Let's have a mental evaluation of jp.
[quote name='jputahraptor']Yes I get your clever post but considering all the insults about Jesus and Christianity my statement is technically true but yes I suppose the hate is more directed towards Catholicism on these boards. [/quote]
Ignoring thread topic at hand and choosing instead of hide behind infamous "hate" defense. The same thing he'd bash any minority group/leader for doing. Double standard. Chooses also to insult several people of the board within his first six words.
I'm not offended so long as the views of these boards are not the views of the majority of the country and thankfully they are not.
Claims to not be offended. So much so that you need to make a post, preface it with this, and then
immediately turn around and complain, proving you are, indeed, offended. So cognitive dissonance ahoy.
After all, how could gay marriage have been shot down in liberalville California?
Use of silly name calling word. Allusion to a topic we've covered in other threads on this board many times, and already know the reasons why, and could explain if given the time and space. I find this funny since he IMMEDIATELY goes into his next sentence with an "and," as if to cut us off from responding. First instance of changing the subject (many more to come).
And Papist is a slur even if I don't take offense to it.
I'm waiting for him to compare having ideology - something one can change since it is, at its core, their opinion - against something like, say,
skin color.
I'm sure the n word will lose it's significance someday but is it classy to bring it up after the fact?
Bam, bitch!
You could have easily have just said that non-Catholic Christians don't obey the pope necessilariy and gotten the same message across but you did it in the classy liberal way of it's only wrong when Republicans do it.
Suggesting that only liberals use insults, that liberals are all secular/agnostics/atheists, that Republicans are all theistic, that all Republicans/theists are fully clean from insulting people....WHILE insulting people on this board.
[quote name='jputahraptor']So much hate I can't respond to it all,[/quote]
Once again, failing to acknowledge the topic at hand.
it's good to see the tolerance you liberals are so well know for shine on here.
Crying about intolerance while being intolerant and while still refusing to talk about topic at hand.
The church will be here though when Nancy Pelosi needs our priests to preach at the pulpit for immigration reform, so much for seperation of church and state.
Generic fear-mongering prediction with a word from his "Scary Liberals" bag of tricks, in this case being Nancy Pelosi. Further suggesting that there are churches that only preach Liberal agendas, when there are several Republican themed ones praying for Obama's death, suggesting taking up arms against the government, and all manner of propagandic right-wing based messages. What's really hilarious is that these churches are operating like this NOW, versus this imaginary point in time he's suggesting with this sentence. Bringing in the separation clause is absolute icing on the cake in a fit of pure hypocrisy, especially when you consider churches get to use tax-based programs. I.e., if a church catches on fire, the fire department is called in, despite being a state run group. But let's not dally any further on jp's obvious (eighteenth?) attempt to change the subject.
He also manages to change the subject over to immigration reform (thirty fourth time? I can't keep track anymore), creating a whole new cloud of confusion, wherein he doesn't acknowledge a single shred of it from a factual level, and instead just relegates some more fancy fear-projections. Further goes on to suggest that the topic is as simple as "it needs reform" and then even says that the reform is the dangerous thing.
Really we could sit here on this one sentence for ages, carefully picking apart the mental breakdown within, but none of us have the time.
Funny thing is I want more Latinos in the country,
Uses the word "Latino" despite that he means Mexicans, because he thinks of Mexicans as a derogatory term. This isn't the case. Ask someone from Texas - like me - who knows the score. Can't tell the difference between Chicano, Latino, Hispanic, Mexican, Tejano, etc.
Potentially suggesting that he means Latinos as in people from all across South America, but I've yet to meet someone who could distinguish the different groups and was actually in favor of immigrants, since it's just a broad stroke of classification to them instead of any kind of cultural acknowledgment.
Is going to go on to suggest political alignment issues, since you can just how smug this sort of suggestion is.
they are heavily Catholic and have more conservative values than you'd like to believe.
Something we all already knew when we discussed the Prop 8 thread. The one you were probably running around in, but instead choose to call attention to it here, because why stay on topic about molestation when we can turn our heads toward some vapid victory speech you're making in lieu of looking at the actual issue at hand.
Further, using language like "than you'd like to believe," as if speaking about some kind of savage nation of undereducated people, like they are toys to the Right to be manipulated. Condescending toward a group of people who just happen to fall in line with your ideology, and even suggesting that you control them. True humanitarian empathy at work.
Ending on childish message.
And so concludes our introspective journey into the mind of someone who has nothing to say. Nothing useful, at least. Or helpful. Or true. Or any number of other adjectives.
himself.
