I have recently decided to quit living in fear

[BSmack]

would you feel better about Mitt if he at least acted like he gave two fukk about poor people? how many poor people could be helped with the saving of moooochelle waiting a few hours for her old man rather than having a fleet of aircraft/flunkies follow her on vacation?

Mitt has given more to charity than all of us on the board combined. I am fairly sure he's given more than Obammy will ever give.

You and every other disingenuous fukk out there knows exactly what he was saying. he made it very clear, right in the middle of the statement, but, go ahead and spout that bs as you have little else, particularly when it comes to what accomplishments barry has had.

Matthew 19:21

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Rack Marty for maintaining smack in a "theology" thread that's POSTED IN CUL DE SMACK.

Thanks Carson. This is why I consider you one of the "good guys".

Be well, my old chum.

You can't let an inkling of a compliment go by without coming off as a feeble suck-ass.

It's why I consider you to be one of the "weak guys".

Are you still harbouring resentment for my outting of your obsessive, gay man-crush on mvscal a couple of years ago?
Is that what this is about?
Because if it is, I'm really sorry. I may have overstepped some boundaries and I apologise for making you uncomfortable.

Take care now.

[Van]

'Spray, take a good look at how God treats His children. We're all just part of a demented science project to that sick fuck. Seriously, every bit of evidence would seem to indicate that He's much more Josef Mengele and much less George Burns.

[Dr_Phibes]

Weird, I've always equated Mengele with soccer. They both split for South America after the war.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Q: What's the difference between a Jew and an apple pie?

A: Apple pies don't scream when you throw them in the oven.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

"Hello? Anti-Semitism Hotline? I can't believe the amount of hateful Jew bashing on T1B! Oy! This is worse than Treblinka! The suffering of my people!"

[Dinsdale]

Bwah! Whatever, guys. My pets are pretty great.

I appreciate the way that they're able to love me unconditionally

Go 2-3 days without feeding them, and reevaluate this statement.

Don't get me wrong, I loves me some animals (don't have any at present, which is fine since I'm never home... well, save for the big'ol skunk in the backyard, but we don't have a symbiotic relationship -- we have a "please don't spray me" relationship), but I also call a spade a spade (sup Index)... I buy their friendship.

[mvscal]

'Spray, take a good look at how God treats His children. We're all just part of a demented science project to that sick fuck. Seriously, every bit of evidence would seem to indicate that He's much more Josef Mengele and much less George Burns.

Why are you getting so bent out of shape about an imaginary being? It's like being pissed off at the Easter Bunny or something.

[Dr_Phibes]

The way asshat Christians blame a lack of faith in non-believers on some supposed failure on their part to put in the work is obnoxiously condescending and downright absurd.

Read Thomas Aquinas, Moltmann on subjectivity, grace and hope. You can't defeat your opposition if you don't know it's toughest case, you'll never learn the subject if you think there's nothing there to learn. Self doubt is an integral part of the institution, it's as old as time.

[poptart]

Actually, it would! At least then I would TRULY have free will. Your omnipotent god is giving life to souls he KNOWS are hell bound? Does that make any sense to you? I really would like you to explain to me in plain terms how this works.

Before going off into that realm, there is a question I might ask you to think about a little bit.

Satan was God's creation.
He was loved by God, shown extreme grace, and granted the loftiest of positions.

Are you also bothered that God will be keeping satan in hell for eternity?

All this talk of "taking verses out of context", or, "this or that isn't meant to be taken literally" is such bullshit. Since Jesus actually spoke so little in the bible I hardly see how anyone would be able to determine when he was being literal vs. figurative. it takes a decent amount of familiarity to "get" someones wink wink nudge nudges. It seems his words are uncannily figurative when speaking on such matters as personal wealth. "I don't need to sell all my belongings and take up my cross because Jesus wasn't talking literally! Sweet!" Same goes for the Old Testament. The fundy gay-bashers are ALL OVER Leviticus when they need to spout some scripture about the abomination of homo lovin, yet dismiss all the other CRRRAZY laws also in Leviticus that they themselves ignore. Why are some of these important and some not? As soon as you point this out, many Christians will admit that they didn't know about some of the "other" laws in Leviticus, but quickly remember, "Oh yeah!! Jesus came to save us from all these laws that none of us could ever obey!" Okay, fine, whatever...so you're going to leave gay people alone now? "FUCK NO! THEY ARE SINNERS AND AN ABOMINATION!!" Ok, will you stop wearing mixed fabrics and kill that neighbor of yours that keeps planting his tomatoes next to his cucumbers? "WHAT??? THAT'S FUCKING CRAZY MAN!!"

