alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Vatican to have Cardinal Bernard Law lead a mass for the pope
- Thread starter alonzomourning23
- Start date
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Too bad you can't use the old "I found Jesus" farce twice.
I bet Bush feels the same way every time he thinks about snorting a line.
I bet Bush feels the same way every time he thinks about snorting a line.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
You think by this point they simply would have condemed the whole catholic church, it seems a lot easier that way.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Maybe it makes a difference where you're from, but in the boston area (since law was head of the boston archdiocese, he even visited my catholic junior high/high school) Law is synonymous with the pedophile priests. That's the first thing people think about when he's mentioned, he's thought of as a criminal by many. That's what makes this so unbelievable to me. Boston.com (run by the boston globe) put this as the headling story on it's front page, and this will/is probably one of, if not the, cover story in the boston globe, though I don't have access to one to know for sure.
Maybe he isn't viewed as negatively elsewhere, I don't know.
Maybe he isn't viewed as negatively elsewhere, I don't know.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
He is definitely a criminal. He unabashedly aided and abetted other criminals. What the 
is wrong with the Catholic Church that someone who facilitated pedophilia is still treated with honor and respect?!
is wrong with the Catholic Church that someone who facilitated pedophilia is still treated with honor and respect?!
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']He is definitely a criminal. He unabashedly aided and abetted other criminals. What the is wrong with the Catholic Church that someone who facilitated pedophilia is still treated with honor and respect?![/QUOTE]
Ehhh - the Catholics are no worse then the rest of christian Americans. From the coke-sniffing alcoholics who suddenly find Jesus, support fundamentalist policies, and therefore automatically get the slate whiped clean, to bribe-taking politicians placating right-to-lifers by supporting bad science and twisted religion to keep a woman who has been brain-dead for 15 years on life support, I cannot believe the hypocracy of mainstream christianity. It's as if they're trying to prove Nietzsche when he said "The last Christian died on the cross"
is wrong with the Catholic Church that someone who facilitated pedophilia is still treated with honor and respect?![/QUOTE]Ehhh - the Catholics are no worse then the rest of christian Americans. From the coke-sniffing alcoholics who suddenly find Jesus, support fundamentalist policies, and therefore automatically get the slate whiped clean, to bribe-taking politicians placating right-to-lifers by supporting bad science and twisted religion to keep a woman who has been brain-dead for 15 years on life support, I cannot believe the hypocracy of mainstream christianity. It's as if they're trying to prove Nietzsche when he said "The last Christian died on the cross"
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='David85']Wow that is sad.
What would be worse is if they make him Pope.[/QUOTE]
No worries there, other than obvious reasons, it's a really extreme longshot we'll see an American pope anytime soon. Besides the fact that the position is more respected in Europe, there's been many troubles and bad experiences with choosing popes from countries with a lot of power and to keep history from repeating they'll likely avoid choosing a US pope like the plague.
What would be worse is if they make him Pope.[/QUOTE]
No worries there, other than obvious reasons, it's a really extreme longshot we'll see an American pope anytime soon. Besides the fact that the position is more respected in Europe, there's been many troubles and bad experiences with choosing popes from countries with a lot of power and to keep history from repeating they'll likely avoid choosing a US pope like the plague.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Ehhh - the Catholics are no worse then the rest of christian Americans. From the coke-sniffing alcoholics who suddenly find Jesus, support fundamentalist policies, and therefore automatically get the slate whiped clean, to bribe-taking politicians placating right-to-lifers by supporting bad science and twisted religion to keep a woman who has been brain-dead for 15 years on life support, I cannot believe the hypocracy of mainstream christianity. It's as if they're trying to prove Nietzsche when he said "The last Christian died on the cross"[/QUOTE]
Other than certain people like televangelists, I fail to see other religious groups placing people with a distinct lack of moral character in positions of authority. And if you think GW Bush is a hypocrite for "suddenly" finding Jesus, I don't know what to say. People change, deal with it. If you have any evidence that he's relapsed into alcoholism or drugs, than you'd have something.
