My old man always said….”Son, if you can’t support the idea of all people becoming faggots than you shouldn’t be supportive of one person being a faggot.”He sounds pretty based for an Obama.
"Put 3 groups of people on separate islands and give them all they need to survive. Gay men, gay women, and straight people. Go back in 100 years. Which group survived?"
No offense to your pops but that’s a pretty idiotic statementMy old man always said….”Son, if you can’t support the idea of all people becoming faggots than you shouldn’t be supportive of one person being a faggot.”
My old man always said….”Son, if you can’t support the idea of all people becoming faggots than you shouldn’t be supportive of one person being a faggot.”
Really?! You agree with that shit?!
All legitimately principled people would have to.Really?! You agree with that shit?!
Not really. For example. From your statement Let’s substitute the word “faggot” with “celibate priest”.All legitimately principled people would have to.
Yes, and? There are people who don't have children because of 'childfree' principles, can't have because of some physical aspect and so on.He sounds pretty based for an Obama.
"Put 3 groups of people on separate islands and give them all they need to survive. Gay men, gay women, and straight people. Go back in 100 years. Which group survived?"
Yes, and? There are people who don't have children because of 'childfree' principles, can't have because of some physical aspect and so on.
What this silly remark in the OP means? Maybe you should elaborate your thoughts.
It seems you aren't good in expressing your thought by words. Maybe try pictures?WHOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
It seems you aren't good in expressing your thought by words. Maybe try pictures?
And I am impressed by your progress. So, maybe now some meaningful addressing of my previous post?Wow! I'm impressed by how smart you thought you sounded saying that. Way to go!
.
And I am impressed by your progress. So, maybe now some meaningful addressing of my previous post?
Troll you? I want to remind it was your highly meaningful post at first.I'd rather just go on being entertained by you trying to troll me.
.
Troll you? I want to remind it was your highly meaningful post at first.
Yes, and? There are people who don't have children because of 'childfree' principles, can't have because of some physical aspect and so on.
What this silly remark in the OP means? Maybe you should elaborate your thoughts.
He sounds pretty based for an Obama.
"Put 3 groups of people on separate islands and give them all they need to survive. Gay men, gay women, and straight people. Go back in 100 years. Which group survived?"
What is based?
Based is "red-pilled." It's the opposite of "woke", which in reality is not "woke" at all.
Those in a state of "wokeness" are merely sheep, bleating the same leftist party lines. They're participants in a "human centipede."
For example: Blacks people like Ye are "based" or "red-pilled." They've seen through the facade of lies created by the left, that all Blacks are "victims" and should vote for Democrats to provide them with everything they need from cradle to grave. They've "broken away from the Plantation", so to speak.
Hispanic-Americans are "based" when they realize that illegal immigration actually hurts them, and they vote Republican.
www.christianitytoday.com
I still don't know what woke is so I'm stumped by red pilled.
What Is Christian Nationalism?
An explainer on how the belief differs from other forms of nationalism, patriotism, and Christianity.