I tried to give a proper response to the verses that Mr T put up.

If what I posted didn't sound right to you, so be it.
Not much else to say.


DC, when people (Christians and non-believers) post Old Testament Law Scripture to make claims about what is right or wrong, I usually cringe.

Everything is finished in Christ - Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:23-25, John 19:30, among many others. Give it a look.

Regarding the gay issue - of course many people like to find the verses within the Law (Leviticus 18:22) for example, and use that to condemn homosexuality.

But as I pointed out, we are no longer following the Law - so it's frankly dumb to pull those up and make "correct lifestyle" judgements on them alone.
We're following Christ.

So homosexuality is fine?

No, it's not really fine and I wouldn't recommend people go into it.
The view that homosexuality is best not pursued is very easily (and thoroughly) shown by looking at the whole of the Bible (Old & New T.).
I could easily post that case - and nobody with a shred of intellectual integrity could debate it.

It's honestly quite preposterous that any Christian would attempt to support homosexual activity, and yet many are vigorously doing that, and even doing it by pulling up Scripture which they twist to try to make that case.

All of that said, it's not a critical issue that needs nearly as much focus as people give to it.

poptart, not trying for smack, but there is the same amount of evidence to support Zeus as there is to support God: none.

So why would you believe in one and not the other?

Chip, it's actually jaw-dropping to have a lawyer (who is very familiar with what evidence is) to make the statement that there is no evidence of God.

I would say, for example, that the behavior of the apostles, if brought into a courtroom, would make for some VERY compelling evidence.

Spray, take a good look at how God treats His children. We're all just part of a demented science project to that sick fuck. Seriously, every bit of evidence would seem to indicate that He's much more Josef Mengele and much less George Burns.

Van, I've pointed out now multiple times to you what the Bible says about God's children, and who they are.
Romans 10:9-10
John 1:12

[War Wagon]

never ceases to amaze how the people who most vociferously argue that a higher power does not exist will argue that point until page 37.

whatever, we got your point 35 pages ago. At page 53, let me know if anybody has it all figured out.

Meanwhile, people of faith will go about their lives in the quiet (except for 'tart) certitude and confidence that a higher power (some choose to call God) does exist and that we're not it.

[Van]

Actually, it would! At least then I would TRULY have free will. Your omnipotent god is giving life to souls he KNOWS are hell bound? Does that make any sense to you? I really would like you to explain to me in plain terms how this works.

Before going off into that realm, there is a question I might ask you to think about a little bit.

You really need to stop doing that. When someone asks you a direct question, have the courtesy to answer it. Don't inform them that you're disregarding it in lieu of asking your own question. That sort of dismissive narcissism is just plain rude.

Satan was God's creation.
He was loved by God, shown extreme grace, and granted the loftiest of positions.

Are you also bothered that God will be keeping satan in hell for eternity?

As always, it begs the question: incompetency, or malice? Either He isn't All Knowing, or He set us up to fail.

DC, when people (Christians and non-believers) post Old Testament Law Scripture to make claims about what is right or wrong, I usually cringe.

Why?

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

You ought to be perfectly fine with every barbaric tenet described in the Bible, since Jesus supposedly said he's fine with Old Testament Law...all of it.

poptart, not trying for smack, but there is the same amount of evidence to support Zeus as there is to support God: none.

So why would you believe in one and not the other?

Chip, it's actually jaw-dropping to have a lawyer (who is very familiar with what evidence is) to make the statement that there is no evidence of God.

I would say, for example, that the behavior of the apostles, if brought into a courtroom, would make for some VERY compelling evidence.

Which is why it's a good thing you're not a lawyer. See, that wouldn't be the LEAST BIT compelling evidence of God. The behavior of the apostles would easily be outweighed by the behavior of...oh...everyone else. You'd need to prove that the apostles were experts on the subject who had unique knowledge of God's existence. Quoting the Scriptures would accomplish no such thing. It would simply paint you as a lunatic.

