Reply With Quote
I do not know, it seems to be a waste of your time.
You can't defeat reason. It was created by God.
Okay thank you for bringing me back to the light.
You're right, This whole thread was about the church molesting kids and Michael Savage being against it. Yeah, what an asshole he is for thinking that.
You're right. This has nothing to do with putting gay preist in churches, this has to do with gay activist wanting to simply hold hands with catholics and not be gas chambered and incinerated in concentration camps.
Why do i bother arguing with you, when you're so right.
I do not know, it seems to be a waste of your time.
You can't defeat reason. It was created by God.
And, no, you know damned well that that was not what I was saying.
You claimed that they want to put sexuals in the priesthood.
I claim that there are practicing child-molesting sexuals already there.
So, what is it that they will do? What sacred covenent of the church will they destroy? It is already filled with pedophiles and perverts, will it hurt to put in some people who are gay with people who are their own age, and willing?
Wow, are you sure you're above highschool standards in comprehension.
The argument of savage is not that gay's want to knowingly bring down america with their evil idea that gay marriage is evil and necessary.
That's you're shoddy paraphrasing, ofcourse the gay activist believe that their fight is right, Michael doesn't argue that, but that their actions and methods in forcing their intentions are sinister, and that they have the consequence of bringing down the american family even more than it already is.
Earlier in the same thread on post #24 you wrote,,....
You seem to go back in forth about this whole argument being and not being about child molestation in the preist hood.
WHich is it?
LOL! Pot. Kettle. Black.
I said that Savage made the claim that they were trying to subjugate America. That is his direct quote. I never said that he claimed them to be trying to cause America's direct downfall, at least not purposely, but that they are trying to, knowingly, subjugate America beneath their will, which will, inevitably, lead to the destruction of America as we know it.
There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.
Unlike some people, I can take a direct quote, and apply it to a post without losing the point somehow in the transaction.
Jackass.
A. That was a direct comparison to the ignorant filth you spewed in response to Zunni. I simply changed a few words, if you can't figure that out on your own.
B. I didn't claim it is about the church having child molestation, I simply used child-molestation in the church to refute your point about sexuals being so perverse that they want to put gays in the priesthood.
I say they are already there.
The end.
That's why you posted this on post #24 of the same thread.
Sometimes it's just better for me to stand back and let you argue for yourself,.......against yourself!
That's why you posted this on post #24 of the same thread.
Sometimes it's just better for me to stand back and let you argue for yourself,.......against yourself!
Dear God, you are an idiot!
I did not mean that, to myself, this was about the priesthood and their molestation!
As I have told you, I was trying to keep the essence of your post to Zunni, but change a few words to make it closer to the truth.
Ah the suspense!
Which Turambooger will I argue with next, the one claiming that this thread is about pedophiles, or the one claiming that it's all about priest pedophiles.
This is what I am referring to. I responded by keeping the same makeup.
First line - Wow.
Second line - You are clueless.
Third line - It has nothing to do with ...then I change something.
Fourth line - It has to do with... I then add something to change the meaning of your words to show the hypocrisy of your statement.
My God, you just don't follow well, do you?
What you are doing could not be, under any academic definition, be considered arguing.
It is, at the very best, a very twisted, childish attempt at an ad hominem attack.
THis is what Zunni said.
He said that we conservatives like Savage fear that sexuals will have public sex in our homes and churches.
That is ludicrous and is an insult.
ANd should'nt be defended.
Fortunately you''re not defending his statement truly, you're just once again having comprehension problems and think he was talking about pedophile preist.
But I forgive your idiocy.
Keep the up, or get the out, Gtown.
I never assumed Zunni was referring to this. I don't care what he said. I was proving the ignorance of your statement that it would be some sick, perverse step for the sexual mafia to try to ins ute sexual priests. I followed by saying that there already are.
I am serious. If you cannot keep up with the argument, go find something else to do. You are wasting my time with this circular bull . Take off the damned blinders.
Here's what you said earlier.
Gtown, are you on medication for something? You started off as a semi-worthy opponent. It could have been a good argument. However, you have dropped down to the level of pretending to not understand a post, over and ing over, to keep the argument from progressing.
Truly bloody disappointing.
Today you too can have you're very own copy of my latest book,
"How To PWN3D Trumafubar85! in any argument."
for $29.99!!!!!
Complete with pictures and pop ups.
How have I be owned??
What have you bested me in?
What point have you proven?
In this thread you've bested yourself.
That's my point.
You make it easy, longtime 2 dolla.
When, pray tell?
gtown is a failed Turing test, permitted to post in the internet.
The only thing you have done is played this stupid, circular game of sop ric ad hominem, revolving around one stupid post that you seem incapable of understanding.
If you believe you truly bested me, bring in some moderate, neutral poster, and let them see for themselves and make a decision.
Great stuff
And Zunni is the dog on Turamfubar85's avatar, perhaps he is the moderate unbiased poster that can agree wether Turamfubar has bested himself.<sarcasm>
Arf.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions