Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 75

• 67%

  crespi3 months, 1 week ago

  An inexperienced, gay hater who kills animals in her spare time...

  Reply

  20 Replies

  • alikerComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

    • 100%

      TonyByron3 months ago

      DO NOT click on the aliker link. trojan
      Propeller, the aliker post has been up for over 15 hours. It's a drive-by download site. What's up?

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • voojhonn2Comment removed: User banned.
  • 20%

    automan9093 months ago

    God is against what gays do too.
    Thats good enough for me.

    Reply

    13 Replies

    • 67%

      UnusualSuspect3 months ago

      God is against gays?
      
      Since God is the creator of all things, and everyone knows God only makes perfect things and doesn't make mistakes, then I don't think God is against gays.
      
      Make sense, automan?...yes, I thought so too...

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • eyesopenComment removed: User banned.3 Replies

        • 100%

          Dionys3 months ago

          "the bible is gods word and it clearly says man shall not lay with man"
          
          Actually it doesn't say that. It might say that in a few English translations or even most of them, but in the original Hebrew that is not what is said. Leviticus, or the PRIESTS CODES, only forbids one particular act (and in context it's meant for LEVITES) that homosexuals engage in.
          
          Homosexuality in and of itself, according to the Bible, is not a sin and does not carry any kind of 'stain' of impropriety or impurity.
          
          If you're going to lash out against Homosexuality because of Leviticus, you then have to consider all the other requirements of Leviticus. So you can no longer plant both shade and sun grass seeds in the same plot of land (so much for your 'perfect' lawn, huh). Additionally you can no longer wear clothes made of two different fibres (though here the English translation shows its fatally flawed nonspecificity again -- the law regards mixing Linen with Wool).
          
          Christ said nothing about Homosexuality and reached out to embraced the truly marginalized in society, which frankly today include the homosexual population.
          
          If you are a Christian, then you should be following Christ's example as set out in the Gospels, not referring back to Jewish Levite Priest Codes.
          
          If you are Jewish and are going to go about ranting "Leviticus this, Leviticus that" then you should follow the Orthodox observance and obey all 600+ rules, including the ones to not cut the hair at the corners of your head (where is that, anyway?). Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem also have the tendency to stone women for wearing pants. Not exactly the group I'd want to claim as 'my own.'
          
          Leviticus also has quite a bit governing the 'rules' of slave ownership -- such as who you can take as slaves, how you should treat your women slaves versus your men slaves and to whom the children of the slaves belong. Again -- not the model of 'life' I would choose to emulate if I'm going for 'Christ-like.'
          
          With all the hatred in the world an apparent manifestation of the Adversary's work, why would you want to claim to be doing God's work but in reality contributing to the work of God's opponent?

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            Marquus3 months ago

            And just where does it say "in the Tanach or Brit Chadashah" that homosexuality is not a sin in and of itself?

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              Dionys3 months ago

              Are we talking Jewish law and interpretation or Christian? If you're talking Brit Chadashah, you're talking Orthodox Jew. Orthodox Jews tend to stone women who wear pants in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Today -- not two thousand years ago. Personally I'd rethink justifying an anti-homosexual stance based on the logic of people who stone women wearing pants.
              
              The original Hebrew is:
              V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.
              
              Which translates to something like:
              And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman..this is "to-eyvah."
              
              In historical context what it probably means is that man should not have RITUAL an*l sex with another man during a pagan ritual. You have to remember that the societies that wrote these Biblical passages were high-context societies (where ours is a low-context society). You can google those terms if you're unfamiliar.
              
              Even if you take a more literal approach and interpret it in a 20th century setting, it speaks only of male on male an*l sex and says nothing about homosexuality or lesbians.
              
              Any further interpretation smacks of fitting your interpretation of the Bible into a political stance and moves away from literal interpretation.
              
              Read the entirety of Leviticus before you decide to start pouncing on 18:22. You might not want to follow every single other Levite rule and if you do not follow the other rules while shouting about 18:22 you're the worst kind of hypocrite.

              Reply
      • 100%

        DoseASpinoza3 months ago

        The same chapter of Leviticus that condemns homosexuality also says a couple verses later that you should be put to death for eating catfish. Look it up.
        
        It's the only chapter in the Bible that says being gay is wrong. And let's not forget that Jesus sent his disciples out in twos.

