If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Log Cabin Democrat)   Christians are being persecuted in Arkansas again. Religious groups told they cannot preach during lunch at public schools any longer   (thecabin.net) divider line 249
    More: Asinine, Ayn Rand, religious denomination, Freedom From Religion Foundation, New Life Church, middle schools, elementary schools  
•       •       •

3443 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jan 2013 at 6:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



249 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-19 10:22:13 PM  

SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Well, this is sort of your problem, champ. The admin can decide the sky is pink, but that doesn't actually make the sky pink. That's why it's called an investigation. A parent (not FFRF) complained, and thus the Board of Education, at least, has a duty to make sure admin isn't going off on its own.

And even if your policy isn't meant to endorse something, if it does in practice and you don't correct it, you've just endorsed it.

It depends on who is suing the school district.  If a religious student is suing, claiming a First Amendment violation for denying religious visitation, the school can claim as a defense that the religious visitation was disallowed because it materially and substantially disrupts the work of the school, if that is the case.  The court will then review the reasonableness of that determination, giving deference to school authorities, who know best.

If someone is suing the district, claiming that the school is somehow violating their rights by allowing religious students to meet with their pastors at lunch hour, they can't claim that the religious student has no first amendment rights because their visitation disrupts the work of the school.  They have no standing to make that claim.  They have to show how they were injured by an Establishment Clause violation.

You are right to the extent that you assert that the determination is objective.  A reasonable objective observer would not think that private visits during lunch hour are an endorsement of religion.


Um...RTFA, it's the  parents claiming this is a violation of separation,  because they claim the folks are proselytizing. So that's a nice hypothetical, but we aren't discussing that.
 
2013-01-19 10:23:23 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Bring in some Pantheistic believers and let the kids decide for themselves.

"Alright kids, would you like to listen to Pastor Mark talk about Jesus or Berzerker Erik talk about channeling the warrior spirit of the gods?"


Erik! well this week. maybe next week we can have the Cthulhu guy come in. wanna keep my options open.
It must be horrible to be as repressed as the christians are. Oh wait that's what they try do to non believers of their invisible sky wizard every day. I guess what I'm saying is they could use a bit more repression when it comes to public schools.
 
2013-01-19 10:33:53 PM  

doyner: I graduated from Conway High School in 1992--when I was there, there was none of this horseshiat going on.  WTF has happened in the last 20+ years that has made this militant Christianity become malignant?


It isn't christianity per se, religion has always been a malignancy.
 
2013-01-19 10:35:05 PM  

vudukungfu: hickabillies


If they're there to covertly peddle snakeoil, "shillbillies" might fit, too.
 
2013-01-19 10:38:47 PM  
Maybe the teachers should show up at the church on Sunday for some impromptu lessons on evolution?
 
2013-01-19 10:39:02 PM  

SkinnyHead: Under current school visitation policy, friends and family can come visit children at lunch.

By allowing students to receive visitors during their lunch hour, the school has created a limited public forum.  It would violate the 1st and 14th Amendments to deny visitation by a friend, just because it's a friend from church.  And it would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination to deny visits, just because religious matters are discussed during those visits.  That's the way I see it, anyways.


You sure earn your money. It seems like you're in EVERY politics thread, and you put a little effort into this one, unlike the usual cut & paste derp. Hey man, is your company hiring? I'm pretty sure I could concern troll, spread false info, and derail threads, if the pay was right. What the hell, I'm not using my soul anyway.

/ No samples available upon request.
// If you're good at something, never do it for free.
/// You let me know when you start taking things a bit more seriously.
//// Here's my card.
 
2013-01-19 10:43:37 PM  
The kids have barely enough time to get their lunch, gobble it down and chill a bit before going back to the classes that we, their parents, are paying for. I would rather they not be preached to by someone with less education than the kids themselves have.

Whoever let this happen is an unmitigated asshat, IMO.
 
2013-01-19 10:49:11 PM  

PsiChick: Um...RTFA, it's the parents claiming this is a violation of separation, because they claim the folks are proselytizing. So that's a nice hypothetical, but we aren't discussing that.