Spray, take a good look at how God treats His children. We're all just part of a demented science project to that sick fuck. Seriously, every bit of evidence would seem to indicate that He's much more Josef Mengele and much less George Burns.

Van, I've pointed out now multiple times to you what the Bible says about God's children, and who they are.
Romans 10:9-10
John 1:12

Who cares? All you ever do is quote the Bible, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that you cannot prove the truth of a story by quoting the story. pop, what you never do is answer basic questions with real attempts at honest answers. Instead, you pawn off every valid issue with a blatant sidestep.

More importantly, your description of who are and aren't God's children simply doesn't work. All it does is paint God as vain, vindictive, and a bumbling buffoon.

[DC Smackmaster]

Pop, I have no opinions on Satan, he doesn't exist.

Let's get to the heart of the matter! The entire basis of your belief is the bible. It's not so much that you believe in God, Jesus, the holy spirit. You only believe in them because you believed first in the bible. Makes sense, right? The bible being the one source for knowledge of Jesus Christ. You first had to believe the bible was a reliable source. The New Testament first "hit the shelves" around AD 140. Not to say there weren't plenty of documents prior written and considered to be true, AD 140 is generally the agreed upon period that these documents were "organized" into the earliest version of the New Testament. Fast forward to AD 367. Again...AD 367...this is when the bible essentialy became the bible we know and love today. It's interesting (suspicious) that it was AD 140 before the first gathering of documents occured. Credit for this is attributed to one dude btw. THAT isn't nearly as interesting (suspicious) as the gap between AD 140 and AD 367. it was during this period that generations of men determined which documents were "inspired" and which were not. Sounds pretty darn subjective to me.

[DC Smackmaster]

Rack it Van!! You write what I think.

War Wagon. Quiet certitude? Christians? BWAHAHA!! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!???

[Van]

DC, not to go all Bizarro KC on you or anything, but you also wrote what I and many others think when you posted that timeline describing the suspicious and highly subjective structuring of the Bible. Exactly which Scriptures were inspired and which weren't?

Only a collection of men from nearly two thousand years ago could say, and even those men lived a good century or three after the supposed existence of Jesus.

That doesn't sound like inspiration. It sounds like a focus group that conducted extensive market research.

[DC Smackmaster]

[DC Smackmaster]

I'm just goofin War Wagon! I know these freaks represent a very small minority of Christians. Still...they DO belong to your tribe.

[Van]

That chick is what happens when a woman worships Loni Anderson while looking like Sparky Anderson.

[DC Smackmaster]

Rack! Excellent!

[poptart]

Satan was God's creation.
He was loved by God, shown extreme grace, and granted the loftiest of positions.

Are you also bothered that God will be keeping satan in hell for eternity?

As always, it begs the question: incompetency, or malice? Either He isn't All Knowing, or He set us up to fail.

I don't consider it malice that God is sending satan to hell for eternity.

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

You ought to be perfectly fine with every barbaric tenet described in the Bible, since Jesus supposedly said he's fine with Old Testament Law...all of it.

Van, Jesus said He is the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets.

That means He is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament.
Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:23-25, John 19:30.

Everything is in Him and He is who we need to look at - not Moses (Law), Elias, or anyone else - see Matthew 17:1-9.

Which is why it's a good thing you're not a lawyer. See, that wouldn't be the LEAST BIT compelling evidence of God. The behavior of the apostles would easily be outweighed by the behavior of...oh...everyone else.

You mean everyone else who, despite intense persecution from the established religion, culture, and political system of that area, believed the "loser" apostles - such that that the entire area was later overturned to a belief in Christ?

Look, what happend was... phenomenal.

jmo

You'd need to prove that the apostles were experts on the subject who had unique knowledge of God's existence.

They say they did have knowledge of God's existence.

Would judge Van not permit information about these people to be presented?

Oh well...

Who cares? All you ever do is quote the Bible, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that you cannot prove the truth of a story by quoting the story.

Many (or most) of the Bible passages I've posted in this thread are in response to questions or misrepresentations about what the Bible says or means.

I'm just telling you what's in the Bible.

You can believe or not.
Of course that's your call.