        Reply
      • 0%

        colo_princess3 months ago

        God doesn't like mass murderers and they exist does that mean that he created them?

        Reply
    • 50%

      NoWayMan3 months ago

      why would god create gays and then be against them?
      
      and please don't start quoting the bible. cause god told me that the bible is a pretty good book of parables but nothing more.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • OnionHeadComment removed: User banned.
    • 50%

      Goppy3 months ago

      I've read quite a few comments from automan ... this member is clearly a Christian Hater.
      
      His constant insults to Jesus Christ sicken me.
      
      Jesus taught Love, Peace, and Kindness to Children, and ALL mankind.
      
      automan has chosen to practice the branch of Christian Conservative Religion practiced by the Aryan Nation. I counsel these individuals in my private practice.
      
      Every post from this member is laced with the same kind of bitter hatred that I see with my Recovering White Supremacists.
      
      The Bible is can be twisted in a million different ways to rationalize hatred. But TRUE Christians ... those who study the word of Jesus ... CANNOT twist His words.
      
      TRUE Christians follow the teachings of Jesus that inspire LOVE, ACCEPTANCE, FORGIVENESS, and PEACE.
      
      Of course, that's why it is nearly impossible to reconcile being a TRUE Christian with being a Neo-Conservative supporter.
      
      My take on automan is that he is simply another run of the mill hater .... and these types ALWAYS embrace the party with the most aggressive, arrogant political ideology.
      
      This ideology is ALWAYS ruinous to a nation and her people.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        capecoralM3 months ago

        Then why all the hate for Palin? She is the Governor of Alaska. She has a history of reforming Government. She outed the man that appointed her to an ethics commission. She cut spending. She is the "common woman" that is from outside the beltway. If that is not "change" I don't know what is. I think Democrat(ic)s are about to open the door right into their face as the try to bash Palin. I predict (and may turn out to be wrong have you) that all of this mud slinging by the dems will backfire.

        Reply

    • voojhonn2Comment removed: User banned.
    • 0%

      colo_princess3 months ago

      God doesn't like mass murderers and they exist does that mean that he created them?

      Reply

  • DanmLiberalsComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

    • 0%

      capecoralM3 months ago

      She does not "hate" gays. She is for marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. She is for gay rights her track record will show this. The extreme left will exaggerate her positions to the point of Roberts when it comes to pro-choice. They will say voting for McCain/Palin will cause Roe V Wade to be overturned the day they take office. Same thing they said about justice Roberts. They will paint the Governor of Alaska as inexperienced when in reality Obamas resume is quite the bit thinner. In fact now Obama is an inside the Beltway candidate with this pick even though he has only been in the Senate for just a few years. And in reality most of the time by the way Obama has been running for President.

      Reply

  • voojhonn2Comment removed: User banned.
• 70%

  sumptuousdigs3 months, 1 week ago

  No...she IS an experienced gay hater....Oops! I see there is a comma...

  Reply
• 83%

  sumptuousdigs3 months, 1 week ago

  BTW...she was only the runner-up because Klondike Annie was a bit butch...LOL!

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 67%

    fsev413 months, 1 week ago

    I heard that the repubs were going to call for another biker rally in Sturgis to introduce her.

    Reply
• 0%

  gokosupe3 months, 1 week ago

  Hey Guys! I watched video coverage about Sarah Palin online here:
  
  Sarah Palin
  
  I found it interesting to know..

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 67%

    Will13133 months, 1 week ago

    i didn't click on that.. i'd bet its a VIRUS...

    Reply
• 0%

  blainegarrett3 months, 1 week ago

  I guess as long as we are electing celebrities... (I wasn't living in MN yet when Ventura was elected, so there.... heh).

  Reply
• 75%

  blainegarrett3 months, 1 week ago

  I know this is off topic, but I found it funny in the video they there were ads for nail fungus. heh.

  Reply
• 83%

  nikkibabe3 months, 1 week ago

  Will she be the Commander in Chief if McCain has heart attack on 6/20/2009?

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 83%

    PsychoHosebeast3 months, 1 week ago

    Don't think that won't be brought up..!

    Reply
• 50%

  Spadecaller3 months, 1 week ago

  I hope she goes hunting with Cheney.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 50%

    slate3 months, 1 week ago

    HOw quickly you did a turn about from your last thread Spade. Feeling pretty good about the outcome I see.

