Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
weren't there Mormons in mexcio way way back then, y'all completely forgot about them
No. The Mormons emigrated to Mexico late in the 19th century to avoid persecution in the U.S. Unless, of course, you accept the Book of Mormon as literal truth.
Hence the fucking qualifier "intentional", Old-THUMPER, you pretentious stalking troll.
So you concede that your emphatic "Europeans killed" Native Americans is a mendacious oversimplification of what happened when factors such as disease and existing hostile relationships between tribes are factored into the equation, Old-THUMPER. It's good that you acknowledge your ignorance and stupidity, Old-THUMPER.
BTW, Old-THUMPER, you were disabused of your asinine notion that there would have been a country called "Mexico" without the Aztecs who called themselves "Mexica", you pretentious stalking troll. You were further disabused of your asinine notion that the "Mexica" stole Mexico from the Aztecs who called themselves "Mexica", you pathetically stupid, stalking troll. Hence, the word "Mexicano" did not magically appear to the conquistadors in a vision quest, did it, Old-THUMPER?
Good Ol' classic IB. Trying to lie by twisting the words and changing the question.
I never included the word "intentional" you lying asshole. I said killed. You demonstrated your inability to read and were caught, so now you try to pretend the issue was different all along.
As to you having "disproved" any other point, you haven't. All you have done with you stupid "all Mexicans are Aztecs" belching is circular refer to your previous posting as "authoritative", and again, as with trying to slip in "intentional", change the question to cover your stupidity.
This one has run its course. You have shown yourself to be the deceitful caricature of the confederate slave overseer. We knew you were pro slavery as far as blacks were concerned since you yourself admitted slavery is moral. Now you seem to be claiming that Europeans were not really the ones responsible for wiping out millions of native americans--while somehow saying my membership in a congressionally sponsored organization means I condone human sacrifice. No, it was someone else--initials IBH--who said human sacrifice is OK since it happened hundreds of years ago. That is your slavery argument, so why not here.
You are a pathetic pig. If you want to go back to the points I actually made I will reply. I really doubt you will. But if you continue on your typical lie, twist, and misquote then you will continue to admit that you are nothing more than a pro slavery, racist anti-black, anti-native American bigot who only gives lip service to the Christian principles he claims to hold dear. You are the hypocritical Pharisee Christ condemned, nothing more.
Good Ol' classic IB. Trying to lie by twisting the words and changing the question.
I never included the word "intentional" you lying asshole. I said killed. You demonstrated your inability to read and were caught, so now you try to pretend the issue was different all along.
As to you having "disproved" any other point, you haven't. All you have done with you stupid "all Mexicans are Aztecs" belching is circular refer to your previous posting as "authoritative", and again, as with trying to slip in "intentional", change the question to cover your stupidity.
This one has run its course. You have shown yourself to be the deceitful caricature of the confederations slave overseer. We knew you were pro slavery as far as blacks were concerned since you yourself admitted slavery is moral. Now you seem to be claiming that Europeans were not really the ones responsible for wiping out millions of native americans--while somehow saving my membership in a congressionally sponsored organization means I condone human sacrifice. No, it was someone else--initials IBH--how said human sacrifice is OK since it happens hundreds of years ago. That is your slavery argument, so why not here.
You are a pathetic pig. If you want to go back to the points I actually made I will reply. I really doubt you will. But if you continue on your typical lie, twist, and misquote then you will continue to admit that you are nothing more than a pro slavery, racist anti-black, anti-native American bigot who only gives lip service to the Christian principles he claims to hold dear. You are the hypocritical Pharisee Christ condemned, nothing more.
You're a lying, disingenuous jackass, Old-THUMPER. The original Mexicans were emphatically Aztecs, Old-THUMPER, and your ignorant ranting otherwise does not change that fact. Hence, your asinine claim that the "Mexicans stole it from the Mexicans" is as stupid as it is jackass asinine, Old-THUMPER. Further, your disingenuous and unqualified claim that "Europeans" killed 95% of the Native American population without mention of unknown pathogens or how Native Americans directly contributed to the deaths of other Native Americans was a lie by omission, Old-THUMPER. As you stupidly pontificate from your pretentious and deceitful pulpit, Old-THUMPER, you, in fact, have made yourself the stupidly proud defender of human sacrifice, ritual cannibalism and the fact that many if not most Native American tribes had institutionalized slavery, you dumb fuck. All you are is a pathetically stupid lout who trolls and stalks, Old-THUMPER.
Good Ol' classic IB. Trying to lie by twisting the words and changing the question.
I never included the word "intentional" you lying asshole. I said killed. You demonstrated your inability to read and were caught, so now you try to pretend the issue was different all along.
As to you having "disproved" any other point, you haven't. All you have done with you stupid "all Mexicans are Aztecs" belching is circular refer to your previous posting as "authoritative", and again, as with trying to slip in "intentional", change the question to cover your stupidity.
This one has run its course. You have shown yourself to be the deceitful caricature of the confederate slave overseer. We knew you were pro slavery as far as blacks were concerned since you yourself admitted slavery is moral. Now you seem to be claiming that Europeans were not really the ones responsible for wiping out millions of native americans--while somehow saying my membership in a congressionally sponsored organization means I condone human sacrifice. No, it was someone else--initials IBH--who said human sacrifice is OK since it happened hundreds of years ago. That is your slavery argument, so why not here.
