Mac1958
Diamond Member
This is just an ongoing psychological / sociological / anthropological study for me.
Never lacking for material, that's for sure.
.
The Whole Truth
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
Never lacking for material, that's for sure.
.
Frannie
Gold Member
- Feb 27, 2019
- 6,880
- 353
- 135
- Banned
- #42
You should link to looney tunesExcuse me, what was that?
Did you say you wanted me to post those examples and then rub your goofy nose in it?
Happy to!
Your fellow Trumpsters, being all Trumpy 'n stuff!
Rub rub rub!
Rub rub rub!
.
Everything I post is linked, sourced, and documented....that's why you couldn't find anything in my posts that folks shouldn't believe.
Reader's have found that your posts are never "The Whole Truth."
Good to see you admit that everything I put in the thread is 100% true, accurate,. and correct.
Slink away, dunce.
Did you hear about the fool who claimed the Church of England worshiped the king as god???
Oh...wait......that fool was you!
Are you still blabbering that the King of England was not considered a divine being? Because if you are you are really embarrassing yourself.
Silly fool
divine right of kings | Definition, History, & Facts
Divine right of kings - Wikipedia
divine
[dəˈvīn]
godly · godlike · angelic · seraphic · saintly · beatific · spiritual · heavenly ·
celestial · holy · empyrean · deiform · deific
Now all things considered, you really are a simpleton
So is it fun being the dumbest person in any group you are in?
Last edited:
Frannie
Gold Member
- Feb 27, 2019
- 6,880
- 353
- 135
- Banned
- #43
Excuse me, what was that?
Did you say you wanted me to post those examples and then rub your goofy nose in it?
Happy to!
Your fellow Trumpsters, being all Trumpy 'n stuff!
Rub rub rub!
Rub rub rub!
.
Everything I post is linked, sourced, and documented....that's why you couldn't find anything in my posts that folks shouldn't believe.
Reader's have found that your posts are never "The Whole Truth."
Good to see you admit that everything I put in the thread is 100% true, accurate,. and correct.
Slink away, dunce.
Are you a natural blonde??????????????????????
- Thread starter
- #44
As usual, completely wrong.
The lily-white movement was an all-white faction of the Republican Party in the Southern United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It battled and usually defeated the biracial element called the Black-and-tan faction.
During Reconstruction, following the U.S. Civil War, black leaders in Texas and around the country gained increasing influence in the Republican Party by organizing blacks as an important voting bloc. Conservative whites attempted to eliminate this influence and recover white voters who had defected to the Democratic Party. The effort was largely successful in eliminating African-American influence in the Republican Party leading to black voters predominantly migrating to the Democratic Party for much of the 20th century.
The term lily-white movement was coined by Texas Republican leader Norris Wright Cuney, who used the term in an 1888 Republican convention to describe efforts by white conservatives to oust blacks from positions of Texas party leadership and incite riots to divide the party.[1] The term came to be used nationally to describe this ongoing movement as it further developed in the early 20th century,[2] including through the administration of Herbert Hoover. Localized movements began immediately after the war but by the beginning of the 20th century the effort had become national.” “This movement is largely credited with driving blacks out of the Republican party during the early 20th century, setting the stage for their eventual support of the Democrats.”
Michael K. Fauntroy - Republicans and the Black vote
The racism inherent in much of the current republican base allows a failure to understand that we as blacks are able to think critically and make decision without white input. We know what republicans have done. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Rutherford Hayes, a republican, ended reconstruction. We had the republican lily white movement to purge blacks from the party. Republicans endorsed separate but equal, every republican administration in the early to mid 1900's broke promises made to blacks, most notably during the Great Mississippi flood, which resulted in black casualties, displacement and basically returning southern blacks back to slave status. It was a democrat that signed what amounted to our second Emancipation Proclamation when Johnson signed the civil rights act. It was Johnsons arm twisting that got the act passed not the belief in racial equality by the republican party.
The Democratic party was formed in 1828. Slavery was made legal in the United States in 1640. Slavery was the law for 188 years before the democratic party existed. It was a 7-1 decision that created Jim Crow. Four of the supreme court judges voting in favor of separate but equal were republicans. Lynching was done by whites. It was bi partisan. This thread is garbage.
