|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
These are the most hateful people i have ever run into in my life. Even when they are trying their best to be polite, they cannot escape the fact that what they believe about conservatives ( they call them reactionaries and they call obama a conservative????) and christian fundamentalists is hateful by nature. Other's don't even try to be polite (Theodoric, Onifre), but they both despise the above categories of people with a vengeance. I think Coulter is only showing these kind of people for exactly who they are. It isn't any wonder then when colleges like Fordham University ban Coulter from speaking at their campuses. Personally, I think it's never that good an idea to counter hatefulness with more hatefulness. It doesn't help the situation at all, and in fact makes it worse. So, (and speaking to everyone here) try not to get emotional about these types of things. If your position is reasonable, as you likely believe it to be, then reason, and not emotion, should carry the day. (Also, in these online discussions, keep in mind that there are human beings on the receiving end of whatever you say) Having said that, I find it interesting how fiercely anti-Catholic foreveryoung and Faith are. (In my experience, the most radical fundamentalists tend to be anti-Catholic, and I wonder why) Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3820 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
To me, Coulter just responds to the ugly rhetoric of the left by exposing them and accurately calling them what they are. If you don't like the mirror, either don't stand in front of it or simply change your ways. Of course, liberals don't think their rhetoric is hateful. They think they are just describing reality. A case study is right here on the EVC forum. These are the most hateful people i have ever run into in my life. Even when they are trying their best to be polite, they cannot escape the fact that what they believe about conservatives ( they call them reactionaries and they call obama a conservative????) and christian fundamentalists is hateful by nature. Other's don't even try to be polite (Theodoric, Onifre), but they both despise the above categories of people with a vengeance. I think Coulter is only showing these kind of people for exactly who they are. It isn't any wonder then when colleges like Fordham University ban Coulter from speaking at their campuses.
Conservatives and especially religious people, have done a terrible job of educating the next generation and answering back to the liberal community as a whole.That is why they lost the last election. Outside of their Bible as the source for what they know is bad sexual behavior, if they could explain to married women why gayness, abortion, pre-marital sex, No Fault Divorce, and illegitimacy is destroying America they might have won the War against Women. Woman insist that their body is their own, which even appeals to the married women, 54% of whom did vote forRomney, but ingnores that women are NOT policing themselves in the us of their bodies such as that use does not hurt others. A free nation believes men own their bodies, too.A free society beoieve that the Governemnt ought stay out of the bedroom of men too. But this still requires that the actions by men do not hurt others. Single women who have babies hurt every Tax Payer ito the tune of a Welfare Budget now equal to the Military Budget. Single women who raise fatherless children raise them without an authority inside the family unit that results with kids who cause and experience 70% of all social problems today, including violent crime. Ann Coulter details these facts, but the Conservative Politicians avoid the Battle by failing to say what I just posted when they had the Media attention during the debates and election just past.http://kofh2u.tripod.com/...tebuilderpictures/singlemom1.jpg - In 1996, young children living with unmarried mothers were five times
as likely to be poor and ten times as likely to be extremely poor.Source: "One in Four: America's Youngest Poor." National Center for children in Poverty. 1996. - Almost 75% of American children living in single-parent families will
experience poverty before they turn 11 years old. Only 20 percent of
children in two-parent families will do the same.Source: National Commission on Children. Just the Facts: A Summary of Recent information on America's Children and their Families. Washington, DC, 1993. poverty.gif
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.Statistical Abstract of the United States 1994. Washington, DC: GPO 1994. 2. Drug and Alcohol Abuse- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states, "Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse." Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC, 1993. - Children growing up in single-parent households are at a significantly increased risk for drug abuse as teenagers.Source: Denton, Rhonda E. and Charlene M. Kampfe. "The relationship Between Family Variables and Adolescent Substance Abuse: A literature Review." Adolescence 114 (1994): 475-495. - Children who live apart from their fathers are 4.3 times more likely to smoke cigarettes as teenagers than children growing up with their fathers in the home.Source: Stanton, Warren R., Tian P.S. Oci and Phil A. Silva. "Sociodemographic characteristics of Adolescent Smokers." The International Journal of the Addictions 7 (1994): 913-925. 3. Physical and Emotional Health- Unmarried mothers are less likely to obtain prenatal care and more likely to have a low birthweight baby. Researchers find that these negative effects persist even when they take into account factors, such as parental education, that often distinguish single-parent from two-parent families. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. Report to Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing. Hyattsville, MD (Sept. 1995): 12. - A study on nearly 6,000 children found that children from single parent homes had more physical and mental health problems than children who lived with two married parents. Additionally, boys in single parent homes were found to have more illnesses than girls in single parent homes.Source: Hong, Gong-Soog and Shelly L. White-Means."Do Working Mothers Have Healthy Children?" Journal of Family and Economic Issues 14 (Summer 1993): 163-186. - Children in single-parent families are two to three times as likely as children in two-parent families to have emotional and behavioral problems.Source: Stanton, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics."National Health Interview Survey." Hyattsville, MD, 1988. childrensbehavior.gif
Source: Zill, Nicholas and Carol Schoenborn. Child Developmental, Learning and Emotional Problems: Health of Our Nation's Children. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Advance Data 1990. Washington, DC: GPO, 16 Nov. 1990. - Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent.Source: Elshtain, Jean Bethke."Family Matters: The Plight of America's Children." The Christian Century (July 1993): 14-21. 4. Educational Achievement- In studies involving over 25,000 children using nationally representative data sets, children who lived with only one parent had lower grade point averages, lower college aspirations, poor attendance records, and higher drop out rates than students who lived with both parents. Source: McLanahan, Sara and Gary Sandefur. Growing up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994. - Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC; GPO, 1993. dropoutrates.gif
Source: McLanahan, Sara and Gary Sandefur. Growing up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994. - After taking into account race, socioeconomic status, sex, age, and ability, high school students from single-parent households were 1.7 times more likely to drop out of school than were their corresponding counterparts living with both biological parents.Source: McNeal, Ralph B. Jr."Extracurricular Activities and High School Dropouts." Sociology of Education 68(1995): 62-81. - School children from divorced families are absent more, and more anxious, hostile, and withdrawn, and are less popular with their peers than those from intact families.Source: One-Parent Families and Their Children: The School's Most Significant Minority. The Consortium for the Study of School Needs of Children from One-Parent Families. National Association of elementary School Principals and the Institute for Development of Educational Activities, a division of the Charles f. Kettering Foundation. Arlington, VA 1980. 5. Crime- Children in single parent families are more likely to be in trouble with the law than their peers who grow up with two parents. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey. Hyattsville, MD, 1988. - In a study using a national probability sample of 1,636 young men and women, it was found that older boys and girls from female headed households are more likely to commit criminal acts than their peers who lived with two parents.Source: Heimer, Karen. "Gender, Interaction, and Delinquency: Testing a Theory of Differential Social Control." Social Psychology Quarterly 59 (1996): 39-61. juveniles.gif
Source: Ryan, Gail et al."Trendis in a National Sample of Sexually Abusive Youths." Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry 35 (January 1996): 17-25. - A study in the state of Washington using statewide data found an increased likelihood that children born out-of-wedlock would become a juvenile offender. Compared to their peers born to married parents, children born out-of-wedlock were:1.7 times more likely to become an offender and 2.1 times more likely to become a chronic offender if male. 1.8 times more likely to become an offender and 2.8 times more likely to become a chronic offender if female. 10 times more likely to become a chronic juvenile offender if male and born to an unmarried teen mother. Source: Conseur, Amy et al. "Maternal and Perinatal Risk Factors for Later Delinquency." Pediatrics 99 (1997): 785-790. 6. Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy- Adolescent females between the ages of 15 and 19 years reared in homes without fathers are significantly more likely to engage in premarital sex than adolescent females reared in homes with both a mother and a father. Source: Billy, John O. G., Karin L. Brewster and William R. Grady. "Contextual Effects on the Sexual Behavior of Adolescent Women." Journal of Marriage and Family 56 (1994): 381-404. - A survey of 720 teenage girls found:97% of the girls said that having parents they could talk to could help reduce teen pregnancy. 93% said having loving parents reduced the risk. 76% said that their fathers were very or somewhat influential on their decision to have sex. Source: Clements, Mark. Parade. February 2, 1997. - Children in single parent families are more likely to get pregnant as teenagers than their peers who grow up with two parents.Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey. Hyattsville, MD 1988. - A white teenage girl from an advantaged background is five times more likely to become a teen mother if she grows up in a single-mother household than if she grows up in a household with both biological parents.Source: Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. "Facing the Challenges of Fragmented Families." The Philanthropy Roundtable 9.1 (1995): 21. Edited by AdminModulous, : Off topic section hidden.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
"Somebody has to give back these A-wipes what they have been giving to conservatives without consequence"
That pretty much sums up your position, doesn't it. When Ann Coulter called the president a retard, it need not be in response to anything President Obama said or did. It is enough that some liberal, say Al Franken, Theodoric or NoNukes, has been rude. In fact often it is simply enough for Ann that the target of her comments be her opponent. When she claimed that 9/11 widows protesting the Iraq war were gleeful about their husbands deaths, what was Ann's justification?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3820 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
No,... I am saying that, if the women do not stop have illegitimate babies, the Nation will destroy itself. Because of uneducated barbarians they raise within, or the patriarchs like Iran, N. Korea, China, these women who are immune to direct criticism will destroy us from outside. These women insist that their body is their business, but we all get their bills in Taxation, and their criminal kids who drop out of school and destroy public education. And, yes, Obama is a fool who believes killing half the illegitimate babies with liberal abortion policies is good enough. QWe abort 1/3 of all pregnancies, raise 1/3 who are illegitimate, and expect the other 1/3 of the two parent families to pay the Taxes for supporting those Single Mothers. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given. Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic - hidden
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
I am saying that, if the women do not stop have illegitimate babies, the Nation will destroy itself. And the really amazing thing is how all these women have these illegitimate babies without any input from men at all. Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden - off topic Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
kofh2u writes: Single women who have babies hurt every Tax Payer ito the tune of a Welfare Budget now equal to the Military Budget.
BULLSHIT! Evidence? Edited by AdminModulous, : hiddenWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
It is impressive to see you crank the bat-shit crazy up to 12, but I expect that you still have more to give... Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
We should all feel sorry for poor Ann Coulter. She is still suffering from the all gobs of brown acid she took in the muddy, rain-soaked audience at Woodstock. She is still on a Very Bad Trip. Thorazine could help that maybe still.
- xongsmith, 5.7d |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Name calling or not name calling has nothing whatsoever to do with christianity. Let me guess, Matthew 5:21-24 isn't in your bible?
quote: No, Sarah would not be upset. She knows exactly what Ann means by "retard" and whom it is directed toward. She also knows that Ann would never even dream of saying what some liberals have said about her down syndrome grandchild. Now, that is downright nasty, hateful mockery. "retard" is a common word in english slang and Sarah is not hung up on poltically correct usage of words. quote: source Of course, that was when a Democrat did it. When someone batting for the same team does it, I don't know what her reaction will be (silence, it seems, for the moment).
It was the president of the college who loudly protested the invitation from the republican club at the college. I'm not sure how penning an open letter constitutes, 'loud protestation', so perhaps you have more info than me on this subject?
