RunRyder RC
WATCH
 9 pages [ <<    <     5      6     ( 7 )     8      9     NEXT    >> ] 5140 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Miss Califonia Loses After Giving 'Wrong Answer'
04-25-2009 03:19 AM  9 years agoPost 121
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I guess in your mind that makes some kind of sense.
It certainly does.

If they force it to the voting booth, that does not mean I have to vote in favor of them.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 03:50 AM  9 years agoPost 122
RonHill

rrVeteran

FLL, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

JohnLund
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Got Constitution?
It is clear you have never taken a US Constitution class. That says the the Govt will not make a "church of the US" like there was a church of England.
Constitutional historian C. Herman Pritchett states: "The phrase ‘establishment of religion’ must be given the meaning that it had in the United States in 1791, rather than its European connotation. . . . It was . . . nonpreferential assistance to organized churches that constituted ‘establishment of religion’ in 1791 and it was this practice that the Amendment forbade Congress to adopt."

Sheila Suess Kennedy sums up the matter by observing: "Courts and historians have agreed that 'establishment' means to endorse, sponsor, or otherwise favor any particular religion or religion itself."
It does NOT say anything about the principals the country was founded on. It just says there will not be a US church and that the Govt is not allowed to favor or impose a religion.

Maybe you know these words:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;
Maybe you should spend a little time reading this:

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

Notice the name of the person who compiled it?
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William Canby, "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus."
Jefferson was not a Christian per say, but he did believe in Jesus. He was a Deist.
To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other. ---Jefferson, April 21, 1803
He wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Wrote: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Source: "Jefferson's Religious Beliefs", by Rebecca Bowman, Monticello Research Department, August 1997 [URL: http://www.monticello.org/resources...s/religion.html].
Now he supported the separation of church and State... Which is to say neither should have influence over the other... But that in no way is close to your misinterpretation of that phrase.

Got comprehension? Like I said... Pretty clear you have not actually studied the Constitution.
Granted, the dictionaries I have in my house are only from 1953 and 1966, but;

Mar·riage (mar'ij)
1. the condition of being married; married life. 2.the act of marrying; wedding.

Mar·riage (mar'ij)
1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife; wedlock. 2.the act or rite of marrying; wedding 3.any close union.
Like I said you can rattle your saber over the word... But your own definition there bit you.
It's not my cause, and the same could be said about you. Plain and simple it's bigotry, and it isn't any more righteous dressed up in religion.
You are defending it... Therefore it is your cause. The problem is the little nitpicking battle you are getting all pissed about. You could have civil unions already, but you are in a tiff over the word... The SAME thing you belittle others over.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 04:19 AM  9 years agoPost 123
JohnLund

rrNovice

Corpus Christi, TX

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The problem is the little nitpicking battle you are getting all pissed about.
You type out a thesis about how it's ok to use the bible to deprive fellow Americans of liberty, and the pursuit of their happiness because it goes angainst YOUR morals, and I'm "pissed" LOL. It seems you don't like freedom of religion, and wish you could force your morals down everyones throat, too bad though, not in America.
You are defending it... Therefore it is your cause.
Nope, sorry, I'm married to a woman, not my "cause" just having a debate explaining the hypocrisy of christian patriots, and their " Love and freedom for everyone as long as they are what we think they should be" BS (smells just like the lefts freedom of speech unless you say something we don't like).

ALL men are created equal, liberty and justice for ALL, We the people, not just catchy phrases.

And yes, I am quite familiar with all the blah, blah, blah, founding fathers were this blah, blah, blah, and that blah, blah, blah, so it justifies trying to force our religion down someone elses throat. Your condescending attitude doesn't do you any favors. And that's why the right can't muster the middle of the road, and independents.

How much would YOU compromise Ron on an issue that is as important to you, as marriage is to some gays? You willing to compromise on gun control? Maybe we can trade in our assault rifles for some .22's, I mean, it's still a gun right?

Ron's Heliproz South

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 04:33 AM  9 years agoPost 124
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Here ya go John. The law:
------------------------------------------------------

Copied from the Library Of Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query...4:H.R.3396.ENR:

Defense of Marriage Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--H.R.3396--

H.R.3396

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please take note Sec 7, B for the legal definition of marriage affirmed by Congress and ratified by the Senate on Jan 3 1996.