You are a disingenuous nutjob.
You're truly ignorant and a complete dumbass.
You are far too kind to our johnny-one-note racialist.
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,290
- 142,404
- 3,645
As usual, completely wrong.
The lily-white movement was an all-white faction of the Republican Party in the Southern United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It battled and usually defeated the biracial element called the Black-and-tan faction.
During Reconstruction, following the U.S. Civil War, black leaders in Texas and around the country gained increasing influence in the Republican Party by organizing blacks as an important voting bloc. Conservative whites attempted to eliminate this influence and recover white voters who had defected to the Democratic Party. The effort was largely successful in eliminating African-American influence in the Republican Party leading to black voters predominantly migrating to the Democratic Party for much of the 20th century.
The term lily-white movement was coined by Texas Republican leader Norris Wright Cuney, who used the term in an 1888 Republican convention to describe efforts by white conservatives to oust blacks from positions of Texas party leadership and incite riots to divide the party.[1] The term came to be used nationally to describe this ongoing movement as it further developed in the early 20th century,[2] including through the administration of Herbert Hoover. Localized movements began immediately after the war but by the beginning of the 20th century the effort had become national.” “This movement is largely credited with driving blacks out of the Republican party during the early 20th century, setting the stage for their eventual support of the Democrats.”
Michael K. Fauntroy - Republicans and the Black vote
The racism inherent in much of the current republican base allows a failure to understand that we as blacks are able to think critically and make decision without white input. We know what republicans have done. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Rutherford Hayes, a republican, ended reconstruction. We had the republican lily white movement to purge blacks from the party. Republicans endorsed separate but equal, every republican administration in the early to mid 1900's broke promises made to blacks, most notably during the Great Mississippi flood, which resulted in black casualties, displacement and basically returning southern blacks back to slave status. It was a democrat that signed what amounted to our second Emancipation Proclamation when Johnson signed the civil rights act. It was Johnsons arm twisting that got the act passed not the belief in racial equality by the republican party.
The Democratic party was formed in 1828. Slavery was made legal in the United States in 1640. Slavery was the law for 188 years before the democratic party existed. It was a 7-1 decision that created Jim Crow. Four of the supreme court judges voting in favor of separate but equal were republicans. Lynching was done by whites. It was bi partisan. This thread is garbage.
You are a disingenuous nutjob.
You're truly ignorant and a complete dumbass.
You are far too kind to our johnny-one-note racialist.
That's one more note than you have coolie.
- Thread starter
- #46
You should link to looney tunesExcuse me, what was that?
Did you say you wanted me to post those examples and then rub your goofy nose in it?
Happy to!
Your fellow Trumpsters, being all Trumpy 'n stuff!
Rub rub rub!
Rub rub rub!
.
Everything I post is linked, sourced, and documented....that's why you couldn't find anything in my posts that folks shouldn't believe.
Reader's have found that your posts are never "The Whole Truth."
Good to see you admit that everything I put in the thread is 100% true, accurate,. and correct.
Slink away, dunce.
Did you hear about the fool who claimed the Church of England worshiped the king as god???
Oh...wait......that fool was you!
Are you still blabbering that the King of England was not considered a divine being? Because if you are you are really embarrassing yourself.
Silly fool
divine right of kings | Definition, History, & Facts
Divine right of kings - Wikipedia
divine
[dəˈvīn]
godly · godlike · angelic · seraphic · saintly · beatific · spiritual · heavenly ·
celestial · holy · empyrean · deiform · deific
Now all things considered, you really are a simpleton
So is it fun being the dumbest person in any group you are in?
Do your attendants know you’re using the computer again???
Divine right means that God gave the king....a human being .....the right to rule.
The Church never...NEVER.....worshiped the king, or called him God.
Gads, you're a moron.
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,290
- 142,404
- 3,645
As usual, completely wrong.
The lily-white movement was an all-white faction of the Republican Party in the Southern United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It battled and usually defeated the biracial element called the Black-and-tan faction.