It was this protest that prompted the club to retract the invitation. Well, technically, it prompted them to research Ann Coulter more, and upon so doing, they decided to retract the invitation:
quote: You don't see that the republican club caving into pressure from the the President of Fordham is exactly equivalent to Fordham banning Coulter? So no we've established that you are calling the spokesperson for the Republican Club a liar - the next step is asking for the evidence to support your hypothesis that the club 'caved to pressure', presumably having to lie under duress. Or does it just suit your purposes to believe that's what must have happened? Is Ann Coulter hateful? Maybe, I wouldn't know. I believe she is, or at least has been, quite the influence in American discourse, but here in the UK she is practically unheard of. All I know is from the occasional time she says or does something that makes it onto whatever corners of the blogosphere or the various fora of the 'net I happen to be moving across. And that's generally not good. America does have itself a serious culture war going on, and Ann Coulter certainly seems a competent warrior for the 'other side'. My impression however, seems to be that her influence is waning and I can't help but think that the Obama-is-a-retard comment was an attempt on her part to still be considered relevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
modulous writes: Let me guess, Matthew 5:21-24 isn't in your bible? Let me guess, you have no idea how to refute my point? How in the world, does that bible verse refute my claim that name calling is not what disqualifies you as being a christian?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ooh-child Member (Idle past 344 days) Posts: 242 Joined:
|
Hey FEY - I'll let you in on the sideshow that is Ann Coulter. She doesn't believe half of the stuff she spouts, so if you think she's serious when she's berating liberals then you've been duped yourself.
Back when she decided to parlay her education & contacts into a pundit/book writer in order to support herself, she quickly realized the platform over in the conservative entertainment media arena was much better suited for her looks & expertise. She's an actor, not an acolyte. Sometimes the real Ann slips out, like when she accurately predicted a Republican loss if Romney was selected as their nominee. But it's not because she's a 'true believer', it's really a function of her need to be mentioned in the next 24 hour news cycle. She's very good at her deceptions, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
Much of the "debate" thus far has revolved around a basic tu quoque fallacy. The line of reasoning is that Ann COulter's hateful rhetoric is somehow "excused" or "justified" because it is a "response" to other hate from the "left."
This is irrelevant. When you say that you hope or wish for someone to die, when you call someone a "retard," you are being hateful. Whether your target was or was not previously hateful is irrelevant. Ann Coulter is absolutely hateful, or rather, she espouses hateful rhetoric.
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: I could go on. Generally what she's doing it an attempt to "humorously" phrase her arguments, and typically she's addressing a specific audience - "preaching to the choir," basically. The primary audience of Fox News likes to get all riled up against "liberals," not entirely unlike how a lot of liberals (myself included) used to enjoy getting a little riled up by Olberman when he was on MSNBC (though, to my recollection, Olberman never suggested that an entire subset of Americans lose their right to vote, or expressed a wish that Fox News would be bombed). Is there "hateful rhetoric" on "both sides?" Of course there is. We all call each other idiots and worse. Some of us are worse about it than others. But at the end of the day, what matters is not who said the most insulting words, or who was more angry. What matters are the policies themselves, and the world that they would bring. Politics, especially American politics, has long been something like competing soccer hooligans, a simile I've used often. We have our sides; what the other side says is wrong, and what our side says is right, and we don;t really think at all about what's actually being said so much as who said it and in what way. Look at the Presidential debates - we hat talking heads going on for hours about how the electorate would respond to which candidate was too nice or too mean, as if that matters one bit for the running of the country, whether the government should be able to regulate environmental emissions, the future of the "War on terror," or how best to continue or speed up economic recovery! The only way to stop all of the partisan bickering and nonsense is for everyone to recognize that we really do all have the same goal: we want the country we live in to prosper, and we just have different ideas about how that can be achieved. Pursuant to that, we need to sit down and talk about actual discrete policies and their measured results. We need to think about our support of policies beyond the basic snap-judgement used in politics today, and actually look at the effects of a policy. We know with certainty, for example, that "abstinance-only" sex ed does not work; rather, counties using "abstinance-only" suffer from significantly higher teen pregnancy rates than do districts teaching sex ed in a more comprehensive manner including use of condoms. It's not a matter of moral judgement, you enforce your morals on your children as parents, not as voters for the school board. It's not a matter of condoning teen sex. It's a matter of deciding which world you'd rather live in: the one with more, or fewer teen pregnancies. That's it. Choose your policy based on the results you want, and to hell with which "side" thinks what. Focusing on which political blowhard is the "most hateful" just feeds into the cycle and worsens the distraction away from actual policy decisions and their expected results. We're choosing the politics of personality instead of intelligently analyzing policy proposals and determining our support through the use of projections created with the use of real-world data. Of course, I don't think humanity as a species is ready for that. Our culture thrives on the drama of personality politics and tribalistic separations. There is "us" and there is "them." But I'd really, really like to be surprised.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Let me guess, you have no idea how to refute my point? It's too early to tell, you didn't address the alleged refutations.