"The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said."

No parents complained.
 
2013-01-19 10:53:19 PM  

skullkrusher: if visitor from the mosque were treated differently, you should be outraged and I'd imagine you would be. Of course, this is not a reason that another person should receive poor treatment.


I would hope you would be too. But that skirts the larger issue. Not allowing unrelated adults not associated with the school access to children during lunch period is NOT "poor treatment."  I suspect neither you nor would agree than unrelated adults with secular or political interests belong with those kids at lunchtime. Religious professionals should have to abide by the same rules as secular ones--they are not entitled to preferential treatment merely by being religious. Whether secular or religious, unrelated adults not employed by the school district really have no business in the public schools during school hours. Its an unnecessary security risk.
 
2013-01-19 10:55:54 PM  

skullkrusher: PsiChick: Um...RTFA, it's the parents claiming this is a violation of separation, because they claim the folks are proselytizing. So that's a nice hypothetical, but we aren't discussing that.

"The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said."

No parents complained.


Hmm, you're right, I re-read and they don't mention how FFRF found out about this. It'd be nice to know more.

/Goddamn 'journalism'...
 
2013-01-19 10:56:11 PM  

Somacandra: skullkrusher: if visitor from the mosque were treated differently, you should be outraged and I'd imagine you would be. Of course, this is not a reason that another person should receive poor treatment.

I would hope you would be too. But that skirts the larger issue. Not allowing unrelated adults not associated with the school access to children during lunch period is NOT "poor treatment."  I suspect neither you nor would agree than unrelated adults with secular or political interests belong with those kids at lunchtime. Religious professionals should have to abide by the same rules as secular ones--they are not entitled to preferential treatment merely by being religious. Whether secular or religious, unrelated adults not employed by the school district really have no business in the public schools during school hours. Its an unnecessary security risk.


if your issue is with the policy of allowing visitors during lunch, I agree. That's stupid. However, if that is the policy, you cannot bar people simply because they are a minister (or an imam, priest, priestess, whatever).
 
2013-01-19 10:56:32 PM  

skullkrusher: "The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said." No parents complained.


If no one complains that I'm breaking the law, that doesn't mean I'm not breaking the law. You're smarter than that. Plus you are assuming the school officials are telling the truth. Again, they hired a radical sectarian movement to represent public policy. They have no credibility and should be regarded from this point on as suspicious.
 
2013-01-19 10:56:54 PM  

PsiChick: skullkrusher: PsiChick: Um...RTFA, it's the parents claiming this is a violation of separation, because they claim the folks are proselytizing. So that's a nice hypothetical, but we aren't discussing that.

"The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said."

No parents complained.

Hmm, you're right, I re-read and they don't mention how FFRF found out about this. It'd be nice to know more.

/Goddamn 'journalism'...


I think the name of their organization says it all.
 
2013-01-19 10:56:54 PM  

skullkrusher: As long as there's a policy that students can have friends visit them at school, those friends can be clergymembers


Yeah, those underaged peens aren't going to suck themselves.
 
2013-01-19 10:58:05 PM  

Somacandra: skullkrusher: "The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said." No parents complained.

If no one complains that I'm breaking the law, that doesn't mean I'm not breaking the law. You're smarter than that. Plus you are assuming the school officials are telling the truth. Again, they hired a radical sectarian movement to represent public policy. They have no credibility and should be regarded from this point on as suspicious.


FFS dude, she said that parents complained. That was factually incorrect. I corrected her with a quote from TFA. I made no mention of whether parents or complained or not was material to the legality of the situation.
 
2013-01-19 10:58:15 PM  

skullkrusher: However, if that is the policy, you cannot bar people simply because they are a minister (or an imam, priest, priestess, whatever).


Actually, they can and should depending on their behavior. You can't possibly think they let some vagrant off the street hang out with those kids, but by your logic they should make no such discrimination against anybody.
 
2013-01-19 11:00:18 PM  

Somacandra: skullkrusher: However, if that is the policy, you cannot bar people simply because they are a minister (or an imam, priest, priestess, whatever).