Now, when and if this ever goes to the Supreme Court as it is, they will legally interpret the law above, then gays will loose the right to marry and all those married prior will have their marriage license revoked. If it ever goes to a lefty Supreme Court, they will create a new law illegally and give gays the right to marry.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 04:44 AM  9 years agoPost 125
JohnLund

rrNovice

Corpus Christi, TX

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Ahhh, well, that makes it all good then, the federal government is telling you who you can and can not marry, maybe next month they can pass some Defense of Healthy Cholesterol Levels bills, and get us all eating right, or maybe they can decide which mothers can take their children home for the hospital. This is a typical example of how "conservatives" want to play conservative and call for less government meddling in our lives, unless it suits them. I have a hard time believing that any real conservative thinks the federal government should decide who people can, and can not marry.

Ron's Heliproz South

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 04:57 AM  9 years agoPost 126
RonHill

rrVeteran

FLL, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

JohnLund
You type out a thesis about how it's ok to use the bible to deprive fellow Americans of liberty, and the pursuit of their happiness because it goes angainst (sic) YOUR morals
Actually that is not what I said at all. I said people like you raising a stink about a term is not going to further your cause. I also said that you could have a 'civil union' which is basically the EXACT same thing if you gave up on picking BS little battles over terms.

I used the bible to explain why the side you are fighting is fighting you.
It seems you don't like freedom of religion, and wish you could force your morals down everyones (sic) throat, too bad though, not in America.
Again, you clearly miss the point. You can continue to rail against not letting gays have the right to "marry" while you actually lose ground on getting them the freedoms they want. You are losing the battle AND losing the war.

The smart money would be to lose the battle over the petty name issue and win the war for equal rights. But you are too wrapped around the axle to see that simple logic. You would rather get pissed and foam at the mouth, than actually win the battle.
Nope, sorry, I'm married to a woman, not my "cause" just having a debate
It IS your cause when you champion for it. Simple fact there. I am not trying to say you are gay, I am saying your cause is gay rights.
And yes, I am quite familiar with all the blah, blah, blah, founding fathers were this blah, blah, blah, and that blah, blah, blah,
No, you are not. You may think you are, but that does not make it true.
Your condescending attitude doesn't do you any favors.
Who here is insulting the other again?
How much would YOU compromise Ron on an issue that is as important to you, as marriage is to some gays?
Hey hero... I support civil unions since I know it can actually get passed. Only YOU are acting hard headed and trying to ram your beliefs on others.
You willing to compromise on gun control? Maybe we can trade in our assault rifles for some .22's, I mean, it's still a gun right?
We are not debating the gun...You are up in arms about the verbiage. I don't care if you call my M4 an "assault weapon", "assault rifle", or evil black rifle. I am against taking them away.

YOU are against calling a civil union a civil union and demand that it is called a marriage. And that anyone that does not call it a marriage is evil in your opinion.

You could give up the BS name and win the battle.... Or you can rant and rave and lose the war. You could have a civil union in less than 3 years, OR you could rant and rave and still have nothing in 5.

It is pretty clear where your priorities are... You are not for the actual equality unless it has the same name.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 05:12 AM  9 years agoPost 127
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Ahhh, well, that makes it all good then
It just makes it the law of the land. Same as any other.
so it justifies trying to force our religion down someone elses throat.
The law simply reaffirms & ratifies the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. It says nothing about religion. Remember: Separation Of Church & State.
Your condescending attitude doesn't do you any favors. And that's why the right can't muster the middle of the road, and independents.
Condescending attitude??? Condescending to who?

BTW 1: There are lots of right leaning independents. I happen to be just one of them.

Many independents vote Repub or Dem. Depending on which side of independent they lean. They don't always vote the party line.

BTW 2: This law was passed and ratified in 1996. That means Clinton had to sign it or veto it. He signed it into law. What was that about the the right?

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 05:41 AM  9 years agoPost 128
JohnLund

rrNovice

Corpus Christi, TX

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You are losing the battle AND losing the war.
No, I am not because I am not fighting it, I am engaging in a debate on a RC helicopter forum to pass time.
The smart money would be to lose the battle over the petty name issue and win the war for equal rights. But you are too wrapped around the axle to see that simple logic. You would rather get pissed and foam at the mouth, than actually win the battle.
Back of the bus is still on the bus huh?

