1 - 10 Next
In response to:

GOP Cowards

TheHeretic Wrote: Nov 24, 2014 2:05 AM
Correction: we will ALL have to answer to the wicked witch of Chicago.
In response to:

GOP Cowards

TheHeretic Wrote: Nov 24, 2014 2:03 AM
".. Boehner and McConnell have known that Obama was going to make this announcement.." Not unless they had the power to foresee the future. They knew that Obama was SCHEDULED to make this announcement. They also knew (evidently Crouere does NOT know) that Obama might change his mind. And if Obama DOES keep to the schedule, what will they do in Washington, D.C., that they can't do in Ohio and Kentucky? A Republican Congress can't do anything until January because there won't BE a Republican Congress until January. King Harry still rules in the Senate. Or didn't you know that?
What Barber is saying is common sense. But common sense is rapidly disappearing in America today. In California, they are teaching children that they can choose what sex they belong to. Each day. Common sense is dead in California. And it is dying in the rest of America. As they say, if God doesn't destroy San Francisco, He will owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.
In response to:

GOP’s Sound & Fury Signifies Nothing

TheHeretic Wrote: Nov 24, 2014 12:53 AM
In case anyone with a brain thinks Mark-John said anything intelligent, let's look at the situation. We say that we have a two-party system, but one of those parties has become a communistic party in everything except name. That party is clearly committed to destroying our Constitution. For example, the Constitution requires Congress to pass a budget for the U.S. Government. That is Congress' most important responsibility. One party is making proposals for a budget that I don't entirely agree with. But the other party isn't even proposing a budget. And hasn't allowed a budget to be passed for SIX YEARS. Even a horrible budget is at least constitutional.
In response to:

GOP’s Sound & Fury Signifies Nothing

TheHeretic Wrote: Nov 24, 2014 12:40 AM
So Mark-John responded to my post by repeating 3 times: "The 'republicans' have done nothing. The 'republicans' have done nothing. The 'republicans' have done nothing....figure it out yet???" Earl29 chimed in: "Neat, Mark-John." First, to Mark-John: You are an obnoxious idiot. You are an obnoxious idiot. You are an obnoxious idiot. ...figure it out yet??? And as for Mark-John's trained seal, Earl29, he isn't worth any comment.
In response to:

Yankee Go Home

TheHeretic Wrote: Nov 23, 2014 11:30 PM
psydoc: "Persecution (in the context Mr. Ransom used) = hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race, political or religious beliefs." The actions that JR referred to were "adultery, fornication, and other sins of the flesh". If we were to punish people for "adultery, fornication, and other sins of the flesh", what race would we be "persecuting"? What political group would we be "persecuting"? What religion would we be "persecuting"? That IS, after all, "the context Mr Ransom used".
I wouldn't worry about it. In the Third World, they will probably scratch their heads and wonder what this crazy white American girl is singing about. Assuming they would call it singing.
"Bite the head off a bat?" You're more up-to-date than I am. I was thinking of Jimi Hendrix in 1967. I believe you're thinking of Alice Cooper in the 1970's. Let's hope she doesn't imitate Frank Zappa!
In response to:

Yankee Go Home

TheHeretic Wrote: Nov 23, 2014 9:32 PM
Really? JR was responding to Troglodite, who wrote: "Imagine, if you will, if certain men walked around in powered wigs...recommending the stocks and public whipping post for crimes such as heresy, blasphemy, adultery,..." I inferred that the men "in powered wigs" were judges, pronouncing punishments for acts that used to be crimes. Actually, many of the laws that prohibited these acts are still on the books. But we no longer enforce these laws and therefore we no longer (choose the more appropriate word) persecute/prosecute these acts.
In response to:

Obama's Immigration Order Dispels Fear

TheHeretic Wrote: Nov 23, 2014 9:13 PM
I thought TownHall was supposed to be CONSERVATIVE. If that is the case, why does it publish Chapman's column?
1 - 10 Next