otto105
Diamond Member
- Sep 11, 2017
- 39,522
- 12,913
- 1,465
Still a nothingburgerCome on, you're not that small.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Still a nothingburgerCome on, you're not that small.
Still a nothingburger
News to me. Are you sure your sources aren’t just being silly with youSo female means transgender now?
Your side is pushing this bullshit woke agenda because you believe it's going to help you politically. It's bs. It's like when you fabricated trannies in bathrooms to rile up your ignorant, racist homophobic base. AKA your religious voting block. LOLSo if the Left brings a political agenda into an entertainment arena, and the Right simply points that out as reality, we're the ones being "divisive"?
Do you not see why this BS doesn't hold any water?
Imagine if, instead of the Black National Anthem, they were preaching about keeping the black family unit together and being pro life.
Get it now?
Probably not.
It's going that way. Jordan is an owner and Lebron will own the Los Vegas Basketball team after he retires.Nothing stopping rich Blacks from buying your own teams and hiring your Black coach of your choice. Is there? Make an offer for the Dallas Cowboys? Maybe Carolina (who I feel made a bad choice for Coach...over the interim who was doing good). That owner is making a mistake. Team morale will be in the toilet.
Maybe if you Google tiny...I know, just tryin' to go easy on ya.
Only in the shrinking pool of white grievance fuckups.A race based national anthem is racist.
The NFL is endorsing racism.
The Super Bowl advertisers are endorsing racism.
This does not reduce racism.
It increases racism.
Your side is pushing this bullshit woke agenda because you believe it's going to help you politically.
Yup. I would never even hear about it if it wasn't for you guys crying about it.So it's the Right that is actually pushing wokeness? Not the Left.
Wow. That's a whole new level of retarded right there.
Yup. I would never even hear about it if it wasn't for you guys crying about it.
Just like trannies in bathrooms. Did we bring this issue up?
Well I can only say they are probably right teaching kids those things. About our racist past and present. You guys want to whitewash and continue being allowed to bully gays and minorities.That's because the media and their Democrat allies try to hide what is happening in schools when it comes to race and gender ideology being taught to little kids, and even in some cases boys being permitted into girls' bathrooms depending upon how they "identify". (After being brainwashed, of course.)
Unfortunately for the Left, the lockdowns exposed the brutal reality that many children today are not being educated, but indoctrinated. Parents being able to work from home, and monitor their child's "learning" more closely - along with remote learning itself - proved that.
So just know that when the media you tune into tells you "This isn't happening, why are Republicans bringing this up?" - they are lying directly to your face.
Then, if you extrapolate that out to everything else, you may start to see things more clearly.
I should know, I used to fall for the FAKE NEWS.
Not anymore.
Define tiny?
Here is another example of Republicans taking something good and making it bad.That's because the media and their Democrat allies try to hide what is happening in schools when it comes to race and gender ideology being taught to little kids, and even in some cases boys being permitted into girls' bathrooms depending upon how they "identify". (After being brainwashed, of course.)
Unfortunately for the Left, the lockdowns exposed the brutal reality that many children today are not being educated, but indoctrinated. Parents being able to work from home, and monitor their child's "learning" more closely - along with remote learning itself - proved that.
So just know that when the media you tune into tells you "This isn't happening, why are Republicans bringing this up?" - they are lying directly to your face.
Then, if you extrapolate that out to everything else, you may start to see things more clearly.
I should know, I used to fall for the FAKE NEWS.
Not anymore.
Ha ha ha! You say the day the Civil War ended whites lost power? To who? Who took over on April 10th 1865?You’re a liar. Racists (white or otherwise) are not in power anywhere since the civil war (except in some states for a long while after). Even then, no racists were in power when mostly white people voted for a month dedicated to African American culture and history and achievements.