Other than certain people like televangelists, I fail to see other religious groups placing people with a distinct lack of moral character in positions of authority. And if you think GW Bush is a hypocrite for "suddenly" finding Jesus, I don't know what to say. People change, deal with it. If you have any evidence that he's relapsed into alcoholism or drugs, than you'd have something.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']Other than certain people like televangelists, I fail to see other religious groups placing people with a distinct lack of moral character in positions of authority. And if you think GW Bush is a hypocrite for "suddenly" finding Jesus, I don't know what to say. People change, deal with it. If you have any evidence that he's relapsed into alcoholism or drugs, than you'd have something.[/QUOTE]
Bush is held up as a religious leader. He has unfairly slandered political opponents, worked with morally bankrupt characters like Karl Rove, and deliberately lied to the American people to send them into war.
I'm an American. I think people who break American law by doing illegal drugs should be put on trial and then pay whatever price current American law dictates - with no exceptions for rich people and people who find Jesus. I think the drug laws are draconian and ultimately do more harm then good, however I really doubt that Bush was staging an act of civil disobedience when he was doing cocaine lines off a strippers ass in the back of his frat house at Yale.
Bush is held up as a religious leader. He has unfairly slandered political opponents, worked with morally bankrupt characters like Karl Rove, and deliberately lied to the American people to send them into war.
I'm an American. I think people who break American law by doing illegal drugs should be put on trial and then pay whatever price current American law dictates - with no exceptions for rich people and people who find Jesus. I think the drug laws are draconian and ultimately do more harm then good, however I really doubt that Bush was staging an act of civil disobedience when he was doing cocaine lines off a strippers ass in the back of his frat house at Yale.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Bush is held up as a religious leader. He has unfairly slandered political opponents, worked with morally bankrupt characters like Karl Rove, and deliberately lied to the American people to send them into war.
I'm an American. I think people who break American law by doing illegal drugs should be put on trial and then pay whatever price current American law dictates - with no exceptions for rich people and people who find Jesus. I think the drug laws are draconian and ultimately do more harm then good, however I really doubt that Bush was staging an act of civil disobedience when he was doing cocaine lines off a strippers ass in the back of his frat house at Yale.[/QUOTE]
If everyone were severely punished for drug use, and since you're going by legality we can't discriminate between pot and coke, then we wouldn't have had clinton. The truth is, most normal drug users are never arrested for it, and they shouldn't be in my mind.
With bush there is a distinction between his pre strong christian days or alcoholism, drugs etc. than his post strong christian days. The cardinal here does not have such a distinction, it was an error in judgement and outrage on his part, nothing else. He didn't "wake up" and see his life was a mess, bush did. It's sad that the type of problems he was involved in make it extremely difficult for such distinctions to be publicly visible, but considering he himself was not a puritrator it also makes it less likely something like that would happen.
Though I would argue against the idea that bush deliberately lied going into war, not so much on the meaning of the words, but the meaning those words convey. A statement such as that suggests bush knew his justification were false, an argument very hard to substantiate. He knew the evidence was not as solid as he stated, and that the agreement in the intelligence community was not uniform, but it is extremely likely that he honestly believed Iraq had WMD programs, and did not envision ever having his exagerations be exposed to the general public, at best they may have become a historical footnote that no one cared about.
I'm an American. I think people who break American law by doing illegal drugs should be put on trial and then pay whatever price current American law dictates - with no exceptions for rich people and people who find Jesus. I think the drug laws are draconian and ultimately do more harm then good, however I really doubt that Bush was staging an act of civil disobedience when he was doing cocaine lines off a strippers ass in the back of his frat house at Yale.[/QUOTE]
If everyone were severely punished for drug use, and since you're going by legality we can't discriminate between pot and coke, then we wouldn't have had clinton. The truth is, most normal drug users are never arrested for it, and they shouldn't be in my mind.