Let's get to the heart of the matter! The entire basis of your belief is the bible. It's not so much that you believe in God, Jesus, the holy spirit. You only believe in them because you believed first in the bible. Makes sense, right? The bible being the one source for knowledge of Jesus Christ. You first had to believe the bible was a reliable source. The New Testament first "hit the shelves" around AD 140. Not to say there weren't plenty of documents prior written and considered to be true, AD 140 is generally the agreed upon period that these documents were "organized" into the earliest version of the New Testament. Fast forward to AD 367. Again...AD 367...this is when the bible essentialy became the bible we know and love today. It's interesting (suspicious) that it was AD 140 before the first gathering of documents occured. Credit for this is attributed to one dude btw. THAT isn't nearly as interesting (suspicious) as the gap between AD 140 and AD 367. it was during this period that generations of men determined which documents were "inspired" and which were not. Sounds pretty darn subjective to me.

DC, page 2 of this thread - viewtopic.php?f=35&t=40367&start=40

Van and I talked a little about this and I posted this video, which talks about what you posted.
If you care to, view it, or them.
2 parts.

It's good stuff.

[Van]

Satan was God's creation.
He was loved by God, shown extreme grace, and granted the loftiest of positions.

Are you also bothered that God will be keeping satan in hell for eternity?

As always, it begs the question: incompetency, or malice? Either He isn't All Knowing, or He set us up to fail.

I don't consider it malice that God is sending satan to hell for eternity.

Don't be obtuse. The malice is in letting Satan continue to destroy mankind, which you claim is still the case. God has the power to eliminate Satan or at least protect mankind from him, and He does neither. If God were a parent, He'd have his children taken away by Child Protective Services. Hell, he'd be probably be locked up for child endangerment.

What am I saying? He'd be given the needle for first-degree murder.

You ought to be perfectly fine with every barbaric tenet described in the Bible, since Jesus supposedly said he's fine with Old Testament Law...all of it.

Van, Jesus said He is the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets.

That means He is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament.
Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:23-25, John 19:30.

By His own words, he didn't come to change the Old Testament Law, which means that he was fully fine with it. EOS.

Which is why it's a good thing you're not a lawyer. See, that wouldn't be the LEAST BIT compelling evidence of God. The behavior of the apostles would easily be outweighed by the behavior of...oh...everyone else.

You mean everyone else who, despite intense persecution from the established religion, culture, and political system of that area, believed the "loser" apostles - such that that the entire area was later overturned to a belief in Christ?

Look, what happend was... phenomenal.

Nothing happened. Jesus was dead for a good century and a half before a few people even started to pull together stories.

Doesn't sound like He had all that much of an impact on the people who actually saw Him. His only real impact was on people who, many centuries later, read fanciful tales about Him; fanciful tales written by men who also never saw Him.

You'd need to prove that the apostles were experts on the subject who had unique knowledge of God's existence.

They say they did have knowledge of God's existence.

So? David Berkowitz said his cat told him to kill women. YaFJ said the Dallas Cowboys would win the Super Bowl...every year. M2 said "dominoes."

Would judge Van not permit information about these people to be presented?

Sure, and lacking any real info about them or their claims, their testimony would be summarily dismissed.

What info could possibly be presented on their behalf, and what info could possibly be presented that would support their claims? All we know about them is what's in the Bible, which was written by people who never met any of the witnesses and weren't around to witness any of the events.

Who cares? All you ever do is quote the Bible, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that you cannot prove the truth of a story by quoting the story.

Many (or most) of the Bible passages I've posted in this thread are in response to questions or misrepresentations about what the Bible says or means.

I'm just telling you what's in the Bible.

When what's written in the Bible doesn't even begin to answer the most basic questions, it becomes incumbent on you as the vocal advocate of the faith to quit hiding behind the fucking book. Any teacher worth his salt has to make the story relevant before the message will be absorbed, and this is doubly important for a preacher. You have to be able to think and explain, not just regurgitate. All you ever do—and not merely in this thread, but for years and years now—is quote Bible passages. You never step up and answer questions that require anything other than rote memorization, which would seem to indicate a decided lack in the depth of your convictions.

If you ever want to be even remotely effective in championing your cause, eventually you're going to have to stop hiding behind "I don't know, and I can't be bothered to think about it. Look it up in the book."

[poptart]

Too many gross misrepresentations to address them all.

Just a few...

By His own words, he didn't come to change the Old Testament Law, which means that he was fully fine with it. EOS.]

This is not correct.