    Reply
  • 0%

    Spadecaller3 months ago

    Just joking around. Figures it would excite slate. LOL!

    Reply
• 100%

  jordan113 months, 1 week ago

  hahahahahaha! Well now, that cinches it! spew;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

  Reply
• 75%

  WahineV3 months, 1 week ago

  I know she really is in bed with big oil. Her husband works for BP

  Reply
• 67%

  DoseASpinoza3 months, 1 week ago

  Oh goodie, the next Katherine Harris.

  Reply
• 38%

  automan9093 months ago

  She will get most of Hillarys votes.
  I'd be very worried if i were a Dem.
  Then again, I'd shoot myself if I was a Dem.

  Reply

  13 Replies

  • 67%

    DoseASpinoza3 months ago

    Can I have some of what you're smokin? Most of HIllary's voters will not vote for a neocon, even one in a dress. Or pantsuit.
    
    And we don't want to inconvenience you with re-registering. You can just shoot yourself now.

    Reply
  • 80%

    lesterleon3 months ago

    IF I WERE A REPUBLICAN, I'D KICK BACK IN MY EASY CHAIR, LIGHT UP MY CUBAN, AND SAY SCREW THE NEXT GUY CUZ I GOT MINE AND WHAT ELSE REALLY MATTERS? I'D NEVER SHOOT MYSELF, THERE'S NO MONEY IN IT.

    Reply
  • 50%

    jordan113 months ago

    She will get most of Hillarys votes.>>>>
    
    CONS never did have much respect for women. And again, you proved it.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      DoseASpinoza3 months ago

      There are *women* on the planet? S**t! That explains why I don't have a penis!

      Reply
  • 75%

    Dionys3 months ago

    "She will get most of Hillarys votes"
    
    You really should stop smoking the crack.
    
    Women or men who would vote for Hillary Clinton would vote for her because she makes an excellent leader. The kind of leader who would take our country in the opposite direction from the worst leader in history, George Bush. In addition most people recognize that Hillary's great leadership ability stems not from her being a woman but from her education, her life experience and her devotion to government over decades of time.
    
    It seems unlikely that people who appreciate those things would vote in a woman who holds a BS from U of Idaho (have you ever been to Moscow, Idaho -- where UI is located? That's enough for anyone to think twice of voting for her). It seems unlikely that anyone who would vote for Ms Clinton would vote for a woman who's served as a mayor of a 6500 person 'town' for two years and in state government for less than two years to protect our great nation in a difficult time economically, internationally and philosophically.
    
    All I see in the comments of Repugnant Con after Repugnant Con is fear. Because they know just how solidly they will be trounced in the elections.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 33%

      Sirbilicus3 months ago

      Bill will vote for her even if Hil and her groupies don't! Bill can't resist a pretty face and , well you know!!!! Dems are so sophisticated that way.
      
      Gays are upset with the choice because she's married to a man of all things! My gawd....whats the matter with this person?

      Reply
    • 0%

      buckncindykill3 months ago

      "..........her devotion to government over decades of time."
      
      That statement right there is a good reason to keep her out of public office!

      Reply
    • 0%

      ckconboy3 months ago

      Hey "Dionys"...So, which is it? In your first paragraph of gibberish, you write:
      "Women or men who would vote for Hillary Clinton would vote for her because she makes an excellent leader".
      __________________________________________________...
      ...and in your second paragraph, you hopped the fense with this idiocy:
      
      "It seems unlikely that anyone who would vote for Ms Clinton would vote for a woman who's served as a mayor of a 6500 person 'town' for two years and in state government for less than two years to protect our great nation in a difficult time economically, internationally and philosophically".
      __________________________________________________...
      
      (Did someone pass you the CRACK Pipe")?
      
      Rebuttal:
      You want to "diss" a Vice Presidential candidate for "lack of experience"...
      But, would elect into the "higher" office of President, a man with equal or lesser experience.
      __________________________________________________...
      You shouldn't feel bad "Dionys" about flunking out of school and getting fired from the trampoline center. It's not your fault. It all goes back to when you were an embryo.

      Reply
  • 75%

    NoWayMan3 months ago

    pure fantasy.
    
    real hillary voters will never vote for someone who is committed to taking away a woman's right to choose. never. period. end of story.

    Reply
  • 67%

    chuck-the-canuck3 months ago

    “She will get most of Hillarys votes.”
    
