Hmmm…I think it should be called ‘Purple Dranking’
December 27, 2012 at 11:27am
No, the really funny part is that atheists decry faith without realizing their position is totally dependent on faith since, as they are quick to point out, you can’t prove a negative. So if you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist it must necessarily be a position based on faith.
Here’s the key sentence:
“Smith’s employer, the taxpayer-funded Trafford Housing Trust, summonsed him to a disciplinary meeting following a fellow staff member’s complaints about his Facebook comments.”
It’s time to start fighting fire with fire. It’s time to start getting ‘offended’ whenever somebody disagrees and call them a name that ends in ‘-ist’. They have redefined the word hate. It’s time they started living by the new definition they gave it.
 September 4, 2012 at 4:19pm
Fair enough. I assumed your implication. Tell me I’m wrong about what you were implying. And when you do, make sure you include what you were implying.
If you can’t tell me I’m wrong about what you were implying (because we both know what you were implying), then stop diverting and just admit you simply wanted to use that verse to silence somebody you thought was judging somebody else because you mistakenly think that verse means we shouldn’t judge.
 September 4, 2012 at 2:05pm
Apparently, you still need some help with reading comprehension because I didn’t call you a liberal. I said it was liberals favorite verse. I’m sorry if that hit too close to home for you or if the distinction is lost on you. And had you comprehended the verses you threw out there, you wouldn’t have posted them out of context in an attempt to silence someone providing relevant verses.
I understand that I appear arrogant to you. That is often the case for the person who is wrong. I’m just stating facts. You either lack of comprehension of what you read in those verses or you are lying by twisting it to suit your purposes. Take your pick. I’m just telling you what it actually says as opposed to what you were trying to imply it says.
 September 4, 2012 at 10:32am
Ahh, the favorite verse of liberals and the most mis-quoted verse in the Bible.
Since you apparently lack reading comprehension (like the 99% of people that quote this verse and think it means you shouldn’t judge people because they don’t read past the comma), here’s an explanation of what is being said in simpler terms so you can understand it:
You are not to judge UNLESS you are willing to be subjected to the same standard. What happens at the end of verse 5? You are told that you can remove the speck from someone else’s eye (ie judge them) but ONLY AFTER you are certain that you have met the same standard (ie remove the log from your own eye).
We are commanded to judge but we are to do it without being hypocrites.
February 5, 2012 at 12:53pm
I haven’t heard that before. Please do post the references. Thanks
February 2, 2012 at 1:22pm
Another example that he thinks government is god. It is to God to whom much is required, not government. Do we have an obligation to help the poor? Yes. Is it an obligation to government? No.
February 2, 2012 at 12:25am
Climate scientists have reached the level alchemists as far as I’m concerned. I don’t believe a word that comes out their mouths.
January 7, 2012 at 12:53am
I’m no fan of the mega churches either but I’m even less of a fan of twisting scripture and / or logic to make your point. The verse does say to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s (ie taxes). In this case Caesar is not demanding taxes so to claim they are somehow ignoring God’s Word in that instance is false.
November 10, 2011 at 5:15pm
Hey Joe! I’d be thrilled if you can manage to be occasionally right much less always right. I have news for you: predicting that Perry won’t get the nom (which is correct) doesn’t make you any less of a Rino.
July 1, 2011 at 2:01pm
That was the father of the bride that said that about the Mother-in-Law, not vice versa.
June 11, 2011 at 11:35am
I wonder how quickly these ‘anarchists’ would go running to the authorities if they got the beat down they deserve.
June 11, 2011 at 11:32am
Wasington is a concealed carry state. Whether the western third of it takes advantage of it or not is another question.
May 10, 2011 at 5:58pm
The ONLY reason he signed the bill was because of the blow back he got from the truce comments. He didn’t have a choice. If he didn’t sign it, his Presidential aspirations (for at least this cycle) were over. (And the ficons wouldn’t be too thrilled either that he passed up an opportunity to trim the budget) His signing the bill doesn’t prove anything other than that he was paying attention when his truce comments generated heat.
I’ve had enough of ‘go along to get along’ Republicans and Daniels is one of them. Pass.