First, you should look at the passages I posted previously about this.

Beyond that, God spoke (in the OT, Jeremiah) of the day when He would make His new Covenant - Christ, the fulfillment of all of the Old Testament.

Jeremiah 31:31-33
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.


Then look at the entirety of the passage you drew from to make your conclusion - Matthew 5:17-20


Matthew 5:17-20
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven


The Scribes and Pharisees showed tremendous righteousness by diligently obeying the law (yet they were apart from God).
They were the standard for "righteousness" in that time.

Straight up, nobody could possibly exceed their righteousness - yet Jesus said we all must do so.

So how can we possibly show that level of righteousness?

Answer: Believe in the Christ, who is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.


Literally every page of the Bible is about Jesus Christ - because His is the only name which breaks the darkness that swallows us all up.

Nothing happened. Jesus was dead for a good century and a half before a few people even started to pull together stories.

Doesn't sound like He had all that much of an impact on the people who actually saw Him. His only real impact was on people who, many centuries later, read fanciful tales about Him; fanciful tales written by men who also never saw Him.

This is not correct.

The majority of the New Testament Books are accounts from people who directly interacted with Jesus.

Speculation on my part, but the delay in writing of the Gospel accounts may have been due to the apostles thinking that Jesus' return was imminent (right word, Wagon? ha) and it wasn't necessary to write them.
Only later did they realize that God's time schedule did not match their assumption - so they wrote them.

All you ever do—and not merely in this thread, but for years and years now—is quote Bible passages. You never step up and answer questions that require anything other than rote memorization, which would seem to indicate a decided lack in the depth of your convictions.

If you ever want to be even remotely effective in championing your cause, eventually you're going to have to stop hiding behind "I don't know, and I can't be bothered to think about it. Look it up in the book."

I've continually been happy to answer questions and criticisms put forth by you, Felix, whoever.

You just haven't been pleased with the answers you receive.

Of course I cite Scripture, because that's at the heart of what we're discussing.

But beyond that, I REGULARLY elaborate using my own words.

Look at all of them in this post. :wink:

[bradhusker]

We can leave it at that, BUT know this, my stance is much more rewarding, Ultimeately, I have hope, and, may I say, much joy, because, if im correct about GOD being real, then I have much to look forward to. THE FLIP SIDE? If the atheist is correct in there being NO GOD? Then that is just sad and gives his life no meaning.
Think about it? If there is NO GOD, then everything is without meaning, and, after this life, you have nothing to look forward to.
As a believer in GOD, I have everything to look forward to, wanting a relationship with the divine creator, enriches this life with much love and joy, AND, gives the believer a promise for an eternity of much love and joy.
The atheist? I guess he can enjoy some crippy weed, BUT, when he dies? NOTHING.
thats sad.

This has to be one of THE most ridiculous things I've ever read of yours. (and note: that's a VERRAH strong statement for obvious reasons)

So, to get this straight....you're hemming and hawing about how "rewarding" your stance is because you believe in your God, therefore giving you "much joy" if you're correct in his/her existence because then you have "much to look forward to"....while someone like myself is living a life without "meaning" because I chose NOT to "believe"?

Bwahaha! Lemme break this down for you in the simplest of terms, you see.....I don't need to have faith in someone or something for my life to have "meaning". The meaning of my life, is what I make it....the people I let in, the admiration I have for those people and pets, the love I receive in return, etc. There's nothing sad about THAT at all. These promises of eternal love and joy you're posting about sound really comforting and all, which is exactly what they were WRITTEN to do. And as far as Atheists being able to "enjoy weed" or whatever you were getting at (I'm assuming this is where "sinning" comes into play), it's really no different from anything a "believer" can do. The only real difference is that WE don't seek the forgiveness of anyone but ourselves. If we willingly do something that we know is wrong, it's for us to make it right because we're genuinely good people....NOT because it's written somewhere to do so.

Ana, YOU totally missed it!!!!

I didnt say your life had no meaning. IN FACT, your life can have tons of meaning, HOWEVER, you missed the point entirely, the part about having nothing to look forward to.

THATS A FACT YOU MUST DEAL WITH, like it or not.

An athiest has NOTHING to look forward to if his non-belief is corrrect. When his life is over, thats it.

Not only can my life be filled with joy, just like yours, BUT, and this is key, THE PROMISE of what is to come when this life is over.