And no ones foaming at the mouth here, unless you are, maybe you should relax a bit, I think you're getting a little too worked up, and projecting.
It IS your cause when you champion for it. Simple fact there. I am not trying to say you are gay, I am saying your cause is gay rights.
No, my cause is freedom for every American, just so happens that your morals, are costing someone else their freedom.
No, you are not. You may think you are, but that does not make it true.
Just because I don't share you opinion, doesn't mean I don't, take a step off your little soapbox, youse ain't tha only one 'round hear can reed.
Hey hero... I support civil unions since I know it can actually get passed. Only YOU are acting hard headed and trying to ram your beliefs on others.
How can I put this so you can grasp it? You, staying out of someone else personal life, allowing them the same respect, and freedom to marry whoever they want, someone that you are never in your life going to meet, or deal with and them getting married, and continue to have no effect whatsoever on your life is not ramming their beliefs on others, HOWEVER, you telling someone else, that they can't not marry someone becuase it goes against YOUR beliefs, IS ramming you beliefs on others. Get it? Pretty simple really, I mean seriously a five year old could get that.
YOU are against calling a civil union a civil union and demand that it is called a marriage. And that anyone that does not call it a marriage is evil in your opinion.
You are so far off the mark it isn't even funny. I don't care what they call it. What I care about is that in America, where people are supposedly free to live their lives, and pursue happiness, there are people that insist on dictating to others what they can and can not do based on their morality.
It is pretty clear where your priorities are... You are not for the actual equality unless it has the same name.
It'd pretty clear you only care about equality and compromise when it is on your moral terms.

Dennis, nice dodge, so do you support the federal government telling you who you can and can not marry? It's ok for the government to interfer in people personal lives as long as you agree? Just about what I thought. I guess you'll be just as happy with them telling you waht kind of car to drive, and that red is the new blue huh?

Ron's Heliproz South

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 05:59 AM  9 years agoPost 129
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Dennis, nice dodge, so do you support the federal government telling you who you can and can not marry?
All I want them to do is affirm the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Thousands have voted to do so, as myself. Thats not a dodge. Its simply exercising your right to vote. You seem to be against a fact that anyone can vote their conscience. What does that say about your beliefs? Seems as non tolerant as you accuse me and Ron of being. In fact, it is far worse since you seem to be intolerant of those that hold beliefs you don't agree with.
It's ok for the government to interfer in people personal lives as long as you agree? Just about what I thought.
What you think on this subject is not what I think. I can live with that. Yourself?
I guess you'll be just as happy with them telling you waht kind of car to drive, and that red is the new blue huh?
Thats getting into an area of intellectual stupidity. Your choice.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 06:00 AM  9 years agoPost 130
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Enough for tonite ladies.

Nity Nite.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 06:07 AM  9 years agoPost 131
RonHill

rrVeteran

FLL, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

JohnLund
No, I am not because I am not fighting it, I am engaging in a debate on a RC helicopter forum to pass time.
Whatever you say. Your responses say otherwise.
Back of the bus is still on the bus huh?
No, calling the bus a "transport" does not change anything. You are all pissed since the TERM you want is not being used.
And no ones foaming at the mouth here, unless you are, maybe you should relax a bit, I think you're getting a little too worked up, and projecting.
Nah, I just find it funny you blast others for the SAME thing you are doing. Again your vitriol responses seem to say you are getting hot under the collar.
No, my cause is freedom for every American, just so happens that your morals, are costing someone else their freedom.
No you are not for freedom, you are for terminology. BIG difference. If I handed you a **** sandwich and told you it was beef on rye you would be fine. But if I gave you a beef on rye and called it a "Bob" you get up in arms... That's pretty clear.
Just because I don't share you opinion, doesn't mean I don't, take a step off your little soapbox, youse ain't tha only one 'round hear can reed.
You might be able to read, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend.
How can I put this so you can grasp it?
Try using logic and not emotional BS.
I mean seriously a five year old could get that.
And yet I know a guy that should be older than 5 that does not get that "a rose by any other name should still smell as sweet". Instead he gets all pissy an starts with lame 5 year old comments since someone explained that he should drop the pathetic term and focus on the ISSUE.
You are so far off the mark it isn't even funny. I don't care what they call it.
Clearly that just is not true.... Not even close. Otherwise you would not be trying to insult anyone that dares suggest dropping the petty name issue.
It'd pretty clear you only care about equality and compromise when it is on your moral terms.
Nope, but it is clear you only care about freedom when it is called the term you choose... And you are willing to throw a hissy fit if anyone dares call it something else.

