Kerry 83% Bush 16% Can you top that? (I bet you can't)

[© tweed]

What is wrong with these people?

The answer: Mormonism

[© tweed]

Opebo..seriously quit the religious bigotry you're turning into a g troll.

Is he any more bigoted than you were when you actively have spoken in favor of 19060's style segregationists like GW and Strom Thurmond?

[© tweed]

Opebo..seriously quit the religious bigotry you're turning into a g troll.

Is he any more bigoted than you were when you actively have spoken in favor of 19060's style segregationists like GW and Strom Thurmond?

I am not denying opebo is bigoted; but the person that brought this to his attention was a man who has placed pictures of George Wallace in his signature.
It would be bigotry to say "All Black people... ."  It is bigotry when lump all Cristians together.

[© tweed]

If I put a picture of Thomas Jefferson in my sig would you call me racist?

1. Did thomas Jefferson base a presidential campaign on the basis of segregation?

2. Wasn't everyone a flaming racist in the early 1800s, especially in the region from which Jefferson hailed?

(Hint: Q1: No; Q2: Yes)

[© tweed]

Your signature is a map of the worst most bigotted elitist sh**thole in the US. History has proven the North east is ACTUALLY the most racist region in the US. Typical hypocrite 13 year old.

You had to bring my age into the equation to form an argument?

Bastard

[© tweed]

Your signature is a map of the worst most bigotted elitist sh**thole in the US. History has proven the North east is ACTUALLY the most racist region in the US. Typical hypocrite 13 year old.

You had to bring my age into the equation to form an argument?

Bastard

You have a lot to learn son.

Like what?  Learn how to be a stupid redneck homophobe like you and the people you drink stale beer with when watching a rerun of last night's Pepsi 200?

[© tweed]

If I put a picture of Thomas Jefferson in my sig would you call me racist?

1. Did thomas Jefferson base a presidential campaign on the basis of segregation?

2. Wasn't everyone a flaming racist in the early 1800s, especially in the region from which Jefferson hailed?

(Hint: Q1: No; Q2: Yes)

No everyone was not a flaming racist in the early 1800's. Ever heard of Quakers? Amish? William Lloyd Garrison?

Which do you think is worse, owning slaves, or basing a campaign around segregation? If you say the former then you need counseling quick.

White males from virginia were predominantly racist.

Even if you argue that owning slaves as a rich white male from virginia was off-the-wall (lol) then answer the question about the basis of the campaigns.

[© tweed]

Your signature is a map of the worst most bigotted elitist sh**thole in the US. History has proven the North east is ACTUALLY the most racist region in the US. Typical hypocrite 13 year old.

You had to bring my age into the equation to form an argument?

Bastard

You have a lot to learn son.

Like what?  Learn how to be a stupid redneck homophobe like you and the people you drink stale beer with when watching a rerun of last night's Pepsi 200?

This is why your section of the country is absolutely useless.

You got it backwards.

You're section of the country places propositons on the ballots (and passes then in wacko numbers) that deny financial rights to tens of thousands of people, and maybe more, that you never met.

[© tweed]

If I put a picture of Thomas Jefferson in my sig would you call me racist?

1. Did thomas Jefferson base a presidential campaign on the basis of segregation?

2. Wasn't everyone a flaming racist in the early 1800s, especially in the region from which Jefferson hailed?

(Hint: Q1: No; Q2: Yes)

No everyone was not a flaming racist in the early 1800's. Ever heard of Quakers? Amish? William Lloyd Garrison?

Which do you think is worse, owning slaves, or basing a campaign around segregation? If you say the former then you need counseling quick.

White males from virginia were predominantly racist.

Even if you argue that owning slaves as a rich white male from virginia was off-the-wall (lol) then answer the question about the basis of the campaigns.

Because most people owned slaves that makes it right?

Owning slaves at any period in time is wrong, but you seem to think otherwise. Segregtation was also accepted in the south at the time of George Wallace's campaign.

You can't even follow your own logic.

You could argue that slavery did more harm than good in the early 1800s as it was necessary for the southern economy, and the national economy, to survive.

Answer the second question.

[© tweed]

Your signature is a map of the worst most bigotted elitist sh**thole in the US. History has proven the North east is ACTUALLY the most racist region in the US. Typical hypocrite 13 year old.

You had to bring my age into the equation to form an argument?

Bastard

You have a lot to learn son.