How in the world, does that bible verse refute my claim that name calling is not what disqualifies you as being a christian? I wasn't addressing your claim that name calling is not what disqualifies you as being a Christian. If you had made that claim, I would have agreed with it. I was just pointing out that Christianity does indeed have something to say on the matter of getting angry to the point of name calling, so saying it has 'nothing whatsoever to do with christianity' is just not true. I would agree that Christian teachings don't spend a lot of time on name calling, but its not so absent as to say that it is 'nothing whatsoever to do with' it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
OMA provides a variety of resources to help facilitate an engaged campus community that proactively explores topics of diversity, including race and ethnicity, gender, culture, sexual identity, socioeconomic status, religious orientation, ability, international concerns, social justice and oppression. ...and a conservative college would not explore those things?Do conservatives have no interest in socio-economic status? Are conservatives uninterested in international concerns? Are conservatives against social justice? Do conservatives lack culture? Do you think that conservatives do NOT actively explore topics of diversity, including race and ethnicity, gender, culture, sexual identity, socio-economic status, religious orientation, ability, international concerns, social justice and oppression? What exactly are you claiming?? First of all I'm claiming that those terms are liberal flag words, right out of the Political Correctness handbook. "Multiculturalism" "gender" "sexual identity" "social justice and oppression" straight from the Liberal Agenda. Oh not that they don't have ordinary meanings for ordinary naive people, which perhaps you are, but a conservative recognizes them as PC flag words for the Liberal Agenda, otherwise sometimes known as Cultural Marxism. I guess the propagandists have done their work well since you don't even know these are liberal terms. As for what conservatives do, or conservative universities, conservatism is in such disarray these days there may be no such thing any more, and they may do all kinds of liberal things in their confusion. But I don't know. The old fashioned sort of extracurricular list would have had a more academic focus, you know, Honor Society, French Club (or Latin or Greek or German), Arts Club, Writers Club, Music Club, Computer Club, Science Club, Debate Club, Community Service Club, Political Science Club and so on. instead of sitting around "exploring" personal attributes and situations and making a fetish or a "cause" out of them. I guess liberals don't know they are liberals these days. Edited by Faith, : add signatureHe who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
modulous writes: I wasn't addressing your claim that name calling is not what disqualifies you as being a Christian. If you had made that claim, I would have agreed with it. I was just pointing out that Christianity does indeed have something to say on the matter of getting angry to the point of name calling, so saying it has 'nothing whatsoever to do with christianity' is just not true. I would agree that Christian teachings don't spend a lot of time on name calling, but its not so absent as to say that it is 'nothing whatsoever to do with' it. Yes, the bible says alot about getting angry and the use of the tongue, but the original point that I was making was in response to the following from subbie.
subbie writes: My question to you is whether you consider the kind of name calling the GOP does to be Christian? Name calling is neither Christian nor buddhist or muslim or whatever. It is a human behavior shared by all. It has nothing to do with what Christianity is all about. That was my point. I'm not saying Christianity has nothing to say about the subject. Name calling is not a distinguishing characteristic of Christians. Avoiding name calling is not a distinguishing characteristic of Christians. It is a distinguishing characteristic of those who are always polite no matter what the circumstances. If is more of a distinguishing characteristic of some than others, but whether one is christian or not does not make them any less likely to name call especially under extenuating circumstances. I could have answered subbie better with something like this: Name calling is not the calling card of the GOP and lack of name calling is not the calling card of the Christian so the question is ridiculous and moot and is merely antagonistic in nature.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024