? Poor baby, sit on them and spin.
> Can you address them this time around? **
You still plain old just don't get it, which is demonstrated by your continued use of a posting handle that conveys your thought processes: vacuous.
> For the life of me I don't know why it's so important to you that I make posts using a screen name.
Don't make them in the first place.
> What difference does it make? Okay, just to please you, I'm making this post with the screen name "Jesus of Nazareth". There. Does that make you feel better? Will you be able to sleep tonight?
Ho f***ing hum.
> Tell us your thoughts on the fact that 96% of the political campaign contributions from Cornell faculty went to Democrats, as was revealed in those Fox News links I gave you and that you cowardly shied away from.
Faux News? Well well, this explains a lot about you because Faux, which is owned by an immigrant to the US, subscribes to the principle of a sucker like you being born every minute. All Murdoch is interested in is *money*.
> ** This is the second time I've had solicit your thoughts on this, as you completely skirted around it in your last response. Can you address it this time around? **
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
> Didn't you read my advance warnings? What difference does it make whether or not I'm making postings, even if I make 10,000 of them and even if they're off-topic?
Change your handle to "Clueless at the Keyboard".
Authenticity link:
[www.treatmyocd.com]
Big deal, but you obviously haven't figured out yet that none of us value your opinions, particularly the ones designed to stir up non-RR s**t.
> Do you? If so, why?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ". This means all religions, including the monotheistic revealed religions (known as Jewish, Christian, Moslem, and Bahai). Monotheism is inherently intolerant; it even says so in the Old Testament.
>If someone has no problem with the words "In God We Trust" on our money, does that make them a McCarthy-esque Right Wing Nut Job?
You are dumber than a box of rocks. It's the McCarthy-ists and the conservotards who actively promote this sort of religiosity in the Gubmint.
> ** This is the second time I've had to pose these questions to you, as you completely skirted around them in your last response.
I'm merely aping your examples of discussion pivoting, and you don't like it? Poor baby, sit on them and spin.
> Can you address them this time around? **
You still plain old just don't get it, which is demonstrated by your continued use of a posting handle that conveys your thought processes: vacuous.
> For the life of me I don't know why it's so important to you that I make posts using a screen name.
Don't make them in the first place.
> What difference does it make? Okay, just to please you, I'm making this post with the screen name "Jesus of Nazareth". There. Does that make you feel better? Will you be able to sleep tonight?
Ho f***ing hum.
> Tell us your thoughts on the fact that 96% of the political campaign contributions from Cornell faculty went to Democrats, as was revealed in those Fox News links I gave you and that you cowardly shied away from.
Faux News? Well well, this explains a lot about you because Faux, which is owned by an immigrant to the US, subscribes to the principle of a sucker like you being born every minute. All Murdoch is interested in is *money*.
> ** This is the second time I've had solicit your thoughts on this, as you completely skirted around it in your last response. Can you address it this time around? **
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
> Didn't you read my advance warnings? What difference does it make whether or not I'm making postings, even if I make 10,000 of them and even if they're off-topic?
Change your handle to "Clueless at the Keyboard".
Authenticity link:
[www.treatmyocd.com]