    Typical republican delusional thinking. Just because they are both women, it doesn’t mean they are interchangeable. Osama and Saddam weren’t one and the same and neither are Hillary and Sarah.
    
    McCain’s biggest mistake in his choice is thinking that Hilary’s people supported her just because she was a woman. Hilary’s supporters were behind her because of her philosophy and stance on the major issues. If anything, picking Sarah may completely alienated Hillary’s supporters.
    
    But, I’m glad McCain picked her. If the Democrats can’t bury McCain and the republicans once and for all after this ridiculous gaff, they don’t deserve to be in office.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 33%

      Sirbilicus3 months ago

      Aren't blacks voting for Obama because he's black? Why wouldn't women vote for Sarah because she's a woman? Tit for tat, wouldn't you say?

      Reply
  • 50%

    careles3 months ago

    if dems had any brains at all they would be republicans

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      chuck-the-canuck3 months ago

      If republicans had any brains at all, they would still be sheep.
      
      I'm not too fond of sheep. All that fuzzy stuff gives me indigestion and a bad case of the trots.

      Reply
• 75%

  nikkibabe3 months ago

  There will be no VP debate. It will be a swimsuit and evening gown competition where you can see the next Commander in Chief in all her glory.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    DoseASpinoza3 months ago

    What about the Stained Blue Dress event? Oh I forgot, Biden would lose that one.

    Reply
• 50%

  lesterleon3 months ago

  THERE'S NO RESUME FOR THESE JOBS, UNLESS YOU'RE RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION. FACT: WE DON'T KNOW ANY MORE ABOUT THESE CHARACTERS THAN WHAT THEY TELL US AND WHAT THE MEDIA LET'S US KNOW. IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO FORMULATE AND INFORMED OPINION, SO ALL WE'RE LEFT WITH IS OUR GUTS. WHAT'S TRUE IS THAT THIS ELECTION WILL COME DOWN TO THE ECONOMY, AND I FRANKLY DON'T CARE WHO ROBS PETER TO PAY PAUL, SO LONG AS PETER IS THE DEFENSE BUDGET AND PAUL IS SOCIAL PROGRAMS. YES, I WOULD PAY MORE TAXES, AND IF IT'S SOCIALISM, WELL THEN I GUESS IT'S SOCIALISM. BUT LIKE THE DEMS KEPT SAYING, WE ARE OUR BROTHER'S KEEPER, AND UNTIL WE GET THAT PART RIGHT, WE'LL CONTINUE TO BE DEVISIVE AT HOME, AND SCORNED AROUND THE WORLD FOR THE HYPOCRITES WE CAN BE.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 50%

    DoseASpinoza3 months ago

    lester, I respect your opinions, but could you please stop e-shouting? It makes you look ignorant and takes away from the value of what you have to say.

    Reply
  • 33%

    Marquus3 months ago

    Well Lester since you don't mind thievery you shouldn't complain about anything.
    
    So as long as you don't mind anteing up, I say we take away from all you and your liberal Hollywood friends and give it to those who actually do something for a living.

    Reply
• 67%

  allasam3 months ago

  This could be the start of something big! Sarah Palin as something great to look at! Maybe Hale Berry as Postmaster. Catherine Zeta Jones as President. What would be the matter with having great looking women running everything?

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 67%

    chuck-the-canuck3 months ago

    "What would be the matter with having great looking women running everything?"
    
    Wake up boy, they already do.
    
    It's best you know, that it isn't he who wears the pants, but she who wears the panties, that calls the shots.

    Reply
  • 50%

    careles3 months ago

    well allasam now we can look at a political debate and see a pretty politician - kinda tired of looking at grey old men and ugly hillary

    Reply
• 40%

  Marquus3 months ago

  They would have to be conservative women, because there aren't any good looking liberal women, that's why there liberal. Here are my reasons why women are liberal.
  
  5) There ugly.
  4) Uneducated.
  3) Job is a four letter word with a letter missing.
  2) I thought that's what a man is for.
  1) They've never known a real man.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 80%

    chuck-the-canuck3 months ago

    "They've never known a real man."
    
    Like Bush?
    
    I'm sure you know the reason Laura always gets on top, when she performs her wifely chores, is because George can only f*ck up.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • GoppyComment removed: Spam
    • 100%

      Goppy3 months ago

      Laughed Out Loud.

