Australian Politics Forum - cheese eating surrender monkeys

Quantum

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3373

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #75 - Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:59pm

cods wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:33pm:

If she was nagging, and nagging, and whining, and he turned around and bitched slapped her, you have to admit, it is her fault.

I mean, she new he could be violent and she kept nagging at him anyway? What did she expect? If you kick a beehive you are going to get stung, you know...

Ironically though, those who use that as a defense (either for themselves or in defense of some other loser) usually have no ticker when they are confronted by a male...You know face to face, being abusive or perhaps "nagging" them...

If he actually "manned up" he would simply walk away. But go ahead keep defending cowardly lashing out with violence no worries.

quantum
You missed the point. I'm not defending him. Cods is! ... But she doesn't realise it.

I'm using the exact same argument she has been using in regards to Paris, even including the "beehive" analogy. If she is to be consistent she would have to say the women got what she asked for. She provoked the "beehive" and got stung, just like charlie did...

in your mind of course..

in mine IT IS THE LAW THAT SAYS

"""NO TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE"""...

and I think you will find in countries with LAWS AGAINST THAT.. everyone is aware of the LAW.. even when they are drinking...

you see the argument I put up.. oh never mind it will escape you anyway...

in the case of the cartoon.. it had not a thing to do with the law

it was dealing with COMMON DECENCY....

stop insulting stop BULLYING...

why is that such a HARD thing to so????>..

Yes there are laws against hitting people. I think you will find there are laws against shooting people as well, cods.

You can't play this both ways. If a women bullies a man to the point that he hits her, you can't turn around and say that there is no excuse for violence and that it is again the law, and at the same time claim that those making the cartoons have to share blame for what happened and that they should have known better.

If kicking the "beehive" is such an unwise thing to do, how the hell can you say it ok for a women to kick a "beehive" (a violent man) but everyone else should know better. It is inconsistent beyond belief.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #76 - Jan 18^th, 2015 at 4:11pm

Quantum wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:59pm:

cods wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:33pm:

If she was nagging, and nagging, and whining, and he turned around and bitched slapped her, you have to admit, it is her fault.

I mean, she new he could be violent and she kept nagging at him anyway? What did she expect? If you kick a beehive you are going to get stung, you know...

Ironically though, those who use that as a defense (either for themselves or in defense of some other loser) usually have no ticker when they are confronted by a male...You know face to face, being abusive or perhaps "nagging" them...

If he actually "manned up" he would simply walk away. But go ahead keep defending cowardly lashing out with violence no worries.

quantum
You missed the point. I'm not defending him. Cods is! ... But she doesn't realise it.

I'm using the exact same argument she has been using in regards to Paris, even including the "beehive" analogy. If she is to be consistent she would have to say the women got what she asked for. She provoked the "beehive" and got stung, just like charlie did...

in your mind of course..

in mine IT IS THE LAW THAT SAYS

"""NO TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE"""...

and I think you will find in countries with LAWS AGAINST THAT.. everyone is aware of the LAW.. even when they are drinking...

you see the argument I put up.. oh never mind it will escape you anyway...

in the case of the cartoon.. it had not a thing to do with the law

it was dealing with COMMON DECENCY....

stop insulting stop BULLYING...

why is that such a HARD thing to so????>..

Yes there are laws against hitting people. I think you will find there are laws against shooting people as well, cods.

You can't play this both ways. If a women bullies a man to the point that he hits her, you can't turn around and say that there is no excuse for violence and that it is again the law, and at the same time claim that those making the cartoons have to share blame for what happened and that they should have known better.

If kicking the "beehive" is such an unwise thing to do, how the hell can you say it ok for a women to kick a "beehive" (a violent man) but everyone else should know better. It is inconsistent beyond belief.

I knew it..

she HAD A CHOICE... C HARLIE HAD A CHOICE.

I did not say anything at all about it BEING OK..

I said there is a LAW AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE...

there is or was NO LAW AGAINST THE PRINTING OF THE CARTOON>>

is was left to COMMON DECENCY...

grap brought up the nagging... and most domestic violence we see today had nothing to so with nagging..

most women are terrified of their partner.. down trodden and yes WEAK>..some have kids and dont know where to take them

so stupid as it is they STAY... and get killed...

and as stupid as it was..

CHARLIE kept drawing and printing the cartoons...

and got killed for his trouble...

both had CHOICES THEY HAD THE WARNINGS>>

they women was warned to leave her crazy husband...

charlie was warned by a crazy gang...

no one is saying anything was right about either case...