With bush there is a distinction between his pre strong christian days or alcoholism, drugs etc. than his post strong christian days. The cardinal here does not have such a distinction, it was an error in judgement and outrage on his part, nothing else. He didn't "wake up" and see his life was a mess, bush did. It's sad that the type of problems he was involved in make it extremely difficult for such distinctions to be publicly visible, but considering he himself was not a puritrator it also makes it less likely something like that would happen.
Though I would argue against the idea that bush deliberately lied going into war, not so much on the meaning of the words, but the meaning those words convey. A statement such as that suggests bush knew his justification were false, an argument very hard to substantiate. He knew the evidence was not as solid as he stated, and that the agreement in the intelligence community was not uniform, but it is extremely likely that he honestly believed Iraq had WMD programs, and did not envision ever having his exagerations be exposed to the general public, at best they may have become a historical footnote that no one cared about.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
So you think Bush is a shining example of christian values in the model of the god-figure of christianity, Jesus Christ?
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
I think you're the only one who looks at Bush as a religious leader, well you and the fundamentlist christians you so dispise, guess you do have something in common with them.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']So you think Bush is a shining example of christian values in the model of the god-figure of christianity, Jesus Christ?[/QUOTE]
No one looks at bush as a "religious leader". He is a leader who is religious, but not a religious leader. Also, christians look up to jesus and try to follow his example, no one claims to be, and no one claims bush is, in the model of jesus.
No one looks at bush as a "religious leader". He is a leader who is religious, but not a religious leader. Also, christians look up to jesus and try to follow his example, no one claims to be, and no one claims bush is, in the model of jesus.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']No one looks at bush as a "religious leader". He is a leader who is religious, but not a religious leader. Also, christians look up to jesus and try to follow his example, no one claims to be, and no one claims bush is, in the model of jesus.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Bush even attempts to follow Jesus's model.
He likes the political boost from labeling Jesus as his favorite philosopher, he knows that "Jesus" plays alot better then "I didn't inhale" with the farming mid-west, and he enjoys finding Biblical passages that he can use to gain votes, like the bigoted anti-homosexual and anti-stem cell votes.
I don't think Bush even attempts to follow Jesus's model.
He likes the political boost from labeling Jesus as his favorite philosopher, he knows that "Jesus" plays alot better then "I didn't inhale" with the farming mid-west, and he enjoys finding Biblical passages that he can use to gain votes, like the bigoted anti-homosexual and anti-stem cell votes.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I think you're the only one who looks at Bush as a religious leader, well you and the fundamentlist christians you so dispise, guess you do have something in common with them.[/QUOTE]
Bush is fanatically religious, you just have a huge blind spot because he is an American President. Bush actually believes that he personally talks to the christian god, Bush reads the Bible as if it is the literal truth (well, the parts he wants to believe
), and many of the social policies supported by Bush are backed solely because of his religious beliefs. That's why I label him as a religious leader, if he stopped advertising Jesus every chance he got, I'd consider his faith to be his own personal business.
Bush is fanatically religious, you just have a huge blind spot because he is an American President. Bush actually believes that he personally talks to the christian god, Bush reads the Bible as if it is the literal truth (well, the parts he wants to believe
), and many of the social policies supported by Bush are backed solely because of his religious beliefs. That's why I label him as a religious leader, if he stopped advertising Jesus every chance he got, I'd consider his faith to be his own personal business.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='Mike23']Shouldn't these catholics practice what they preach and forgive this sort of thing?
I realize it is probably a very traumatic issue, but what good will come of this action?[/QUOTE]
Well, the apology on the part of Law came under intense pressure, it was not something done of his own initiative, and there seems to be little that shows he genuinly deeply regretted it. The church seemed unwilling to discipline him as well (they accepted his resignation, but the pope refused it the first time). But, there's also the realistic side. For one, if I remember correctly, many of the victims aren't catholic now, so there's a good chance that wouldn't apply to them. But, also, that can't be acceptable in the real world. If a cardinal kills someone they may be forgiven, but they aren't going to remain a cardinal. Forgiveness and acting like it didn't happen are different things. But, again, forgiving everything isn't practical in the real world (to those who are christian).
