Search results

Nah. I'll leave it thanks. Points been made and you still may be smarting over the 2020 results. Let me know how you can ascertain how someone is lying or telling the truth very easily by inference on the adjoining thread when or if you can...

About what? A poor performance that fell well short of expectations? Okay, be thrilled about that, hardly ruins my day one way or the other.

Seriously, you're going to post another TGP article? Been following this all day and nothing remotely credible to suggest that Ukraine struck Poland. You are out there with this atrocious war Jefferson, you have been since day one.

Hardly. She may well be dopey enough to buy into election fraud conspiracy bunk so she's not necessarily lying or telling the truth either. See the problem with your earlier now?

Did Jefferson just post another Gateway Dumbwit article without any sort of credible verification? Yes, he did!

Still, hardly the "red wave" that was supposedly going to engulf the midterms though, was it Jefferson. Not been good at all for Republicans has it?

I'm saying she's a wingnut essentially. Anyone who still blabbers on about 2020 election fraud shouldn't be taken seriously and thankfully she got kicked into touch.

Pence was no great shakes but can hardly blame him for being flat out angry and upset for what happened that day. Won't mean a darn thing to the MAGA! lot though. They prob thought he just had a healthy tan when he announced his running for presidency again earlier...

How do you "know" that an accuser is telling the truth or lying? You say it's very easy to know by inference. Explain how.

Summed up Kari Lake to a tee. It's good to see that this type of wingnut election denial et al ain't sitting with the majority of Americans anymore and sanity may well be prevailing. She is out there, like MTG and others...

The only consequences Donald Trump has been facing have been ones of his own making. Hardly been silenced either as with oodles of fake tan, he announced his intention to run again for presidency in 2024 a short while ago...

Well, that's the trouble with reliance of human witness testimony isn't it? Especially back then. How could it be ascertained that accusers were telling the truth or not?

So, in your opinion Jesus would have condemned the woman if two of her accusers stayed behind then? That correct?

Rather, it was acknowledging that homosexuality wasn't a mental illness. Doing away with ignorance is not tantamount to 'rejecting God'.

Nothing to suggest that modern day societies should stone homosexuals to death along with all manner of other legalism advocated by plenty on the far right. Cos plenty are. It's prevalent in nature as well so you really should be clued up. Heck, why would people have 'chosen' to be gay in...

He looked like an Oscar statuette...unfortunately one that could talk...

Plenty of folk are just gay Idolater. If you think there's some psychological cause for it then good look finding it. That line was abandoned in the 70's and with good reason.

Just watched it live...he somehow looked even more orange than usual...

The stupid...it hurts...

Maybe see through their trickery? I'd say it was a given. Yes, which makes it all the more telling that Jesus said what He did. So, if two of the woman's accusers had remained behind you reckon Jesus would have condemned the woman?