You are a pathetic pig. If you want to go back to the points I actually made I will reply. I really doubt you will. But if you continue on your typical lie, twist, and misquote then you will continue to admit that you are nothing more than a pro slavery, racist anti-black, anti-native American bigot who only gives lip service to the Christian principles he claims to hold dear. You are the hypocritical Pharisee Christ condemned, nothing more.
When you pull your thumb out of you ass, oLD-Trichinosis (the parasite) watch this movie in full...
I forgot what this thread was all about...thanks idiots for hijacking just one more thread.
So more and more people are becoming convinced that the Big O, the Mad Boy-King is a Muslim. If this is true, what do we do about it? Did he break any laws? Should he be removed from office for such a huge lie? Do we have to reevaluate every decision that he has made in the light of this new information? That last one is obvious. So much makes more sense now that we accept that there's more than one Muslim in the White House.
When did religion become a criteria for being president? I'm sure a lot of people including you think it is supposed to be a WASP, preferably a Southern Baptist, but that is not required. The WASPs made up lies about Catholics when JFK ran. As recently as last election people trashed Romney because he was LDS. So I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you think a Muslim is completely unconstitutional. What mosque does he attend?
At least he isn't a Jew! Heaven forbid. If we allow a Jew, next thing you know some Hindu would think he actually has rights to run for office. Gasp! That is only one step from a following the teachings of Motzeyout. A clear sign of the end times if those beliefs were ever followed on this soil. [Sarcasm meter pegged out of course].
I think Obama has been a marginally competent president at best. I think we will suffer from things he has done for years to come. But impeaching him or changing your views because of what his spiritual beliefs might be is worse than anything he has done. Evaluate his actions, not his religion.
When did religion become a criteria for being president? I'm sure a lot of people including you think it is supposed to be a WASP, preferably a Southern Baptist, but that is not required. The WASPs made up lies about Catholics when JFK ran. As recently as last election people trashed Romney because he was LDS. So I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you think a Muslim is completely unconstitutional. What mosque does he attend?
At least he isn't a Jew! Heaven forbid. If we allow a Jew, next thing you know some Hindu would think he actually has rights to run for office. Gasp! That is only one step from a following the teachings of Motzeyout. A clear sign of the end times if those beliefs were ever followed on this soil. [Sarcasm meter pegged out of course].
I think Obama has been a marginally competent president at best. I think we will suffer from things he has done for years to come. But impeaching him or changing your views because of what his spiritual beliefs might be is worse than anything he has done. Evaluate his actions, not his religion.
Most of those ridiculing Romney for his religion are of your ilk, DCBelching
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Stevie
In a battle of Super Heroes, who would come out on top?
This question leaves the guy whose efforts got Bin Laden in THIRD PLACE - not even close!
Would it be the guy who proposed the failed Strategic Missile Defense System dubbed as "Star Wars" or the guy who wears "Magic Underwear"?
Mr. Romney confirmed that the picture was of his magic underwear, but that it was an accident that the picture found its way to the Internet.
“The picture was meant to be private,” he said. “I have a magic underwear scrapbook that I keep for myself and my family. It’s unfortunate that it was Twittered.”
When did religion become a criteria for being president? I'm sure a lot of people including you think it is supposed to be a WASP, preferably a Southern Baptist, but that is not required. The WASPs made up lies about Catholics when JFK ran. As recently as last election people trashed Romney because he was LDS. So I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you think a Muslim is completely unconstitutional. What mosque does he attend?
At least he isn't a Jew! Heaven forbid. If we allow a Jew, next thing you know some Hindu would think he actually has rights to run for office. Gasp! That is only one step from a following the teachings of Motzeyout. A clear sign of the end times if those beliefs were ever followed on this soil. [Sarcasm meter pegged out of course].
I think Obama has been a marginally competent president at best. I think we will suffer from things he has done for years to come. But impeaching him or changing your views because of what his spiritual beliefs might be is worse than anything he has done. Evaluate his actions, not his religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Most of those ridiculing Romney for his religion are of your ilk, DCBelching
Odd, I didn't see him ridiculing Romney. Where do you see it? Link, please, as you are want to say. The man only has a hand full of posts so I am sure you can find where he ridiculed Romney, can't you? Just like you can find where you accused me of supporting cannibalism.
Sick, lying, Pharisee. You really better hope saint peter doesn't expect that you have lived your good book. You really are a walking, talking example of what Christ condemned. Hiding behind "the morals of the time" so you can justify all ills of slavery. Brushing aside as if it was a minor triviality the killing of millions, the taking of lands, the disregard of treaties. You know, minor commandments like killing, stealing, and lying.
You still haven't answered most the important questions i've asked you, but everyone knows you never will. But just for the record, which was the Spaniard's biggest sin in your mind: greed for gold, cutting off the feet of the men at Acoma, raping the Aztec women, or stealing the gold from the Incas? And whichever you choose, please justify your answer in terms a human can understand, not your typical doublespeak. I know it is a subjective question and your answer will be graded on how you defend your choice, not which answer you choose.
