I know that liberals such as yourself proudly embrace things that God abhors, but since when is homosexuality considered a conservative value?
breitbart
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
I know that liberals such as yourself proudly embrace things that God abhors, but since when is homosexuality considered a conservative value?
Admire Rand Paul? If he's liberal, then call me "liberal."
You're the GOProud guy; I don't think God admires that sort of thing.
Do you consider yourself a conservative?
Sounds like a new thread.
lain: You'd save a lot of time and the effort of those not familiar with your technique if you'd simply begin with a copy/paste "What I believe and do about it politically" followed by, "If you differ with this in any way:" followed by the above.
Sounds like George made an idiotic move, by which I mean only failing to disclose at the outset. Otherwise, are you going for a larger, rpchkesque narrative here?
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I know that liberals such as yourself
Rand Paul Jr. is a Libertarian. What's the major difference between Libertarians and liberals? Very little.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95628
I know that liberals such as yourself
Rand Paul Jr. is a Libertarian. What's the major difference between Libertarians and liberals? Very little.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95628
And here's the part that's causing panic in the republican base:
But here's the good news for her: Despite these hits, Clinton leads the Republican top-tier candidates in hypothetical general-election match ups. And she's the only 2016 candidate the poll tested who doesn't sport a negative favorable/unfavorable rating.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...inton-remains-formidable-2016-nbc-wsj-n353386
Hence the increasingly frantic attacks. Too little, too late. Unless the party wises up and runs Rand Paul.
Might be the only way out. Whether or not the crazies in the GOP would be willing to see Rand in the WH, or would rather have Hillary win to keep control of the party, is anyone's guess.
But here's the good news for her: Despite these hits, Clinton leads the Republican top-tier candidates in hypothetical general-election match ups. And she's the only 2016 candidate the poll tested who doesn't sport a negative favorable/unfavorable rating.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...inton-remains-formidable-2016-nbc-wsj-n353386
Hence the increasingly frantic attacks. Too little, too late. Unless the party wises up and runs Rand Paul.
Might be the only way out. Whether or not the crazies in the GOP would be willing to see Rand in the WH, or would rather have Hillary win to keep control of the party, is anyone's guess.
I am sure there are two sides that story which you have conveniently left out, furthermore a non-monetary settlement does not necessarily conclude that either side won the suit or lost it, the suit was dropped by Loesh probably because it was cheaper for Breightbart to let her out of her contract than to keep fighting it, we do not know because there is a confidentiality clause in the settlement. The last people that should talk about honesty are liberals given that their/your leader has been awarded liar of the year 2013 & their chosen replacement is working hard so she can be recognized for this honor....what is more telling is that despite the dishonest, scandalous behavior of their/your candidate they/you will still vote for her. Pathetic indeed!
Barbarian observes:
Yes, the evil Barbarian forced Breitbart to do something dishonest so that one of his own people could sue him for it.
The all-powerful liberal Barbarian strikes again. He can also produce galloping paranoia in republicans, as you might have noticed.
When there's a falling-out among two Breitbart fellows, you know that there will be at least three sides, counting the truth.
The the part in red, above. The Evil Barbarian™ strikes again!
As noted, there is no honor among thieves.
I don't think those guys were liberals. Maybe they were just joshing, um?
Don't remember that. Breitbart got his share of "pants on fire" ratings, but still...
And the Evil Barbarian™ gets you one last time. Haven't voted for a main party candidate for president since Clinton's first time.
Hope you get better. Or at least less gullible.
Yes, the evil Barbarian forced Breitbart to do something dishonest so that one of his own people could sue him for it.
The all-powerful liberal Barbarian strikes again. He can also produce galloping paranoia in republicans, as you might have noticed.
When there's a falling-out among two Breitbart fellows, you know that there will be at least three sides, counting the truth.
The the part in red, above. The Evil Barbarian™ strikes again!
As noted, there is no honor among thieves.
I don't think those guys were liberals. Maybe they were just joshing, um?
Don't remember that. Breitbart got his share of "pants on fire" ratings, but still...
And the Evil Barbarian™ gets you one last time. Haven't voted for a main party candidate for president since Clinton's first time.
Hope you get better. Or at least less gullible.
Based on his actions, Breitbart in my view was not a journalist. He doctored videotapes and in one case this resulted in a competent official losing her job.
It was similar to the film clips (also edited) that were taken of ACORN officials. Everyone believed them and the organization was disbanded by Congress.
By the time people found out they were deliberately destroyed using phony "evidence" it was too late.
FOX "News" does this same thing over and over again. Some website puts out a spurious claim and FOX picks it up and repeats it endlessly. Then they accuse the rest of the media of ignoring the story. And then all the other news outlets start pushing the story.
No one down the line has ever checked the facts, evidence and data behind the opinions and interpretations.
By the time the original lie is exposed, the damage has already been done.
And it is too late.
it looks like he got the memo
Weird, i haven't missed a vote since i was old enough enough to vote. You have some weird understandings.
who have you voted for?
Loads of people, there are city elections, state elections and federal. Ive had many opportunities to vote. Do you vote in all the elections you are qualified to vote in?