Understand?

[bradhusker]

Is bradhusker the worst poster in the history of this board?

I'm starting to think he is. In terms of him being a troll, he's repetitive, childishly annoying, and simply not worth reading. Excepting maybe the little starving black kid who always wants to know where his mammy is, or those painfully horrible Bobby Da Boss w.i.g.g.e.r trolls, bradhusker is definitely the shittiest Character Troll we've ever seen.

Now if he really isn't a troll and actually means this shit, as Mgo believes, then that would at least be marginally less offensive. To think that someone would intentionally create this stupid of a persona is the worst thing of all. Coming to terms with the realization that this monkey is just uniquely afflicted would be much easier to take. Hey, if it's not his fault, it's not his fault.

I don't buy it. The guy is trolling, and any mind that would willingly spew this garbage on a daily basis is in need of some serious pharmaceutical distractions. Bare minimum, the damn doctors need to finish the lobotomy.

The "Ignore" button is your friend.

Goober and Van, The entire board watches me OWN you two fruits with pure FACTS, and then, when I kick your pathetic asses all over the block, you just answer with "brad is the worst poster".
NICE.

When I posted the facts about Mitt Romney giving 15 percent of his income every year to the very poor, which, over the course of 30 years comes to a staggerring amount of millions upon millions of dollars, all you can do is slink away under a rock somewhere.

It seems that you sick fruits are scared of facts and truth, because it exposes you as the sick fucks that you really are.

I dont pull punches. I dont like it when liberal left-wing liars try to paint Romney as an evil rich republican who doesnt care about the poor, MEANWHILE, Mitt actually gives millions upon millions to the poor, while Barack Obama and Joe Biden dont measure up.

This shows how evil and corrupt the left is, AND I love pointing that out.

[bradhusker]

FACTS are stubborn things, and make van , Mr T., and all the liberals in here look stupid.

Romney gives 15 percent of his income to the poor. Over the course of 30 years, this amounts to staggering totals, we are talking about millions upon millions.

The liberals?

Across the board, liberals dont give much. Most liberals are stingy cowardly fucks. SHIT, liberals will go into a diner, and leave a 50 cent tip on a 20 dollar tab. IN FACT, a lot of liberals will stiff their waitress outright.

Take Joe Biden for example, The Vice President gave 300 dollars to the poor last year. His hair plugs cost more than that pathetic sum.

Liberals talk a good game, BUT, when it comes to actual giving? They are the cheapest deadbeats on the planet.

I was at an expensive steakhouse in New York City, I observed a liberal couple leave less than ten percent for their tip, even though the service was splendid. SO, being the good conservative that I am, I got up, and in front of the stinkin liberals, I put a crisp 100 dollar bill in the waitress' hand.
I told her that now she is getting a proper tip, then, I turned torward the cowardly liberal couple, and politely said, "stinkin cheap-ass liberal fucks", and walked out of the restaurant with a belly full of 'USDA PRIME", and the cock sure attitude of a man with moral furtitude.

[DC Smackmaster]

Rack brad!! Bwahahaa! It's like the second coming of Giovanni Peters!

[Goober McTuber]

Too many gross misrepresentations to address them all.

Let me help.

David Berkowitz said his cat told him to kill women.

It was his neighbor’s dog.

[poptart]

Exactly.

See what I have to put up with here, Goobs?


Next thing you know, Van will be telling us that Richard Gere is in luv with his possum.

[DC Smackmaster]

... Jesus Christ - because His is the only name which breaks the darkness that swallows us all up.

Ugh. Crazy talk.

[Derron]

you just answer with "brad is the worst poster".

Logical assumption after we waste time reading one of your shit posts.

Then you post this in support of their allegations:

I observed a liberal couple leave less than ten percent for their tip,

You knew they were a liberal by ? Their clothes ? Her tit hanging out ? he had a beard ? she wore no makeup? They had liberal tatted on their foreheads ? You stupid son of a bitch..

and the cock sure attitude of a man with moral furtitude.

The only thing you are "cocksure" of is every time you post, somebody rams their cock so far up your ass you start choking on it and decide to post about it. Idiot. Only you can make this shit up.

[Van]

Rack brad!! Bwahahaa! It's like the second coming of Giovanni Peters!

No. Fuck no. Hell no. Way no. Hella no.