Actually, they can and should depending on their behavior. You can't possibly think they let some vagrant off the street hang out with those kids, but by your logic they should make no such discrimination against anybody.


is intentionally not understanding posts a hobby of yours?
 
2013-01-19 11:03:23 PM  

BronyMedic: SkinnyHead: If I put any more time into it, I'll have to start billing the school district.  I've done enough to accomplish my purpose, which was to dazzle Farkers with my mastery of the law.

[i186.photobucket.com image 622x253]


ARE YOU NOT DAZZLED?!?
 
2013-01-19 11:03:51 PM  
 

skullkrusher: FFS dude, she said that parents complained. That was factually incorrect. I corrected her with a quote from TFA.


i.imgur.com

And it looks like you were too quick to do that. The FFRF people say they've had complaints. Who should be believed? People from Madison Wisconsin working for a private foundation aren't using a crystal ball to figure out they want to contact people in Conway, AK.
 
2013-01-19 11:04:28 PM  
Whether they should be allowed to visit or not, I never understood why people wanted to visit their boyfriends during school hours.
 
2013-01-19 11:07:23 PM  

Somacandra: skullkrusher: FFS dude, she said that parents complained. That was factually incorrect. I corrected her with a quote from TFA.

[i.imgur.com image 607x433]

And it looks like you were too quick to do that. The FFRF people say they've had complaints. Who should be believed? People from Madison Wisconsin working for a private foundation aren't using a crystal ball to figure out they want to contact people in Conway, AK.


True.  Atheists don't use crystal balls.  We talk directly with Satan - no intermediary needed
 
2013-01-19 11:08:11 PM  
Should be just parents/guardians and that is all.
 
2013-01-19 11:10:14 PM  

skullkrusher: PsiChick: skullkrusher: PsiChick: Um...RTFA, it's the parents claiming this is a violation of separation, because they claim the folks are proselytizing. So that's a nice hypothetical, but we aren't discussing that.

"The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said."

No parents complained.

Hmm, you're right, I re-read and they don't mention how FFRF found out about this. It'd be nice to know more.

/Goddamn 'journalism'...

I think the name of their organization says it all.


Yes, it's an organization dedicated to protecting us from hyper-religious asshats.
 
2013-01-19 11:11:16 PM  
You'd think they'd like this. After all Christians get orgasms when they're told "no".
 
2013-01-19 11:11:29 PM  

Somacandra: skullkrusher: FFS dude, she said that parents complained. That was factually incorrect. I corrected her with a quote from TFA.

[i.imgur.com image 607x433]

And it looks like you were too quick to do that. The FFRF people say they've had complaints. Who should be believed? People from Madison Wisconsin working for a private foundation aren't using a crystal ball to figure out they want to contact people in Conway, AK.


on another matter. Keep tossing til something sticks I suppose
 
2013-01-19 11:12:09 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Somacandra: skullkrusher: FFS dude, she said that parents complained. That was factually incorrect. I corrected her with a quote from TFA.

[i.imgur.com image 607x433]

And it looks like you were too quick to do that. The FFRF people say they've had complaints. Who should be believed? People from Madison Wisconsin working for a private foundation aren't using a crystal ball to figure out they want to contact people in Conway, AK.

True.  Atheists don't use crystal balls.  We talk directly with Satan - no intermediary needed


By the way, what's the word on the 7th and 8th Circle intramural football league? Is Belial playing this week or not? I don't want to have to play with Azmodan as QB. That farker can't hit a receiver if he has to leave the pocket.
 
2013-01-19 11:12:15 PM  

nekulor: skullkrusher: PsiChick: skullkrusher: PsiChick: Um...RTFA, it's the parents claiming this is a violation of separation, because they claim the folks are proselytizing. So that's a nice hypothetical, but we aren't discussing that.

"The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said."

No parents complained.

Hmm, you're right, I re-read and they don't mention how FFRF found out about this. It'd be nice to know more.

/Goddamn 'journalism'...

I think the name of their organization says it all.

Yes, it's an organization dedicated to protecting us from hyper-religious asshats.


sure they are
 
2013-01-19 11:14:36 PM  
Those poor christians. I hope they fare well.
 