During Reconstruction, following the U.S. Civil War, black leaders in Texas and around the country gained increasing influence in the Republican Party by organizing blacks as an important voting bloc. Conservative whites attempted to eliminate this influence and recover white voters who had defected to the Democratic Party. The effort was largely successful in eliminating African-American influence in the Republican Party leading to black voters predominantly migrating to the Democratic Party for much of the 20th century.
The term lily-white movement was coined by Texas Republican leader Norris Wright Cuney, who used the term in an 1888 Republican convention to describe efforts by white conservatives to oust blacks from positions of Texas party leadership and incite riots to divide the party.[1] The term came to be used nationally to describe this ongoing movement as it further developed in the early 20th century,[2] including through the administration of Herbert Hoover. Localized movements began immediately after the war but by the beginning of the 20th century the effort had become national.” “This movement is largely credited with driving blacks out of the Republican party during the early 20th century, setting the stage for their eventual support of the Democrats.”
Michael K. Fauntroy - Republicans and the Black vote
The racism inherent in much of the current republican base allows a failure to understand that we as blacks are able to think critically and make decision without white input. We know what republicans have done. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Rutherford Hayes, a republican, ended reconstruction. We had the republican lily white movement to purge blacks from the party. Republicans endorsed separate but equal, every republican administration in the early to mid 1900's broke promises made to blacks, most notably during the Great Mississippi flood, which resulted in black casualties, displacement and basically returning southern blacks back to slave status. It was a democrat that signed what amounted to our second Emancipation Proclamation when Johnson signed the civil rights act. It was Johnsons arm twisting that got the act passed not the belief in racial equality by the republican party.
The Democratic party was formed in 1828. Slavery was made legal in the United States in 1640. Slavery was the law for 188 years before the democratic party existed. It was a 7-1 decision that created Jim Crow. Four of the supreme court judges voting in favor of separate but equal were republicans. Lynching was done by whites. It was bi partisan. This thread is garbage.
You are a disingenuous nutjob.
You're truly ignorant and a complete dumbass.
We have established that the truth is difficult for you.
- Thread starter
- #48
As usual, completely wrong.
The lily-white movement was an all-white faction of the Republican Party in the Southern United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It battled and usually defeated the biracial element called the Black-and-tan faction.
During Reconstruction, following the U.S. Civil War, black leaders in Texas and around the country gained increasing influence in the Republican Party by organizing blacks as an important voting bloc. Conservative whites attempted to eliminate this influence and recover white voters who had defected to the Democratic Party. The effort was largely successful in eliminating African-American influence in the Republican Party leading to black voters predominantly migrating to the Democratic Party for much of the 20th century.
The term lily-white movement was coined by Texas Republican leader Norris Wright Cuney, who used the term in an 1888 Republican convention to describe efforts by white conservatives to oust blacks from positions of Texas party leadership and incite riots to divide the party.[1] The term came to be used nationally to describe this ongoing movement as it further developed in the early 20th century,[2] including through the administration of Herbert Hoover. Localized movements began immediately after the war but by the beginning of the 20th century the effort had become national.” “This movement is largely credited with driving blacks out of the Republican party during the early 20th century, setting the stage for their eventual support of the Democrats.”
Michael K. Fauntroy - Republicans and the Black vote
The racism inherent in much of the current republican base allows a failure to understand that we as blacks are able to think critically and make decision without white input. We know what republicans have done. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Rutherford Hayes, a republican, ended reconstruction. We had the republican lily white movement to purge blacks from the party. Republicans endorsed separate but equal, every republican administration in the early to mid 1900's broke promises made to blacks, most notably during the Great Mississippi flood, which resulted in black casualties, displacement and basically returning southern blacks back to slave status. It was a democrat that signed what amounted to our second Emancipation Proclamation when Johnson signed the civil rights act. It was Johnsons arm twisting that got the act passed not the belief in racial equality by the republican party.
The Democratic party was formed in 1828. Slavery was made legal in the United States in 1640. Slavery was the law for 188 years before the democratic party existed. It was a 7-1 decision that created Jim Crow. Four of the supreme court judges voting in favor of separate but equal were republicans. Lynching was done by whites. It was bi partisan. This thread is garbage.