BUT BOTH>...in my OPINION MADE THE WRONG CHOIC E..

we know both were BRAVE...like you.. no one would stop you doing what you chose to do... we know.. Sad

.. even if it meant death..

the women I am talking about and the one YOU choose to talk about.. are not one the same thing..

go back and read grap...he has taken it around the corner.. and put the blame as per usual on the victim.. nagging...... BULLYING... Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Ex Dame Pansi

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 24168

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #77 - Jan 18^th, 2015 at 5:55pm

cods wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:55pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 1:35pm:

Are you STILL trying to say that the victim of domestic violence bears responsibility for the behaviour of a violent partner.
i cant actually believe i"m reading this in 2015 Australia and from a woman and from a lefty.
Its just NUTZ

easy aqua....pansi is like me on this one....

the women [ charlie] had a choice..

she could have left....charlie could have stopped the cartoons..

b oth... knew something bad would happen ... if they chose to stay/keep drawing...

both made the wrong choice as far as we are concerned..

so if you are looking to put the blame somewhere...then you have to say the provocation /printing and staying.. was a direct cause of the eventual murders....

no one is saying the murderer is free and had rights...

they didnt but when dealing with mad people you do not provoke.them...stay away./stop. dont make it worse...

violent people are unreasonable people..

Aqua....you're reading something into it that's not there. Neither cods or I believe the victims deserve what they got. I've said that before, get it? The journo's and the victims of domestic violence don't deserve to be murdered. Get that?

It seems they both knew it was a likely outcome, I've heard women say (sorry grappler I've never heard a man say it) "if I had have stayed he would have killed me" lot's of domestic violence victims say that.

Ok, so they know they're in danger but they don't make the necessary changes to protect themselves. See, still not deserving of it, but bad choices cost them their lives.

Back to top

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Hendrix
andrei said: Great isn't it? Seeing boatloads of what is nothing more than human garbage turn up.....

IP Logged

aquascoot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 34758
Gender: male

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #78 - Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:01pm

i can see a slight glimmer of a point.
only a slight one though.
one must remember that charles wasnt really living in the family home with the Jihaddists.
i'm sure charlie had already taken out an AVO and wasnt really going "back to" the jihaddists. they are more like some mental ex boyfriend who tracks the other party down.
I doubt the cartoonists invited the jihadists in and said "sit down and look what new work weve got to show you today"

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 84734
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #79 - Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:05pm

cods wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:47pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:36pm:

FSS - how did this turn into a woman receiving her righteous reward for attacking a man? Smiley

FSS.....

Oddly enough - and not so oddly enough - a MAN nagging and nagging and nagging is considered 'domestic violence'.... just saying..... good for goose.. good for gander.....

I'll take another gander at the two blondies in the pool here..... but I won't goose one....man - just make the invitation, girls.... those sounds of passion from my flat last night didn't mean anything between us....

I dont think you mean that... nagging I agree USED to be the go....and it was horrible.. but nothing excuses violence...

if you were a child and witnessed your mum being bashed I think you would erase that from your mind...

pansi quite missed the point I was making...as have others..

the drunk blames the booze for his actions... rather than blame himself for drinking in the first place....drinking and violence go together....sadly...no one is forced to drink it is completely voluntary

in other words booze is no excuse to bash anyone..

rocky was asking about defence basically where does defence stop when it comes to provocation why are madmen allowed to use a cartoon as provocation to kill...

it isnt that they are allowed to do anything..

its just that they do.....

.and as long as you bear the consequences...you can of course keep provoking just understand no complaining when you get what was promised... Roll Eyes

Cods - darling - I was bashed by my drunken father repeatedly, same from my mother who once stabbed me, and was abandoned by both at an early age (thank god).....

There is NOTHING you can tell me about 'domestic violence' and how it has become perverted into an avenue for bashing men such as myself over and over again... without so much as the Rule of Law.....

For the Infidels here - EVERYONE who knows me knows I am a gentle and considerate and caring person... YOUR 'domestic violence' is violence writ large against the community and is in dire need of repair.

While ever there is a standard of zero proof and of conviction on complaint, as applies in the current domestic 'violence'' nonsense that so favours 'feminism' - there will never be any diminution in 'domestic violence' - since these 'laws' themselves promote violence against the individual without proper cause.

You simply do not understand what constitutes Violence, and are prepared to accept that somehow violence is something malleable by definition to suit some agenda, and something perfectly acceptable in one side, but not the other.

A crime against humanity... by definition..

No go forth and rectify the current violence against the community under these NON laws.

Then we can talk.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49067
At my desk.

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #80 - Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:22pm

Quote:

I have never indicated or demonstrated other than support for their right to publish that which they choose to.

Quite a mouthful there Phem. You have avoided taking any kind of stance at all. Do you support Charlie Hebdo's right to publish those cartoons?

Quote:

dont anyone want to tell him tha
t no one can appease mad brain washed fanatics........

Doesn't stop you trying though, does it cods? How far would you go to appease terrorists?

Quote:

and he is slowly becoming just like them.... demanding and repetitive..

So the whole slaughtering innocent people aspect is irrelevant to you?