You seem more than willing to cut off your nose inspite of your face.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 06:41 AM  9 years agoPost 132
JohnLund

rrNovice

Corpus Christi, TX

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Enjoy...http://www.zanorg.com/prodperso/jeu...s/doublejeu.swf
No you are not for freedom, you are for terminology.
No, you want to try to simplify it to that, but that's not the case. It isn't your place to tell people how to reconcile their relationships with their beliefs. If a homosexual believes in god, and wants to be married in the eyes of god it isn't your place to tell them they can't.
No, calling the bus a "transport" does not change anything. You are all pissed since the TERM you want is not being used.
You're the one that keeps elevating the language here, maybe you should look in a mirror before projecting anymore. "Civil union" = "back of the bus". You didn't read the whole thread did you?
baddraptor

At this point you have one side saying NO to gay marriage.
The other side YES to gay marriage.

Neither side wants the others views shoved down their throats. Meet in the middle, call it a civil union. Get the insurance and tax breaks including divorce and alimony that go along with it. And everyone be happy the were actually able to resolve a dispute by meeting in the middle. Problem solved

JohnLund

Honestly, I agree with you 100%,
Again your vitriol responses seem to say you are getting hot under the collar.
This, and the rest of your post is just more dribble projecting your anger.

Ron's Heliproz South

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 05:03 PM  9 years agoPost 133
RonHill

rrVeteran

FLL, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

JohnLund
No, you want to try to simplify it to that, but that's not the case.
It is the case. I said allow civil unions so the bible thumpers will not resist and fight you. YOU are the one refusing to win the battle for equal rights over a term.
It isn't your place to tell people how to reconcile their relationships with their beliefs.
No, but it is not your place to tell others that their beliefs are not important or do not matter.
If a homosexual believes in god, and wants to be married in the eyes of god it isn't your place to tell them they can't.
1. The bible says homosexuality is bad.
2. Christians use the bible as the center of their religion.

Simple logic is you can't be gay and still claim to be a christian. You can tap dance all you want about it, but when the very foundation of the religion says you can't.... Then you can't.

It is not my place... It is the bible's place if you want to claim to follow it.
"Civil union" = "back of the bus"
Again with the petty name BS. No, "civil union" = "marriage". "Back of the bus" = "only being allow the rights in certain areas".

You would rather get in a tizzy over the NAME given to the right, than actually securing the right.
You're the one that keeps elevating the language here, maybe you should look in a mirror before projecting anymore.
Really? You wanna go read your FIRST post in this thread and see who is being antagonistic?

"Awwww poor wittle flamer got his wittle fewlings hewrt."
"Right, because the right wing hasn't tried to stiffle free speech...ever "

Wanna go back and see who starting try to call the other a 5 year old?

Wanna go do that?

You will see YOU have been the aggressor. You will see YOU have been the person that has thrown insults. You will see YOU have been the one getting hung up in terms.

Step back, reread your posts and you will see who is the one who is on a soapbox demanding that all listen to him or he goes off.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 05:09 PM  9 years agoPost 134
Auto180_OCMA

rrApprentice

Futaba City Z (Mobara)

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I think she still got robbed
She got robbed by beleiving in what she beleived in.
if she wanted to win the tittle it meant to say the POLITICIAN language. Say something mean something else.

Bibble, Torat, or whatver else religion had nothing to do with the fact that she didnt play politics.

She answered from the heart and not with politics of winning.

For that i admire her for whatever she stood.

Yes she did get ROBBED not playing politics and that is that.

