t***hiness wrote:
....
And where were those democrats from? The Southeast where many of today's hypocritical evangelicals are today. The "war of northern aggression" continues in a different format--same people, different name plates.
Really? Who cares where someone is from?
California used to be conservative. They are now as Socialist as anywhere in America.
You would do well to judge people by their actions. Not their skin, g*****ls, or birth place. Your bigotry would lessen if you do.
permafrost wrote:
why, yes i am... could you not recognize one? Not in your circle of talkers??
https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/upload/2018/7/24/329837-01176_540452942440964082_n.jpg Are you a Christian;
"why, yes i am... could you not recognize one? Not in your circle of talkers??" - Permafrost
Then there is hope for you.
Shall we pray together?
Dear Lord open my eyes that I may see the t***h, and seek it.
May We be successful in having Perms leave the godless Left, and seek forgiveness.
Then turn to the Book of Proverbs, and do a study.
Super Dave wrote:
Really? Who cares where someone is from?
California used to be conservative. They are now as Socialist as anywhere in America.
You would do well to judge people by their actions. Not their skin, g*****ls, or birth place. Your bigotry would lessen if you do.
....
Yes, really. Thanks for the unsolicited advice, Dave. The democrats who were promoted on the previous chart that we were referring to were for the most part from the southeast---at one time their ilk were called Dixiecrats and were 'democratic' in name only: r****t would be a good place to begin a list of descriptors.
"...socialist as anywhere in America." Do you really think Texans and Arizonans are 'Socialist?'
'Who cares where someone is from'? I am a displaced Texan, and I care where I am from. Yes, geography itself does not determine politics, but often regions of the country find large populations of people of the same political persuasion there. No bigotry here, Dave, just a fact supported by obvious v****g patterns that I am surprised you have not noticed. Maybe you are from there and can't see outside the hypocritical bubble; if so, then I understand. I stand by my previous statement as a non-bigot. Peddle your sermons somewhere else.
t***hiness wrote:
....
Yes, really. Thanks for the unsolicited advice, Dave. The democrats who were promoted on the previous chart that we were referring to were for the most part from the southeast---at one time their ilk were called Dixiecrats and were 'democratic' in name only: r****t would be a good place to begin a list of descriptors.
"...socialist as anywhere in America." Do you really think Texans and Arizonans are 'Socialist?'
'Who cares where someone is from'? I am a displaced Texan, and I care where I am from. Yes, geography itself does not determine politics, but often regions of the country find large populations of people of the same political persuasion there. No bigotry here, Dave, just a fact supported by obvious v****g patterns that I am surprised you have not noticed. Maybe you are from there and can't see outside the hypocritical bubble; if so, then I understand. I stand by my previous statement as a non-bigot. Peddle your sermons somewhere else.
.... br Yes, really. Thanks for the unsolicited a... (
show quote)
You are confused. I was speaking about California, not Texas or Arizona
If you think every county colored red is r****t, perhaps you should look in the mirror.
Super Dave wrote:
You are confused. I was speaking about California, not Texas or Arizona
If you think every county colored red is r****t, perhaps you should look in the mirror.
...
Dave, Your unlabeled map is as confusing as your ambiguous writing. California is a singular
'it' not a plural 'they.' So it is appropriate for the antecedent of 'they' to be the collective 'someone.' Not sure where you learned to write--maybe in that Realityville bubble. To reiterate: peddle your sanctimonious sermons somewhere else.
t***hiness wrote:
...
Dave, Your unlabeled map is as confusing as your ambiguous writing. California is a singular
'it' not a plural 'they.' So it is appropriate for the antecedent of 'they' to be the collective 'someone.' Not sure where you learned to write--maybe in that Realityville bubble. To reiterate: peddle your sanctimonious sermons somewhere else.
IOW - You are without logical argument and surrender the point with no conditions.
BTW - California is a collective of disparate sects of humanity. I embraced their diversity.............Nahhh.. Who gives a crap if you don't like my grammar?
Super Dave wrote:
IOW - You are without logical argument and surrender the point with no conditions.
BTW - California is a collective of disparate sects of humanity. I embraced their diversity.............Nahhh.. Who gives a crap if you don't like my grammar?
...
Dave, Sorry about the comment about writing--completely uncalled for: mea culpa. t
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.