You are a disingenuous nutjob.
You're truly ignorant and a complete dumbass.
You are far too kind to our johnny-one-note racialist.
That's one more note than you have coolie.
Let's re-play some of my notes....
As you have found out, I am never wrong.....you are unable to dispute any of this:
The KKK.....Democrats
Supporters of slavery.....Democrats
Supporters of segregation.....Democrats
Formed to fight slavery.....Republicans
Pried the slaves from the Democrats....Republicans
Blocked every anti-lynching bill to come before Congress.....Democrats
Encouraged illegal immigration, to keep blacks unemployed.....Democrat
Passed amendments that favored former slaves.......Republicans
The Democrats are, and have always been, the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship, the party that stood in schoolhouse doors to block black school children….until Republicans sent in the 101st airborne
Formed the Confederacy under Democrat Jefferson Davis.....Democrats
Lead you by the ring in your nose......also Democrats
Oh....and the KKK official as his first Supreme Court nominee....by a Democrat
- Thread starter
- #49
As usual, completely wrong.
The lily-white movement was an all-white faction of the Republican Party in the Southern United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It battled and usually defeated the biracial element called the Black-and-tan faction.
During Reconstruction, following the U.S. Civil War, black leaders in Texas and around the country gained increasing influence in the Republican Party by organizing blacks as an important voting bloc. Conservative whites attempted to eliminate this influence and recover white voters who had defected to the Democratic Party. The effort was largely successful in eliminating African-American influence in the Republican Party leading to black voters predominantly migrating to the Democratic Party for much of the 20th century.
The term lily-white movement was coined by Texas Republican leader Norris Wright Cuney, who used the term in an 1888 Republican convention to describe efforts by white conservatives to oust blacks from positions of Texas party leadership and incite riots to divide the party.[1] The term came to be used nationally to describe this ongoing movement as it further developed in the early 20th century,[2] including through the administration of Herbert Hoover. Localized movements began immediately after the war but by the beginning of the 20th century the effort had become national.” “This movement is largely credited with driving blacks out of the Republican party during the early 20th century, setting the stage for their eventual support of the Democrats.”
Michael K. Fauntroy - Republicans and the Black vote
The racism inherent in much of the current republican base allows a failure to understand that we as blacks are able to think critically and make decision without white input. We know what republicans have done. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Rutherford Hayes, a republican, ended reconstruction. We had the republican lily white movement to purge blacks from the party. Republicans endorsed separate but equal, every republican administration in the early to mid 1900's broke promises made to blacks, most notably during the Great Mississippi flood, which resulted in black casualties, displacement and basically returning southern blacks back to slave status. It was a democrat that signed what amounted to our second Emancipation Proclamation when Johnson signed the civil rights act. It was Johnsons arm twisting that got the act passed not the belief in racial equality by the republican party.
The Democratic party was formed in 1828. Slavery was made legal in the United States in 1640. Slavery was the law for 188 years before the democratic party existed. It was a 7-1 decision that created Jim Crow. Four of the supreme court judges voting in favor of separate but equal were republicans. Lynching was done by whites. It was bi partisan. This thread is garbage.
You are a disingenuous nutjob.
You're truly ignorant and a complete dumbass.
We have established that the truth is difficult for you.
"We"???
You have a tapeworm????
Why are Liberals soooooo afraid to stand up by themselves, alone.....????
1. The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob.
Coulter
Frannie
Gold Member
- Feb 27, 2019
- 6,880
- 353
- 135
- Banned
- #50
You should link to looney tunesExcuse me, what was that?
Did you say you wanted me to post those examples and then rub your goofy nose in it?
Happy to!
Your fellow Trumpsters, being all Trumpy 'n stuff!
Rub rub rub!
Rub rub rub!
.
Everything I post is linked, sourced, and documented....that's why you couldn't find anything in my posts that folks shouldn't believe.
Reader's have found that your posts are never "The Whole Truth."
Good to see you admit that everything I put in the thread is 100% true, accurate,. and correct.
