Post Right Wing looniness here

Horn6721 said:
Trying to imagine MrD conversation with Mrs D
"Honey some internet perverts want proof yours are real "

:lmao:
Click to expand...
1735848750131.jpeg
 
Ultimate looniness is these 3 representatives not confirming Johnson.

  • Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky voted for Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota.
  • Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina voted for Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio.
  • Representative Keith Self of Texas voted for Representative Byron Donalds of Florida.
I hope each is primaried next round.
 
theiioftx said:
Ultimate looniness is these 3 representatives not confirming Johnson.

  • Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky voted for Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota.
  • Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina voted for Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio.
  • Representative Keith Self of Texas voted for Representative Byron Donalds of Florida.
I hope each is primaried next round.
Click to expand...
They made a statement and then changed their vote.
 
mb227 said:
Goofy? GTFOH! These are things of real importance...

Really...just ask Garmel
Click to expand...

Oh I know they're important, and I frequently discuss them with her and sometimes to her annoyance. But is what we say about them important? That's more questionable.
 
mb227 said:
Easy on that S word...
Click to expand...

As a lesbian, you must feel a bit enlightened. You know what we know, which is that there is nothing sexually attractive about even the best looking guy. Our "private parts" and our bodies in general are gross looking. A woman's are literally the mostly beautiful things in the world. That's why we make some of our most important decisions on gaining access to them, and we could look at and enjoy even just one set of them all day and never get bored or tired of it.

I'm obviously glad most women are straight, but it makes no sense at all and frankly makes me question their judgment. We may "perform" reasonably well or even exceptionally well, but that's a learned skill (and almost always acquired after a bit of trial and error). It isn't some innate characteristic. On our own we have nothing to offer, and they have everything to offer. The fact that we have straight women and especially gay men baffles me to no end.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm obviously glad most women are straight, but it makes no sense at all and frankly makes me question their judgment. We may "perform" reasonably well or even exceptionally well, but that's a learned skill (and almost always acquired after a bit of trial and error). It isn't some innate characteristic. On our own we have nothing to offer, and they have everything to offer. The fact that we have straight women and especially gay men baffles me to no end.
Click to expand...
Obviously, it’s not about the sex (act).
 
mchammer said:
Obviously, it’s not about the sex (act).
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I think it can be about the act. I reliably do my duty and have for years, but that's a skill I've developed over the years like driving a car or practicing law. It's not innate. Without that skill, I'm pretty useless. I'm just some beer-guzzling guy in her bed.

A woman's sexual appeal is innate. She doesn't have to know or be skilled at anything.
 
LonghornCatholic said:
Click to expand...

Wearing fingernail or toenail polish doesn’t correspond with prostitution. Nor does makeup. Maybe very short skirts, visible sexy underwear, and high stiletto heels—those things may say “hooker.”

A biblical Christian directive is for women to wear some sort of head covering at Church gatherings. The primary biblical reason for this requirement: so angels would not see their hair and be tempted to rape them. Inter species sex makes G__d highly irate. St Paul may also have been concerned about a danger of creating another race of Nephilim—as happened in the Antediluvian era. Look it up yourself and do your own research.
 
Chop said:
Wearing fingernail or toenail polish doesn’t correspond with prostitution. Nor does makeup. Maybe very short skirts, visible sexy underwear, and high stiletto heels—those things may say “hooker.”

A biblical Christian directive is for women to wear some sort of head covering at Church gatherings. The primary biblical reason for this requirement: so angels would not see their hair and be tempted to rape them. Inter species sex makes G__d highly irate. St Paul may also have been concerned about a danger of creating another race of Nephilim—as happened in the Antediluvian era. Look it up yourself and do your own research.
Click to expand...
And yes, I’m well aware that the godless atheists regard this as a whole ‘nother level of silliness and absurdity. But it is what the scripture says. This bloviating Baptist in your video might focus more on what the scripture says and St Paul’s stated reason for this commandment. (And it’s not toenail painting).
 
Mr. Deez said:
For me, two things can be true at once. First, women shouldn't dress like wh0res for a number of reasons. Second, the fact that a woman is dressed like a wh0re doesn't justify rape, nor does it mitigate a rapist's guilt or culpability.
Click to expand...
Yep! A case of invoking his personal radical opinions into scripture. Actually not that uncommon.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
For me, two things can be true at once. First, women shouldn't dress like wh0res for a number of reasons. Second, the fact that a woman is dressed like a wh0re doesn't justify rape, nor does it mitigate a rapist's guilt or culpability.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't know why so many people have a problem with this. It's so simply and yet people have trouble with it.
 
Chop said:
A biblical Christian directive is for women to wear some sort of head covering at Church gatherings. The primary biblical reason for this requirement: so angels would not see their hair and be tempted to rape them. Inter species sex makes G__d highly irate. St Paul may also have been concerned about a danger of creating another race of Nephilim—as happened in the Antediluvian era. Look it up yourself and do your own research.
Click to expand...

I've heard crazier explanations for the head covering thing. I think yours is more likely. However, Nephilim isn't the same thing as the demon/human mix in Genesis 6. Nephilim show up in Joshua as well. The word is associated with giants and evil. But there are multiple ways to get that mix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top