Homosexuality is not a sin

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.[1]
 
Nordberg said:
You keep just playing opposites.
Click to expand...
What is "playing opposites"?

Nordberg said:
You cannot just say things are not true without offering some kind of silly, inane right wing excuse.
Click to expand...
Why should I offer a "silly, inane right wing excuse" to you if you're unwilling to consider my reasoning from the outset?

Nordberg said:
NPR is highly respected and very neutral.
Click to expand...
NPR is leftist trash. I do not accept it as a source of anything.

Nordberg said:
Do you only accept Infowars?
Click to expand...
Infowars is a mixed bag as far as I am concerned. They do get certain things right, but they are completely kooky regarding other things. They are very "hit or miss".


Obviously you still don't understand the concept of someone thinking for his/her self, rather than outsourcing said thinking to others (such as NPR or Infowars)...
 
gfm7175 said:
What is "playing opposites"?

Why should I offer a "silly, inane right wing excuse" to you if you're unwilling to consider my reasoning from the outset?

NPR is leftist trash. I do not accept it as a source of anything.

Infowars is a mixed bag as far as I am concerned. They do get certain things right, but they are completely kooky regarding other things. They are very "hit or miss".

Obviously you still don't understand the concept of someone thinking for his/her self, rather than outsourcing said thinking to others (such as NPR or Infowars)...
Click to expand...
gfm7175 said:
Chanting.
Click to expand...
gfm7175 said:
That is not a marriage.

A homosexual "couple" cannot reproduce (have children).
Click to expand...
gfm7175 said:
Chanting.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the evidence, Sybil. :thup:
 
gfm7175 said:
I am not Sybil. I am gfm7175.

Evidence is not a proof.
Click to expand...

You're a paranoid schizo or a liar. I'm working out on which one it is.

No shit, Sybil.

txio0fn.gif
 
Phantasmal said:
No, there’s certain people whose links I refuse to open. :)
Click to expand...

It's to a free forum website. Sybil has turned it into his manifesto; it's a view inside his head.

He likes to use the word "debunked" then goes on long diatribes supposedly proving how he is right and whatever he's railing against is wrong.

Example: Qanon Debunked https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/128/qanon-debunked

QAnon is a fictitious and totally undefined buzzword invented by leftists attempting to create a panicked frenzy among their gullible, stupid mind-slaves around which to "rally the troops."


1. Conservatives and Trump supporters are legion across the country. yet none are associated/affiliated with QAnon. In fact, none know anyone who knows anyone associated/affiliated with QAnon.

2. All references to QAnon come from leftists.

3. All references to QAnon are totally vague, leaving the question of exactly what QAnon actually is wide open to speculation, i.e. it could be a "movement" but then again it could be an actual "organization" or possibly even a danish pastry.

4. The only "evidence" presented are Twitter tweets and meme images of the type that are easily created using Photoshop or GIMP. There are never any videos of people stating their names and stating their reasons for associating with the movement/organization/pastry. Nonetheless, every occurrence of the letter "Q", regardless of where it might reside in the world, is presented as "evidence" of QAnon.

5. No leftist whose arguments are based on this "QAnon" never provide any sort of concrete information, speaking volumes about what one would discover in any rigorous independent research.

In fact, here is what one will glean from websites with information on QAnon, noting that every single one of these sites is a rabidly leftist disinformation center.

* Wikipedia: The wiki implies that QAnon is a collection of WACKY conspiracy theories, like the missing Aesop's Sininster Fables or something ... with a heavy dose of historical revisionism thrown in for good measure.

* BBC: uses the word "QAnon" as a slur for Trump supporters.

* Anti-Defamation League: wields the word "QAnon" as a notional concept meaning "support for Trump" and proceeds to totally defame it from all angles.

* CNN: doesn't want to commit to any definition of QAnon, and instead just wants the world to know that "Born on the dark fringes of the internet, QAnon is now infiltrating mainstream American life and politics." If you didn't catch that, QAnon is "infiltrating" American life, and was born on the "dark fringes" of the internet. Your guess is as good as mine as to what kind of thing fits that description.

* CBS News: decided to characterize QAnon as an "effect" but otherwise plagiarized CNN's party line: "What started as a fringe movement among former President Trump's supporters, confined to the shadier corners of the internet, has taken a mainstream turn."

* Christianity Today [My Second Favorite]: Whatever this publication might have been was taken over by Christian-hating Marxists and now it mocks Christians for not falling in line with Climate Change. CT has an article on what the Bible says about QAnon, and of course the article's take is that God should be consulted for help and strength with the following questions: "How can I confidently assess this theory that I'm believing in? How could I be wrong about this? And how would I know that I was wrong if I were?"

* The Sun: flat out declares QAnon a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotted against former U.S. president Donald Trump while he was in office. Apparently there is no "membership" or "movement" or people or pastries involved.

* The New York Times: explains that the reason we haven't heard anything lately is that QAnon is "being quiet" but most assuredly "lives on". The NYT take is that now QAnon has no leader so now everyone is free to tailor his own WACKY conspiracy theories to his liking.

* VICE.com [My Favorite]: I recommend this one to everyone. Apparently Tucker Carlson asked the same questions I did and decided to do the same research I did. Tucker devoted an episode to saying essentially what I have said in this post. Along comes VICE.com to play the role of tmiddles and to mock Tucker for having asked in the first place. You can check it out HERE.

I think this is enough for now.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top