2013-01-19 11:15:08 PM  

SkinnyHead: Under current school visitation policy, friends and family can come visit children at lunch.

By allowing students to receive visitors during their lunch hour, the school has created a limited public forum.  It would violate the 1st and 14th Amendments to deny visitation by a friend, just because it's a friend from church.  And it would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination to deny visits, just because religious matters are discussed during those visits.  That's the way I see it, anyways.


Visit one student then harass the rest? I'm not surprised you're ok with it.
 
2013-01-19 11:15:09 PM  

Gyrfalcon: BronyMedic: SkinnyHead: If I put any more time into it, I'll have to start billing the school district.  I've done enough to accomplish my purpose, which was to dazzle Farkers with my mastery of the law.

[i186.photobucket.com image 622x253]

ARE YOU NOT DAZZLED?!?


ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!?
 
2013-01-19 11:22:22 PM  

skullkrusher: nekulor: skullkrusher: PsiChick: skullkrusher: PsiChick: Um...RTFA, it's the parents claiming this is a violation of separation, because they claim the folks are proselytizing. So that's a nice hypothetical, but we aren't discussing that.

"The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said."

No parents complained.

Hmm, you're right, I re-read and they don't mention how FFRF found out about this. It'd be nice to know more.

/Goddamn 'journalism'...

I think the name of their organization says it all.

Yes, it's an organization dedicated to protecting us from hyper-religious asshats.

sure they are


Alternatively, they're an organization pushing for religion not to be sponsored, one way or another in the public sphere. Do you legitimately have an issue with that?
 
2013-01-19 11:27:25 PM  

Urbn: Actually, it would be funny if someone went to the school and followed every scripture these preachers tell with the older folk tales/myths that the Christians borrowed from or transformed to create that scripture.


I tried that with a Christian (my sister, who converted to Unitarianism). She tried to get into an argument with me and when I told her that I had sources backing me up, she accused me of never letting her be right. I tried it with one of my friends in high school and they told me I was going to hell. It doesn't seem to work well.
 
2013-01-19 11:30:07 PM  

TommyymmoT: Who gets "visitors" at school? It's not like you're in a jail, or hospital.
I don't recall anyone ever having someone stop by and say hi when I was in school.


Letting visiters in seems like a bad idea since it could lead to a security breach.
 
2013-01-19 11:35:36 PM  

nekulor: skullkrusher: nekulor: skullkrusher: PsiChick: skullkrusher: PsiChick: Um...RTFA, it's the parents claiming this is a violation of separation, because they claim the folks are proselytizing. So that's a nice hypothetical, but we aren't discussing that.

"The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said."

No parents complained.

Hmm, you're right, I re-read and they don't mention how FFRF found out about this. It'd be nice to know more.

/Goddamn 'journalism'...

I think the name of their organization says it all.

Yes, it's an organization dedicated to protecting us from hyper-religious asshats.

sure they are

Alternatively, they're an organization pushing for religion not to be sponsored, one way or another in the public sphere. Do you legitimately have an issue with that?


depends on how you define "sponsored". Does "sponsoring" include a public school having a visitor policy which allows friends and family to visit without preventing members of the clergy to visit students at their request?
 
2013-01-19 11:37:15 PM  

Selena Luna: Urbn: Actually, it would be funny if someone went to the school and followed every scripture these preachers tell with the older folk tales/myths that the Christians borrowed from or transformed to create that scripture.

I tried that with a Christian (my sister, who converted to Unitarianism). She tried to get into an argument with me and when I told her that I had sources backing me up, she accused me of never letting her be right. I tried it with one of my friends in high school and they told me I was going to hell. It doesn't seem to work well.


The measure of how much someone wants to tell you about their religious beliefs is usually inversely proportional to how much they will want to hear about yours.
 
2013-01-19 11:38:16 PM  
The last time they let a guy come visit the school for no really good reason, it was Sandusky taking boys out on "dates".

\just sayin'
\\isn't cafeteria food bad enough without preachers coming in to add to the misery?
 