[DC Smackmaster]

Van, i know that to compare brad to The General is truly blasphemy, but his last paragraph did read like a Giovanni post!

[smackaholic]

there was maybe a smidge of the general in that post, but, no fkking way in hell is he a reincernation of him.

[DC Smackmaster]

"WHHAAATTTT?????!!!"

That's great Sam!!

[Van]

DC, bradhusker concluded that stupid bit of obvious plagiarism with "moral furtitude."

Yes, 'furtitude,' which, I suppose, was a doubly botched mix of 'fortitude' and 'certitude.'

It was so perfectly assfucked, even Wags had to bow in praise. The General, however, would not abide.

[bradhusker]

I was at an expensive steakhouse in New York City, I observed a liberal couple

Ummmmmm...just curious. How does one ID a couple as liberal?

The woman had a tit out?

Well, im glad you asked that Sam. For starters, they had that hippie stink about them, you know, that "dead head" janis joplin smelly hippie vibe? Bernadine Dorn and Bill Ayers snot-nose elitist arrogant liberal, "im better and smarter than you" look.

Plus, my table was right next to theirs, so, their dinner conversation was readily and easily heard.
THE DEAD GIVEAWAY? For me, without a fuckin doubt, had to be the fact that they ordered tofu and vegan at a 5 star legendary PRIME STEAKHOUSE!! What more stinkin' evidence do I need your honor?

P. S.
For what its worth? Their teeth were bad, yellowed with a good dose of gingivitus. I was so disgusted, to say the least. HOWEVER, when they left less than ten percent to that poor waitress trying to put herself thru college? That was the last straw for me, I will not stand by and let an injustice like that happen right in front of my very eyes!!!

[Derron]

"im better and smarter than you" look.

Which you would understand quite well.

they ordered tofu and vegan at a 5 star legendary PRIME STEAKHOUSE!!

Right..liberals hanging with conservative homeboys like you ? Probably not a liberal in 2 blocks of the place.

I will not stand by and let an injustice like that happen right in front of my very eyes!!!

Kind of a liberal response for such a hard core self proclaimed conservative like your self. Glad you were so able to throw down a hunskey for the waitress. Saved her from another trip down the stripper pole after she got off her waitress job.

Keep making shit up troll.

[bradhusker]

you just answer with "brad is the worst poster".

Logical assumption after we waste time reading one of your shit posts.

Then you post this in support of their allegations:

I observed a liberal couple leave less than ten percent for their tip,

You knew they were a liberal by ? Their clothes ? Her tit hanging out ? he had a beard ? she wore no makeup? They had liberal tatted on their foreheads ? You stupid son of a bitch..

and the cock sure attitude of a man with moral furtitude.

The only thing you are "cocksure" of is every time you post, somebody rams their cock so far up your ass you start choking on it and decide to post about it. Idiot. Only you can make this shit up.

Hey Derron? I knew that you wouldnt find it disgusting that the liberal couple left less than ten percent, because to YOU, that would be a FANTASTIC TIP!! you cheap son of a bitch.
I can picture you as the type of scumbag who often "stiffs his server", and, I bet you actually get off on it, even go as far as to justify your sick deadbeat behaviour.

You are Mr. Pink, from the movie Resoviour Dogs, not only do you NOT leave a tip, BUT, the reason you got named Mr. Pink, is because you're a FUCKIN FAGGOTT!!!!!!

[bradhusker]

"im better and smarter than you" look.

Which you would understand quite well.

they ordered tofu and vegan at a 5 star legendary PRIME STEAKHOUSE!!

Right..liberals hanging with conservative homeboys like you ? Probably not a liberal in 2 blocks of the place.

I will not stand by and let an injustice like that happen right in front of my very eyes!!!

Kind of a liberal response for such a hard core self proclaimed conservative like your self. Glad you were so able to throw down a hunskey for the waitress. Saved her from another trip down the stripper pole after she got off her waitress job.

Keep making shit up troll.

Hey Derron boy? That was a 5 star steakhouse in New York City, the kind of place you couldnt get in to if you tried!! If you showed up there? The manager would put you to work in the dish pit.

The kind of places you go to eat for very nice occaisions? Dennys, Jack in the box, Bojangles, popeyes, and churches chicken, by the way, you wont have to tip there, PUNK ass.