That may play some role (children being the most easily accesible for sex), but it wouldn't have prevented this. Pedophiles tend to remain pedophiles whether they're married or not, sex from adults may stop some from seeking children for actual sex, but the desires are there and the multiple offenders unlikely would have done exactly the same, married or not. Besides, it wasn't strange for a priest to have a woman on the side, often a parishiner, though this was more common in the 50's than it is today I believe.
I realize it is probably a very traumatic issue, but what good will come of this action?[/QUOTE]
Well, the apology on the part of Law came under intense pressure, it was not something done of his own initiative, and there seems to be little that shows he genuinly deeply regretted it. The church seemed unwilling to discipline him as well (they accepted his resignation, but the pope refused it the first time). But, there's also the realistic side. For one, if I remember correctly, many of the victims aren't catholic now, so there's a good chance that wouldn't apply to them. But, also, that can't be acceptable in the real world. If a cardinal kills someone they may be forgiven, but they aren't going to remain a cardinal. Forgiveness and acting like it didn't happen are different things. But, again, forgiving everything isn't practical in the real world (to those who are christian).
That may play some role (children being the most easily accesible for sex), but it wouldn't have prevented this. Pedophiles tend to remain pedophiles whether they're married or not, sex from adults may stop some from seeking children for actual sex, but the desires are there and the multiple offenders unlikely would have done exactly the same, married or not. Besides, it wasn't strange for a priest to have a woman on the side, often a parishiner, though this was more common in the 50's than it is today I believe.
Mike23
CAGiversary!
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, the apology on the part of Law came under intense pressure, it was not something done of his own initiative, and there seems to be little that shows he genuinly deeply regretted it. The church seemed unwilling to discipline him as well (they accepted his resignation, but the pope refused it the first time). But, there's also the realistic side. For one, if I remember correctly, many of the victims aren't catholic now, so there's a good chance that wouldn't apply to them. But, also, that can't be acceptable in the real world. If a cardinal kills someone they may be forgiven, but they aren't going to remain a cardinal. Forgiveness and acting like it didn't happen are different things. But, again, forgiving everything isn't practical in the real world (to those who are christian).[/QUOTE]
Well, if they now aren't Catholic, why are they going to protest at this mass? They should use different means to get their message across. I do agree, however, that he should no longer be a cardinal.
Well, if they now aren't Catholic, why are they going to protest at this mass? They should use different means to get their message across. I do agree, however, that he should no longer be a cardinal.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='Lina']I think it would have a bigger role than that.
Most men are pedophiles. If a guy says that don't want to bang a hot 14-year old, they're probably lying. The difference is that normal men have other, more proper options.[/QUOTE]
Uhhh...... the majority of people molested were prepubescent boys. Wanting a 14 year old girl (if you're heterosexual) or a 14 year old boy (if you're homosexual), as long as they've reached puberty, is not pedophelia, and is in the realm of normal sexual activity and interests. A pedophile can be heterosexual and still be attracted to young boys, in fact the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, it is detached from normal sexual attractions. Pedophiles will sometimes be attracted to young, post pubescent children (as pedophelia is often more about power), but usually those interests don't extend beyond puberty.
Catholic priests molested them, a catholic cardinal, who is given a position of honor, helped facilitate more molestations and protect the pedophile priests. Whether they're still catholic or not, the person who helped in the abuse is a valid target.
Most men are pedophiles. If a guy says that don't want to bang a hot 14-year old, they're probably lying. The difference is that normal men have other, more proper options.[/QUOTE]
Uhhh...... the majority of people molested were prepubescent boys. Wanting a 14 year old girl (if you're heterosexual) or a 14 year old boy (if you're homosexual), as long as they've reached puberty, is not pedophelia, and is in the realm of normal sexual activity and interests. A pedophile can be heterosexual and still be attracted to young boys, in fact the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, it is detached from normal sexual attractions. Pedophiles will sometimes be attracted to young, post pubescent children (as pedophelia is often more about power), but usually those interests don't extend beyond puberty.