Slink away, dunce.
Did you hear about the fool who claimed the Church of England worshiped the king as god???
Oh...wait......that fool was you!
Are you still blabbering that the King of England was not considered a divine being? Because if you are you are really embarrassing yourself.
Silly fool
divine right of kings | Definition, History, & Facts
Divine right of kings - Wikipedia
divine
[dəˈvīn]
godly · godlike · angelic · seraphic · saintly · beatific · spiritual · heavenly ·
celestial · holy · empyrean · deiform · deific
Now all things considered, you really are a simpleton
So is it fun being the dumbest person in any group you are in?
Do your attendants know you’re using the computer again???
Divine right means that God gave the king....a human being .....the right to rule.
The Church never...NEVER.....worshiped the king, or called him God.
Gads, you're a moron.
Actually if the King is divine he can not be challenged as he is or is the equivalent of God.
Seriously you are a natural blond right?
Even the Gods had to call the king God under English rule blondie. kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.”
Divine Right of Kings in England
While throughout much of world history, deified potentates have been the rule, in England, absolute monarchy never got a solid foothold, but there certainly was the attempt. Elements of British political theory and practice encouraged absolutism—the idea and practice that the king is the absolute law and that there is no appeal beyond him. Several movements and ideas hurried along the idea of absolute monarchy in England. One of those ideas was the divine right of kings,”
In England, the idea of the divine right of kings will enter England with James VI of Scotland who will come and rule over both England and Scotland as James I in 1603 and will commence the line of several “Stuart” monarchs. James had definite ideas about his role as monarch, and those ideas included the divine right of kings. Here are just a few of James’ statements that reflect his view that he ruled by divine right:
- Kings are like gods—“…kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.”
- Kings are not to be disputed—“…. That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power.”
- Governing is the business of the king, not the business of the subjects—" you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office."
- Kings govern by ancient rights that are his to claim—" I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . .”
- Kings should not be bothered with requests to change settled law—"…I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law…”
- Don’t make a request of a king if you are confident he will say “no.”—“… for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.” [1
But you keep smiling like the dopey blond that you are
- Thread starter
- #51
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Frannie
Gold Member
- Feb 27, 2019
- 6,880
- 353
- 135
- Banned
- #52
If you could read and comprehend reality instead of living in your delusional schizzo haze you would be able to comprehend that you are wrong. See kid the Church of England was headed by the King, if someone said the King was not God they lost their head. This is common knowledge to normal Americans and was known to GW and his friends who set up a system where religion and the government are NOT connected. Most Americans comprehend this. You not being normal ever will. The really sad thing for you is that you believe that you are arguing with me, but are actually arguing the facts of history due to your delusions
Divine Right of Kings
In England, the idea of the divine right of kings will enter England with James VI of Scotland who will come and rule over both England and Scotland as James I in 1603 and will commence the line of several “Stuart” monarchs. James had definite ideas about his role as monarch, and those ideas included the divine right of kings. Here are just a few of James’ statements that reflect his view that he ruled by divine right:
- Kings are like gods—“…kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.”
- Kings are not to be disputed—“…. That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power.”
- Governing is the business of the king, not the business of the subjects—" you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office."
- Kings govern by ancient rights that are his to claim—" I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . .”
- Kings should not be bothered with requests to change settled law—"…I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law…”
- Don’t make a request of a king if you are confident he will say “no.”—“… for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.”
Are you a dumb blond Britt?
LOL F.uck the queeny and her stinky underpants
Last edited:
Preacher
Gold Member
Still obsessed with me....you really need a new hobby. I am not a Trumpster....so.Excuse me, what was that?
Did you say you wanted me to post those examples and then rub your goofy nose in it?
Happy to!
Your fellow Trumpsters, being all Trumpy 'n stuff!
Rub rub rub!
Rub rub rub!
.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
Just quoting you. Those are your words, and they're very helpful. You'll have to get over it.Still obsessed with me....you really need a new hobby. I am not a Trumpster....so.Excuse me, what was that?
Did you say you wanted me to post those examples and then rub your goofy nose in it?
