1 - 10 Next
Henry VIII wrote: "Cruz can't get elected in states like Mich, Maine, CT, RI, Mass, Del, Maryland, Ill, Cal, CO, et al....that's a lot of states.. " How wondrous it is, your powers! You can see the future! Can you tell me tomorrow night's winning Powerball numbers?! It must be wonderful to KNOW what can and cannot be accomplished in an election that is SO far away! Now, let's come back to reality a bit. Reagan was told numerous times that he could not get elected or stay elected unless he toned down his "extreme conservative views"! And yet history shows that he not only won the first election, but the second also by a landslide! So please don't tell me that someone who espouses conservative views "cannot" be elected, especially pointing to certain states. All things are possible, especially considering the length of time between now and the 2016 elections. I'm not FOR Cruz, but I don't pretend to KNOW what's going to happen... unlike certain others here... who seem to be big government Republicans... or at least support big government Republicans...
@svirk2 - ...says the man who has studied Aramaic, Ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Latin; and has spent years poring over ancient texts to come to his conclusion... */sarc off
Freedom From Religion = poor reading and comprehension skills. "Congress shall not ..." Hmmm... I wonder if the local school wrestling coach knows that he's in charge of Congress? I mean, the wrestling team chose the verse, the parents paid for the shirts... Did that "Establish" a religion, by Congress no less? I really think someone needs to educate the FFRF on just what exactly the Constitution says... Just sayin'...
In response to:

Why NOAH Matters!

Otho Wrote: Mar 30, 2014 4:17 PM
Gosh, I'm so sorry! The tiny little, faraway person on the trailer doing the "fire thing" looked like Noah. But goodness, I don't remember reading about ANYONE doing the "fire thing" in the Bible. Plus all the other comments from folks about the age of Noah's sons, his wanting to kill his daughters, etc. make me KNOW that this is not a movie about the Biblical Noah. THIS Noah-character is obviously one from Nordic myth or something. Oh, and hey guys, don't make any comments on a movie about any wars or anything unless you not only have been in the military, but have seen combat. See, from every trailer and comment I've seen from people who HAVE seen the movie, I know that this movie is Hollywood garbage meant to deceive people about the true story of Noah. So I will not waste even a buck-sixty on this when it quickly makes its way to RedBox....
In response to:

Why NOAH Matters!

Otho Wrote: Mar 30, 2014 7:06 AM
So, Mr. McCullough, I assume you're also going to watch and enjoy the upcoming movie depicting Christ and his disciples as homosexuals having a wonderful time with each other? I mean, they actually mention Jesus and the names of all of His disciples, so it must be okay, right? Just because a movie is supposedly "based" on a Biblical story doesn't mean that it is worth watching. I could just imagine a modern day movie based on Sodom and Gomorrah. Of course, they'd leave out the total destruction part, 'cause that's such a bummer! This particular movie, Noah, talks of a man named Noah, an ark, and animals coming two by two. That's about all the relevance it has to the true story from the Bible. Ya know, I must have missed that part in the Bible when people try to seize the ark, and are pushed back by Noah striking the ground with his staff, and causing a wave of flame to prevent the loss of the ark. Is that in Hezekiah? Chapter 10 or so? I'm not sure by which hook or crook you managed to get a column on Townhall, but it's probably going to be one of your last.... idiot....
In response to:

Georgia Lawmakers Pass Sweeping Gun Bill

Otho Wrote: Mar 21, 2014 4:58 PM
I imagine their status quo, whatever that may be, will remain in effect. Those states whose permits they honor now will be honored later, those that are not honored will continue to not be honored.
Dearest pmanning, Please read the first chapter of Romans. Then get back to me.
I don't know... Someone who self-identifies FIRST by their sexual preferences still seems to be rather "in-your-face", demanding respect for their sexual lifestyle BEFORE identifying as a Republican, conservative, doctor, lawyer, merchantman, thief... For instance, I am a Christian, father, husband, Pawpaw, Network Administrator, conservative, Republican (for now), TEA party supporter. Although father and husband seem to point to my sexual preferences, they could also point to someone who is a homosexual, has adopted, and chooses the term "husband". I, however, believe much like annfan, it appears to be completely incongruous to choose a homosexual lifestyle and claim to be a God-fearing Christian. I'm not sure exactly how many times homosexuality is declared an abomination in the Bible, but I know of at least twice. Thus, resolving belief in the Bible and maintaining a homosexual lifestyle, one is lying both to themselves and to God.
In response to:

6 Arguments Only A Liberal Could Believe

Otho Wrote: Mar 18, 2014 6:07 AM
Soooo, you got the latest NSA footage of my last argument with a liberal, huh? Exactly the arguments used, but you missed the last few minutes. I give you argument #6: "Bush! Bush! Booooosh! Bushy, bushy, Bush!! Bush, bush, bush bush, shrubby little BOOOOOOSH!!!"
If you are going for satire, and I assume you are considering your posting name, you need to learn to make it a bit more over the top, sneering and posturing in a holier-than-thou attitude. Don't necessarily defend Obama, but insinuate that he knows best and that us peons ought to be grateful to have such a wise and wonderful leader, who will take us all to the "Promised Land". Play up the messiah slant a bit more and then you'll have the true satire genius that others posting here have shown. However, if you truly believe what you posted, then you're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
1 - 10 Next