      Reply
• 67%

  Greg95593 months ago

  Uh! Being shot down is not a winner! My Dad was a pilot, never got shot down. A REAL Pilot, and he does NOT endorse a pilot that was shot down. He's just a lucky LOSER, you see them all the time in the Casinos, GAMBLING! LOSERS! JOHN McCain is A LOSER..

  Reply
• 33%

  careles3 months ago

  Palin is the best thing to come along in politics - at least i can see a pretty face now.

  Reply
• 33%

  careles3 months ago

  you peek in their bedroom chuck?? bet my rance you are a sorry demo hypo

  Reply
• 33%

  careles3 months ago

  there are asses - jackasses and then there is Greg9559

  Reply
• 50%

  sortofcute013 months ago

  PALINS A$$ WOULD MAKE MICHELLE OBAMA A SUNDAY FACE......PALIN INSPIRES PEOPLE LIKE A TRUE AMERICAN WHO DOESNT HAVE TO CONVINCE ME THAT SHE LOVES AMERICA.... WHAT A GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT.....MCCAIN 08

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 100%

    Goppy3 months ago

    It sickens me the way that Christian Conservatives such as yourself spit on our flag and then grind it in the dirt with your anti-American slant.
    
    I believe that America is the home of patriots, people who want to make Her great ... not demean it like you. Patriotic Americans are considering BOTH candidates .... and considering the character of BOTH candidates.
    
    By both candidates ... of course I mean ... one that is an adulterer and abandoned his children ... and one that has been faithful to his wife and children.
    
    What I simply don't understand is why America Haters such as yourself ALWAYS seem to gravitate to the Right.
    
    Of course ... (and as always) ... I apologize to you if you are posting this from a mental institution. If that's the case, which, judging from your post, is highly likely, I wish you to get well.

    Reply
• 100%

  bebaboo4303 months ago

  she has major isssues that will be a problem

  Reply
• 0%

  WStilson3 months ago

  I have spent almost a year watching the left idiots name call anything they don't like. They preach tolerance unless it's not up to their view and then they spew hate. I am glad I am a level headed Republican who has natural tolerance for most. Sarah Palin looks like an American that the central US can beleave in and vote for. The people of fly over land will stand and vote with more resolve because she is real. You coast people don't have a clue how a strong gun supporting person will turn the tide away from Barak Hussein Obama.
  
  WAIT AND SEE.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 100%

    Dionys3 months ago

    So what it comes down to for Repugnant Cons is:
    
    1. Guns
    2. Conservative, Religiously based stance on abortion no matter that this country is one of many religions.
    3. Anti-homosexual stance
    4. Desire to teach Creationism in school.
    
    Yes?
    
    A psychologist would have a real field day with that. Seeing as how the biggest push-button issues for Repugnant Cons stink of fear, powerlessness and the desire to enforce one's own hateful, narrow-minded views upon another I guess I understand the Bush administration a lot better. Thank you.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      chuck-the-canuck3 months ago

      Yeah! What you said.
      
      No wonder that many of the rest of us in the world, sort of just look down at our shoes and try to sidle towards the door when you invite us out to play.

      Reply
• 0%

  careles3 months ago

  WELL, THE CROWDS AND THE MEDIA WENT APE ON OBAMAS "CHANGE" - McCAIN, A TRUE PATRIOT HAS JUST GIVEN US A "CHANGE" - NOW EVERY ONE GOES APE AGAIN IN REVERSE. there are 3 kinds of lies - LIES, DAM LIES - AND DEMOCRATS.

  Reply
• 0%

  rosecityfriend3 months ago

  I'm tired of men telling us how Hillary's women supporters will vote. Obama campaign advisers are peeing their pants with fear that they badly misjudged McCain and that he'll win the votes of the women Obama chose to dismiss with he picked old white man insider Biden. I can't speak for all Hillary supporters, but McCain/Palin will get my vote. McCain was one of the 2 Republicans who voted against Bush tax cuts TWICE (which is what Mitt Romney kept criticizing him for), McCain spoke out against the use of torture, and he worked with Democrat Russ Feingold on public campaign finance reform, something Obama stabbed in the heart with his refusal to take public money, even though he'd promised he would. Palin is bright and independent, and who cares that she's pretty too. The Democrats blew it. Thank you, John McCain for "pandering" to women.

  Reply