2013-01-19 11:39:05 PM  
SkinnyHead et al.: derp

What would you say if it were a local mosque instead of a local church?
 
2013-01-19 11:43:59 PM  

skullkrusher: nekulor: skullkrusher: nekulor: skullkrusher: PsiChick: skullkrusher: PsiChick: Um...RTFA, it's the parents claiming this is a violation of separation, because they claim the folks are proselytizing. So that's a nice hypothetical, but we aren't discussing that.

"The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said."

No parents complained.

Hmm, you're right, I re-read and they don't mention how FFRF found out about this. It'd be nice to know more.

/Goddamn 'journalism'...

I think the name of their organization says it all.

Yes, it's an organization dedicated to protecting us from hyper-religious asshats.

sure they are

Alternatively, they're an organization pushing for religion not to be sponsored, one way or another in the public sphere. Do you legitimately have an issue with that?

depends on how you define "sponsored". Does "sponsoring" include a public school having a visitor policy which allows friends and family to visit without preventing members of the clergy to visit students at their request?


Depends. Are they, as a poster originally from the area suggested upthread, openly prosthelytizing on school grounds by holding conversations with entire groups of students about religion? If it's just a friendly visit, fine. If it's the latter, then yes, that's "sponsoring".

Now, would you like to engage the issue, or continue being purposefully obtuse?
 
2013-01-19 11:47:30 PM  
Matthew 6

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
 
2013-01-19 11:47:54 PM  

Solon Isonomia: fusillade762: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Bring in some Pantheistic believers and let the kids decide for themselves.

"Alright kids, would you like to listen to Pastor Mark talk about Jesus or Berzerker Erik talk about channeling the warrior spirit of the gods?"

Indeed. If this was ANY religion besides Christianity being allowed exclusive access to children during the school day people would FLIP THE F*CK OUT.

To steal from one of my favorite professors, a certain element of our population would like to pretend that Section 3 of Article VI of the Constitution doesn't exist.


If by "Section 3 of Article VI of the Constitution" you actually mean "any of the Constitution except when they're twisting it to force Christianity on people or fark over the poor/minorities," then your prof is spot on.
 
2013-01-19 11:52:20 PM  

skullkrusher: nekulor: skullkrusher: PsiChick: skullkrusher: PsiChick: Um...RTFA, it's the parents claiming this is a violation of separation, because they claim the folks are proselytizing. So that's a nice hypothetical, but we aren't discussing that.

"The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said."

No parents complained.

Hmm, you're right, I re-read and they don't mention how FFRF found out about this. It'd be nice to know more.

/Goddamn 'journalism'...

I think the name of their organization says it all.

Yes, it's an organization dedicated to protecting us from hyper-religious asshats.

sure they are


I'm sure no PARENTS have complained about the visits.

Has anyone asked the kids what they think?
 
2013-01-19 11:53:11 PM  

nekulor: Depends. Are they, as a poster originally from the area suggested upthread, openly prosthelytizing on school grounds by holding conversations with entire groups of students about religion? If it's just a friendly visit, fine. If it's the latter, then yes, that's "sponsoring".

Now, would you like to engage the issue, or continue being purposefully obtuse?


asking for a clarification of what you meant with an an ambiguous term is not being "purposefully obtuse". Why do you think it is? Is it because you're really trying very hard to find a reason to disagree with me? Yeah, pretty sure that's it. One might say your reaction was purposefully obtuse.

No, proselytizing to the students in a public school is not acceptable. Holding a conversation with a student or group of students who invited you to join them to talk or pray or whatever? Weird to me, but also fine.

To recap: trying to get kids to join your church at school - bad. Meeting with a kid or group of kids because they wanted to speak or pray with you. Fine.
 
2013-01-19 11:53:39 PM  
Some Imams should be able to share the stage, right?
 
2013-01-19 11:55:30 PM  

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: nekulor: skullkrusher: PsiChick: skullkrusher: PsiChick: Um...RTFA, it's the parents claiming this is a violation of separation, because they claim the folks are proselytizing. So that's a nice hypothetical, but we aren't discussing that.