AMA 334000

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-25-2009 10:37 PM  9 years agoPost 135
baby uh1

rrVeteran

St. James, Mo.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

How is what Hilton did any different than if a Christian asked a contestant a question on say, morals and then booed that contestant out of the competition for giving an answer they didn't like?
Oh, I know, Hilton didn't get crucified for what he did.

Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-26-2009 05:06 AM  9 years agoPost 136
helicopter

rrApprentice

Omaha, Nebraska

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What does THE WORD say?
Fella's, Here is the bottom line on these types of issues.

The Creator God has given humankind a free will.
One can DO whatever one desires to DO.
Whether Good or Evil.
But as most of you are aware, there is an END to this life.

If you want to do that which is SIN in the HOLY auspices of
The Creator, you may certainly do so.

And in the end you will die.

But - now listen to me - There is a way out of this impending
death in each of our lives, should we be enabled to make
the very decision required by The Creator God.

Very few will be able to choose The Way.

It is called repentance, metanoia in the greek, a change of
MIND.

You truthfully allow THE LORD JESUS CHRIST to die in your place,
to be punished in your place, to receive the JUDGMENT of God
on behalf of those who would BELIEVE, you shall be SAVED.

IF you can do this one thing required of God and written in
HIS WORD, this life is as close as you will then get to hell.
If you choose NOT to take the BIBLE, the Holy Authority
of the RISEN Saviour God, this life is as close as you
will ever get to Heaven.

FEEL FREE TO DO WHATEVER YOU DESIRE in this life.

But God offers an escape from death.

You want to call this "religious"?

I call it the GRACE of a loving God.

We are ALL SINNERS. We deserve to die eternally.
But God, offers a way out of that dilemma: You receive, believe
and accept JESUS CHRIST as your personal Lord and Saviour.

Here is Galatians Chapter Five:
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
-------------------
Get THE Book, look up 2 Corinthians 5:21

Don't shoot me, I am just the messenger.
My Lord came and taught this, we killed him too...

.

I love gravity, it always keeps my feet planted when I fly!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-26-2009 05:08 AM  9 years agoPost 137
Auto180_OCMA

rrApprentice

Futaba City Z (Mobara)

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Amen
Amen to That

AMA 334000

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-26-2009 05:08 AM  9 years agoPost 138
GimbalFan (RIP)

rrProfessor

Big Coppitt Key, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Here is the bottom line on these types of issues.
Wrong. You know less about the 'bottom line' than a retarded snail.
God offers an escape from death.
Wrong again, as usual.

The most existentially-impaired laughwit in RC once again reveals his brain is made of oatmeal.

Go back to your prison cell, Byron -- you were released WAY too early.

op-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-t

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-26-2009 05:10 AM  9 years agoPost 139
Auto180_OCMA

rrApprentice

Futaba City Z (Mobara)

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Amen
Amen

AMA 334000

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-26-2009 05:12 AM  9 years agoPost 140
helicopter

rrApprentice

Omaha, Nebraska

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Gimpydude;
One of these fine days you will find thyself standing at
the judgment seat of The Creator.

He will ask what you did with HIS BLESSED SON which HE gave
to save you.

Your reply will probably be, "Hey longhair, take your son
and your chair and get the flock out a here...."

This is gonna be a bad day for you and GOD.

You're gonna break HIS Heart.

Hope ya get it someday smartie pants.

.

I love gravity, it always keeps my feet planted when I fly!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 9 pages [ <<    <     5      6     ( 7 )     8      9     NEXT    >> ] 5140 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Miss Califonia Loses After Giving 'Wrong Answer'
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 9  Topic Subscribe

Tuesday, October 16 - 5:10 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

The RC discussion world needs to consolidate. RR is now one choice for that. Its software is cutting edge. It hosts on-topic advertising. Help RR increase traffic buy making suggestions, posting in RR's new areas (sites) and by spreading the word.

The RunRyder Difference

• Category system to allow Rep/Vendor postings.
• Classifieds with sold (hidden) category.
• Classifieds with separate view new.
• Answer PMs offsite via email reply.
• Member gallery photos with advanced scripting.
• Gallery photo viewer integrated into postings.
• Highly refined search with advanced back end.
• Hosts its own high end fast response servers.
• Hosts thousands of HD event coverage videos.
• Rewrote entire code base with latest technology.
• No off-topic (annoying) click bait advertising.
Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online