Happy to!
Your fellow Trumpsters, being all Trumpy 'n stuff!
Rub rub rub!
Rub rub rub!
.
.
Norman
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2010
- 31,254
- 15,235
- 1,590
Just quoting you. Those are your words, and they're very helpful. You'll have to get over it.Still obsessed with me....you really need a new hobby. I am not a Trumpster....so.Excuse me, what was that?
Did you say you wanted me to post those examples and then rub your goofy nose in it?
Happy to!
Your fellow Trumpsters, being all Trumpy 'n stuff!
Rub rub rub!
Rub rub rub!
.
.
Mac still thinks that him not wanting to secure the existence of his children makes him virtuous.
Oh well, that's what you get when a person believes that manners are more important than truth.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
One of these days you Trumpsters will actually quote me saying something that you think I believe.Just quoting you. Those are your words, and they're very helpful. You'll have to get over it.Still obsessed with me....you really need a new hobby. I am not a Trumpster....so.Excuse me, what was that?
Did you say you wanted me to post those examples and then rub your goofy nose in it?
Happy to!
Your fellow Trumpsters, being all Trumpy 'n stuff!
Rub rub rub!
Rub rub rub!
.
.
Mac still thinks that him not wanting to secure the existence of his children makes him virtuous.
Oh well, that's what you get when a person believes that manners are more important than truth.
It may not be any time soon, of course, but I'll remain hopeful. Kind of. Given the proclivities of your leader, it obviously won't happen for a while.
.
Norman
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2010
- 31,254
- 15,235
- 1,590
One of these days you Trumpsters will actually quote me saying something that you think I believe.Just quoting you. Those are your words, and they're very helpful. You'll have to get over it.Still obsessed with me....you really need a new hobby. I am not a Trumpster....so.Excuse me, what was that?
Did you say you wanted me to post those examples and then rub your goofy nose in it?
Happy to!
Your fellow Trumpsters, being all Trumpy 'n stuff!
Rub rub rub!
Rub rub rub!
.
.
Mac still thinks that him not wanting to secure the existence of his children makes him virtuous.
Oh well, that's what you get when a person believes that manners are more important than truth.
It may not be any time soon, of course, but I'll remain hopeful. Kind of. Given the proclivities of your leader, it obviously won't happen for a while.
.
Well, you quoted me as saying it is an extreme stance, so it is not difficult putting 1+1 together.
is it time for a child sacrifice? Democrats are yearning for post birth abortions, new workers needed in Epstein island or whatever they have now. You could be a hero Mac.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #58
The Church of England never....NEVER....claimed the king was God.
You said:
"Besides the founding fathers were members of the Church of England of which the King was God."
Does A Religion Need A God?
THE KING OF ENGLAND WAS NOT GOD, YOU IMBECILE!!!!!!!
Mac1958
Diamond Member
I said it was an "extreme stance"?One of these days you Trumpsters will actually quote me saying something that you think I believe.Just quoting you. Those are your words, and they're very helpful. You'll have to get over it.Still obsessed with me....you really need a new hobby. I am not a Trumpster....so.Excuse me, what was that?
Did you say you wanted me to post those examples and then rub your goofy nose in it?
Happy to!
Your fellow Trumpsters, being all Trumpy 'n stuff!
Rub rub rub!
Rub rub rub!
.
.
Mac still thinks that him not wanting to secure the existence of his children makes him virtuous.
Oh well, that's what you get when a person believes that manners are more important than truth.
It may not be any time soon, of course, but I'll remain hopeful. Kind of. Given the proclivities of your leader, it obviously won't happen for a while.
.
Well, you quoted me as saying it is an extreme stance, so it is not difficult putting 1+1 together.
is time for a child sacrifice? Democrats are yearning for post birth abortions, new workers needed in Epstein island or whatever they have now. You could be a hero Mac.
Where did I say that?
Do you realize that you just made that up?
Do you guys even care about honesty, on any level, at this point?
Those are serious questions.
.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
Jesse Jackson's Son Calls Out Obama And Biden For Making Their Eulogies Political- Started by Independent thinker
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