"The ministers all had parental consent to visit the schoolchildren, Murry said. No parent has complained about the visits either, he said."

No parents complained.

Hmm, you're right, I re-read and they don't mention how FFRF found out about this. It'd be nice to know more.

/Goddamn 'journalism'...

I think the name of their organization says it all.

Yes, it's an organization dedicated to protecting us from hyper-religious asshats.

sure they are

I'm sure no PARENTS have complained about the visits.

Has anyone asked the kids what they think?


no idea. Probably a conversation for the kids to have with their parents who sign the consent forms
 
2013-01-19 11:56:20 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Some Imams should be able to share the stage, right?


that's different
/sometimes just gotta say what people wanna hear
 
2013-01-19 11:56:50 PM  

skullkrusher: nekulor: Depends. Are they, as a poster originally from the area suggested upthread, openly prosthelytizing on school grounds by holding conversations with entire groups of students about religion? If it's just a friendly visit, fine. If it's the latter, then yes, that's "sponsoring".

Now, would you like to engage the issue, or continue being purposefully obtuse?

asking for a clarification of what you meant with an an ambiguous term is not being "purposefully obtuse". Why do you think it is? Is it because you're really trying very hard to find a reason to disagree with me? Yeah, pretty sure that's it. One might say your reaction was purposefully obtuse.

No, proselytizing to the students in a public school is not acceptable. Holding a conversation with a student or group of students who invited you to join them to talk or pray or whatever? Weird to me, but also fine.

To recap: trying to get kids to join your church at school - bad. Meeting with a kid or group of kids because they wanted to speak or pray with you. Fine.


Huh. A legitimate and reasonable response from you. Sorry then. I'm so used to having to corner you with wording so you don't weasel your way out of the question that I seem to have jumped the gun on this one. Then we seem to be in agreement on this one.

/just apologized to skullcrusher.
//I feel dirty.
 
2013-01-19 11:59:30 PM  
They need to do way instain pastors who who bore thier babbys. becuse these babby cant frigth back?
 
2013-01-20 12:03:18 AM  
lindagailwestrich.ipage.com
 
2013-01-20 12:07:18 AM  

nekulor: skullkrusher: nekulor: Depends. Are they, as a poster originally from the area suggested upthread, openly prosthelytizing on school grounds by holding conversations with entire groups of students about religion? If it's just a friendly visit, fine. If it's the latter, then yes, that's "sponsoring".

Now, would you like to engage the issue, or continue being purposefully obtuse?

asking for a clarification of what you meant with an an ambiguous term is not being "purposefully obtuse". Why do you think it is? Is it because you're really trying very hard to find a reason to disagree with me? Yeah, pretty sure that's it. One might say your reaction was purposefully obtuse.

No, proselytizing to the students in a public school is not acceptable. Holding a conversation with a student or group of students who invited you to join them to talk or pray or whatever? Weird to me, but also fine.

To recap: trying to get kids to join your church at school - bad. Meeting with a kid or group of kids because they wanted to speak or pray with you. Fine.

Huh. A legitimate and reasonable response from you. Sorry then. I'm so used to having to corner you with wording so you don't weasel your way out of the question that I seem to have jumped the gun on this one. Then we seem to be in agreement on this one.

/just apologized to skullcrusher.
//I feel dirty.


if you have ever paid attention, my response should come as no surprise. See, assumptions and ambiguity are no way to have an honest conversation.
I answer direct, sincere questions as directly and sincerely as possible. Been arguing with you farks for too long, however, to not know that it is a waste of time giving you (generalized you, here) a dishonest route to take. Specific questions, specific answers. People often are upset that I am too literal in what I say - as if I am somehow causing them affront by not arguing what they really, really wish I were arguing. They are somehow upset that I was not implying what they really, really hoped I was implying because they had their stock "what about an imam" answer ready to go. Those people are morons and I have no interest in giving morons the slack to pretend I meant something other than I said.
 
2013-01-20 12:09:12 AM  

vernonFL: [lindagailwestrich.ipage.com image 450x273]


25.media.tumblr.com
 
Displayed 50 of 249 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report