Catholic priests molested them, a catholic cardinal, who is given a position of honor, helped facilitate more molestations and protect the pedophile priests. Whether they're still catholic or not, the person who helped in the abuse is a valid target.
Mike23
CAGiversary!
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Uhhh...... the majority of people molested were prepubescent boys. Wanting a 14 year old girl (if you're heterosexual) or a 14 year old boy (if you're homosexual), as long as they've reached puberty, is not pedophelia, and is in the realm of normal sexual activity and interests. A pedophile can be heterosexual and still be attracted to young boys, in fact the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, it is detached from normal sexual attractions. Pedophiles will sometimes be attracted to young, post pubescent children (as pedophelia is often more about power), but usually those interests don't extend beyond puberty.
Catholic priests molested them, a catholic cardinal, who is given a position of honor, helped facilitate more molestations and protect the pedophile priests. Whether they're still catholic or not, the person who helped in the abuse is a valid target.[/QUOTE]
He is a valid target. Maybe I'm not making myself clear here. I think they need to find another means of speaking out against his problems, not at this mass.
Catholic priests molested them, a catholic cardinal, who is given a position of honor, helped facilitate more molestations and protect the pedophile priests. Whether they're still catholic or not, the person who helped in the abuse is a valid target.[/QUOTE]
He is a valid target. Maybe I'm not making myself clear here. I think they need to find another means of speaking out against his problems, not at this mass.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Bush is fanatically religious, you just have a huge blind spot because he is an American President. Bush actually believes that he personally talks to the christian god, Bush reads the Bible as if it is the literal truth (well, the parts he wants to believe ), and many of the social policies supported by Bush are backed solely because of his religious beliefs. That's why I label him as a religious leader, if he stopped advertising Jesus every chance he got, I'd consider his faith to be his own personal business.[/QUOTE]
Then he's a leader who follows a religion and may or may not let it interfere with what he does. Nevertheless his position as a leader is secular...I guess it's a matter of semantics, but to me religious leader means someone who is actually the leader or at least teacher of a religion. Last I checked the majority of people in the christian faith didn't really ask bush his advice on what to do in their spiritual lives and he wasn't leading prayer services on Easter.
), and many of the social policies supported by Bush are backed solely because of his religious beliefs. That's why I label him as a religious leader, if he stopped advertising Jesus every chance he got, I'd consider his faith to be his own personal business.[/QUOTE]Then he's a leader who follows a religion and may or may not let it interfere with what he does. Nevertheless his position as a leader is secular...I guess it's a matter of semantics, but to me religious leader means someone who is actually the leader or at least teacher of a religion. Last I checked the majority of people in the christian faith didn't really ask bush his advice on what to do in their spiritual lives and he wasn't leading prayer services on Easter.
Gothic Walrus
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Then he's a leader who follows a religion and may or may not let it interfere with what he does. Nevertheless his position as a leader is secular...I guess it's a matter of semantics, but to me religious leader means someone who is actually the leader or at least teacher of a religion. Last I checked the majority of people in the christian faith didn't really ask bush his advice on what to do in their spiritual lives and he wasn't leading prayer services on Easter.[/QUOTE]
Schemantics, anyone?
Considering that Bush is letting his religion influence his political decisions - especially on subjects like abortion and gay marriage - I'd say he qualifies as a religious leader in both senses of the term.
Schemantics, anyone?
Considering that Bush is letting his religion influence his political decisions - especially on subjects like abortion and gay marriage - I'd say he qualifies as a religious leader in both senses of the term.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']Schemantics, anyone?
Considering that Bush is letting his religion influence his political decisions - especially on subjects like abortion and gay marriage - I'd say he qualifies as a religious leader in both senses of the term.[/QUOTE]
First off what is schemantics?
Also you just described what Camoor seemingly thinks is a relgious leader and like I said he may very well do that, but IMO that doesn't make him a religious leader because he in fact does not lead or is in charge of any religion.