Like what?  Learn how to be a stupid redneck homophobe like you and the people you drink stale beer with when watching a rerun of last night's Pepsi 200?

This is why your section of the country is absolutely useless.

You got it backwards.

You're section of the country places propositons on the ballots (and passes then in wacko numbers) that deny financial rights to tens of thousands of people, and maybe more, that you never met.

They dont have "rights" what a joke.

They don't have the rights that you and I do, not because of what they have done in life, but because of WHAT THEY WERE BORN LIKE.  It's like segregation.

[© tweed]

Your signature is a map of the worst most bigotted elitist sh**thole in the US. History has proven the North east is ACTUALLY the most racist region in the US. Typical hypocrite 13 year old.

You had to bring my age into the equation to form an argument?

Bastard

You have a lot to learn son.

Like what?  Learn how to be a stupid redneck homophobe like you and the people you drink stale beer with when watching a rerun of last night's Pepsi 200?

This is why your section of the country is absolutely useless.

You got it backwards.

You're section of the country places propositons on the ballots (and passes then in wacko numbers) that deny financial rights to tens of thousands of people, and maybe more, that you never met.

They dont have "rights" what a joke.

They don't have the rights that you and I do, not because of what they have done in life, but because of WHAT THEY WERE BORN LIKE.  It's like segregation.

People aren't born homosexual. Its a disease of the mind and soul.

Untrue.

Bue let me say this:

"People aren't born black. Its a disease of the mind and soul."

Makesjust as much sense.

[© tweed]

Actaully no. You can prove people are born Black, you cannot prove people are born homosexual. Until you can, Statesrights is entitled to his opinion.

But people can become unblack.  Look at Michael Jackson.

Plus I bet some whacko scientist has done something chemical to figure out that people are born gay.

[© tweed]

Then by your logic people can become ungay, correct?

No there is no scientific evidence to suggest gays are born gay. It's an unprovable theory.

Take it from a common sense point of view, if you have any.

Would anyone CHOOSE to be gay?  Choose to be denied marraige rights?  Choose to put themselves in a siuation where having sex is illegal?

[© tweed]

You don't chose pedophilia, either.

Gays can get "married" in whatever church they want, as long as it's okay with the church. Stop trying to force your bigoted views on society.

The bills that are being passed deny government recognization of gay marraiges, which is all that matters.  What the curch thinks doesn't matter.

[© tweed]

You don't chose pedophilia, either.

Gays can get "married" in whatever church they want, as long as it's okay with the church. Stop trying to force your bigoted views on society.

What the curch thinks doesn't matter.

It does to gay Christians.

but financial benefits is the discrimination.  The church is a private institution, and if a church denies marraige rights to somebody, it really doesn't matter.  But if you deny somebodu what is potentials thousands of year bcecause of their sexual orientation, that could lead to the lower class of america consisting of mainly homosexuals, simply becauxse of their sexual orientation.

[© tweed]

Yeah. We aren't going to recognize two gays as married, and it's not their right to force us to recognize it.

If two gays want to go live together, that's fine with me. If I hated gays, I'd say go ahead and have gay marriage.

The point is, people can change for the better and they shouldn't be trapped in a "gay marriage" when they do.

The definition of marriage is no more bigoted than any other definition: it is what it is, and nothing else. We don't call cows bigotry because the definition doesn't allow for cats.

But it is the religous definiton of marraige that defines marraige as between a man or a woman. 

IT has no bearing on your life if two gays receive financial benefits.

[© tweed]

Yeah. We aren't going to recognize two gays as married, and it's not their right to force us to recognize it.

Who is 'us'?

[© tweed]

You slimy piece of dog waste, are you implying there's something wrong with being Mormon?  Are saying that being Mormon is something bad?  If you are, you are the biggest hypocrite on this forum, I take extreme offense to that.  How'd you like it if I went off yelling it's bad to be black, or it's bad to be hispanic because they're all dumb?  What'd you think of that?  It's exactly the same, what you just did to me.

You are a disgrace to yourself, any respect I ever had for you, went tumbling down the drain.  You are a despicable and arrogant worthless individual.

Are you born black?  Yes
Are you born hispanic?  Yes
Are you born mormon? No

Now I won't go around hating people because they are mormons.  I don't have a problem with the jeapordy guy, he's a good guy.  But I think utah is a terrible place to live because mormon areas like utah have some of the strangest people I've ever seen.

If you don't like it, fine.  I don't care.