The Bishop of Lichfield, The Right Reverend Michael Ipgrave, responded to this question by stating how a “new joint project on gendered language will begin this spring.”Please could the Liturgical Commission provide an update on the steps being taken to develop more inclusive language in our authorized liturgy and to provide more options for those who wish to use authorized liturgy and speak of God in a non-gendered way, particularly in authorized absolutions where many of the prayers offered for use refer to God using male pronouns?
Nope. Not what I wrote. Why do you rely on lies, sillybozo?Ha ha ha! You say the day the Civil War ended whites lost power?
Worry about what we call God. Stay up late every night worrying about it.To who? Who took over on April 10th 1865?
On another note regarding wokeness. Why do we call god him/he?
Who says He isn’t? He might not be. Then again, He might be. It is a certainty that assholes like you don’t know.Our Father, who art in heaven. WRONG! Father isn't gender neutral. Who says god is a man?
I don’t recall Eve discussing “our Father” or any other routine prayer.This means, as you guessed it, that yes, the Our Father may be changed as well.
The efforts for these changes arose after Reverend Joanna Stobart asked if there was any progress on the Church of England’s Liturgical Commission on finding appropriate gender-neutral terms for God the Father and He and Him. She inquired:
The Bishop of Lichfield, The Right Reverend Michael Ipgrave, responded to this question by stating how a “new joint project on gendered language will begin this spring.”
Our parent, who art in heaven. That's better.
See you did it too. You can't help be misogynistic.Nope. Not what I wrote. Why do you rely on lies, sillybozo?
Worry about what we call God. Stay up late every night worrying about it.
Who says He isn’t? He might not be. Then again, He might be. It is a certainty that assholes like you don’t know.
I don’t recall Eve discussing “our Father” or any other routine prayer.
Is it? It’s different. But “better” is simply your subjective opinion.
Your determined lack of comprehension exposes you as the simpleton you are, sillybozo.
Who says He isn’t? He might not be. Then again, He might be.
You do. As always. You’re the douche nugget who contends that God isn’t a “He.” My position is that He is.See you did it too. You can't help be misogynistic.
Look what you wrote
You say it in your response. 3 times in fact. Now who looks dumb?
I’d at 63.The Washington Supreme Court held that "[p]arents have a right to limit visitation of their children with third persons," and that between parents and judges, "the parents should be the ones to choose whether to expose their children to certain people or ideas." Id., at 21, 969 P. 2d, at 31. Four justices dissented from the Washington Supreme Court's holding on the constitutionality of the statute. Id., at 23-43, 969 P. 2d, at 32-42.
We granted certiorari, 527 U. S. 1069 (1999), and now affirm the judgment.
Id at 65.The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." We have long recognized that the Amendment's Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart, "guarantees more than fair process." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 719 (1997). The Clause also includes a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests." Id., at 720; see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 301-302 (1993).
In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e. g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651 (1972)
Accordingly, so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i. e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the
69
best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent's children. See, e. g., Flores, 507 U. S., at 304.
All I know is this. The Supreme Court was able to overturn Roe V Wade because of some bullshit court decision that was made in Mississippi. So I don't think the rest of the country should be affected by what some fucking hicks in Mississippi think or do. And that's why states like Michigan are passing laws to make sure conservatives here can't try to use that case in Mississippi to try and ban abortion here in MI.Troxel v. Granville
Look it up, sillybozo. sealybobo
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
It stands for the proposition that parents have the fundamental right to provide care and custody over their own children.
I’d at 63.
Id at 65.
Id at 66. (Emphasis added.)
Id at 68 a 69.
Bottom line, once again sillybozo is wrong.
What a load ^ of unresponsive generalized caterwauling from sillybozo.All I know is this. The Supreme Court was able to overturn Roe V Wade because of some bullshit court decision that was made in Mississippi. So I don't think the rest of the country should be affected by what some fucking hicks in Mississippi think or do. And that's why states like Michigan are passing laws to make sure conservatives here can't try to use that case in Mississippi to try and ban abortion here in MI.
But Republicans are trying. That's why you won't win any future elections.