Considering that Bush is letting his religion influence his political decisions - especially on subjects like abortion and gay marriage - I'd say he qualifies as a religious leader in both senses of the term.[/QUOTE]
First off what is schemantics?
Also you just described what Camoor seemingly thinks is a relgious leader and like I said he may very well do that, but IMO that doesn't make him a religious leader because he in fact does not lead or is in charge of any religion.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Then he's a leader who follows a religion and may or may not let it interfere with what he does[/QUOTE]
May not let it interfere?
Besides, he claims that things like his bigoted views on homosexuals and his adversion to health cures like stem cells are somehow "christian"- I'm sure that his warped viewpoint has changed the policy positions of at least some of the less skilled thinkers in America.
May not let it interfere?
Besides, he claims that things like his bigoted views on homosexuals and his adversion to health cures like stem cells are somehow "christian"- I'm sure that his warped viewpoint has changed the policy positions of at least some of the less skilled thinkers in America.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']May not let it interfere?
Besides, he claims that things like his bigoted views on homosexuals and his adversion to health cures like stem cells are somehow "christian"- I'm sure that his warped viewpoint has changed the policy positions of at least some of the less skilled thinkers in America.[/QUOTE]
While you can claim religion is part of the reason such views are held, it's much more difficult to say his views are merely religious views. Remove religion from bush and his view likely wouldn't change much. Now if religion was treated in texas as it is in MA while he was growing up, then he may have been different, but as he stands right now his views, while possibly the result of religion, are not necessarily still based in religion. Religion is just justification.
Besides, he claims that things like his bigoted views on homosexuals and his adversion to health cures like stem cells are somehow "christian"- I'm sure that his warped viewpoint has changed the policy positions of at least some of the less skilled thinkers in America.[/QUOTE]
While you can claim religion is part of the reason such views are held, it's much more difficult to say his views are merely religious views. Remove religion from bush and his view likely wouldn't change much. Now if religion was treated in texas as it is in MA while he was growing up, then he may have been different, but as he stands right now his views, while possibly the result of religion, are not necessarily still based in religion. Religion is just justification.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']While you can claim religion is part of the reason such views are held, it's much more difficult to say his views are merely religious views. Remove religion from bush and his view likely wouldn't change much. Now if religion was treated in texas as it is in MA while he was growing up, then he may have been different, but as he stands right now his views, while possibly the result of religion, are not necessarily still based in religion. Religion is just justification.[/QUOTE]
Yeah this is more or less how I see it in the end. IMO religion for Bush isn't the reason so much as it is the excuse or scapegoat.
Yeah this is more or less how I see it in the end. IMO religion for Bush isn't the reason so much as it is the excuse or scapegoat.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Yeah this is more or less how I see it in the end. IMO religion for Bush isn't the reason so much as it is the excuse or scapegoat.[/QUOTE]
When author Bob Woodward asked George Bush if he consulted with his father before going into Iraq, Bush replied, “I consulted with my other father.”
Having a man like this as President is dangerous, to say the least.
When author Bob Woodward asked George Bush if he consulted with his father before going into Iraq, Bush replied, “I consulted with my other father.”
Having a man like this as President is dangerous, to say the least.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']When author Bob Woodward asked George Bush if he consulted with his father before going into Iraq, Bush replied, “I consulted with my other father.”
Having a man like this as President is dangerous, to say the least.[/QUOTE]
But the idea was his own, god just ok'd it.
Having a man like this as President is dangerous, to say the least.[/QUOTE]
But the idea was his own, god just ok'd it.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Lina']Most men are pedophiles. If a guy says that don't want to bang a hot 14-year old, they're probably lying. The difference is that normal men have other, more proper options.[/QUOTE]
The hell? 16- or 17-year old and I probably wouldn't argue with you, but 14? I seriously doubt that, and I doubt even more that you have any evidence to back that up.
The hell? 16- or 17-year old and I probably wouldn't argue with you, but 14? I seriously doubt that, and I doubt even more that you have any evidence to back that up.
bread's done