Quote:

Is the provocation necessary in the name of free speech. I think not, however we should all be entitled to provoke certain groups if we feel like doing so, but we should always be prepared to take the consequences because by now we know what they will likely be.

Are you suggesting you can predict the next terrorist attack Pansi? If you're foresight as as crystal clear as your hindsight, why didn't you warn Charlie Hebdo?

Quote:

well said pansi..... we have to take our share of the responsibility for the consequences....

How are we to blame for the terrorist attacks in France cods? This is a new low for you.

Quote:

if a man belts a women up and then blames the alcohol HE DRANK....I shake my head.....but so many males think like that..

Yet you happily clame Charlie Hebdo.

Quote:

they have a magic button somewhere that says they did nothing wrong it was someone or something else..

Who does? Charlie Hebdo? What do you think they did that was so 'wrong' cods?

Quote:

you cannot blame your anger on anyone. it is YOUR emotion.
this is grade 1 social training.

Cods can blame it on the cartoonists. And us, somehow.

Quote:

If he actually "manned up" he would simply walk away. But go ahead keep defending cowardly lashing out with violence no worries.

Like you defend the terrorists Phem?

Quote:

freediver's response to that:

No Aussie. My response was go ahead and start a thread dedicated to it. You and the other apologists will only bring it up to deflect from your appeasement of terrorists. You will not start a new thread on it because that would be just another thread highlighting the utter stupidity of your posts.

Quote:

freediver, it is by way of my reaction to your dismissiveness and outright insulting and intolerable arrogance that I choose to snipe into your Threads, because to do otherwise would be an act of appeasement I am not willing to take.

But you will happily appease terrorists?

Quote:

in the case of the cartoon.. it had not a thing to do with the law
it was dealing with COMMON DECENCY....
stop insulting stop BULLYING...
why is that such a HARD thing to so????>..

Cods, it is not a hard thing to do. It is the easy way out, and you with all your 'logical analysis' should see that. But it is the wrong thing to do. Self censorship in the face of attacks on freedom of speech is the best way to loose your freedom of speech. So tell us cods, how far would you go to appease terrorists? What else would you insist people should not do because Muslims are overly sensitive? If Muslims went apeshit every time we criticised Islam, would you start telling people to stop criticising Islam?

Quote:

hats not fair freedumb.......I have told you over and over what I would do.. just because you are too dumb to understand it.. not my fault..

You have not answered the question cods. You have said what you would do to appease terrorists, but you have not sauid what you would not do. You have not said where you would draw the line. So haw far would you go to appease terrorists? Which of your freedoms would you deny your children?

Quote:

pansi quite missed the point I was making...as have others..
the drunk blames the booze for his actions...

And the spineless appeasers blame the victims, not the terrorists, right cods? Even we are somehow to blame, aren't we?

Quote:

b oth... knew something bad would happen ... if they chose to stay/keep drawing...

No they did not cods. This is your spineless appeasement talking, not reality. The terrorists want people to fear any sort of criticism of Islam because they do not know who will become a victim, and the want idiotic appeasement monkeys to run around blaming the victim after the fact
and telling everyone they knew all along what was going to happen and only have themselves to blame. You are doing the terrorists bidding for them. You are even lying on their behalf to help their cause. No-one here goes out of their way more than you to assist the cause of terrorism. This is about as low as it gets. Or maybe not. No wonder you refuse to say how much lower you would go.

Quote:

I did not say anything at all about it BEING OK..

But you did say Charlie Hebdo was in the wrong. You did say freedom of speech is not worth standing up for. You even came up with some deluded BS that this outcome was entirely predictable, even though previous experience says the opposite. What could we possibly call this, other than spineless appeasement?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49067
At my desk.

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #81 - Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:22pm

Quote:

BUT BOTH>...in my OPINION MADE THE WRONG CHOIC E..

You have this opinion because you do not value freedom of speech, or if you do, you don't have the spine to stand up for it. We still do not know of course, because as ever, you refuse to explain just how far you would bend over to appease terrorists.

Quote:

Neither cods or I believe the victims deserve what they got.

Pansi, how else are we expected to interpret you and cods saying they made the wrong choice and are to blame for the outcome?

Quote:

It seems they both knew it was a likely outcome

How so Pansi? This is a just another lie the spineless appeasers spin to try to shift more of the blame onto the victim. You are so eager to appease the terrorists you make up obvious lies to do so.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38761
Gender: male

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #82 - Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:30pm

Quote:

No Aussie. My response was go ahead and start a thread dedicated to it. You and the other apologists will only bring it up to deflect from your appeasement of terrorists. You will not start a new thread on it because that would be just another thread highlighting the utter stupidity of your posts.

That is a lie. You made that suggestion to another poster, not to me. That's your over all problem, well.......one of many. You are tarring everyone with your preconceptions. I'd be less quick to refer to the stupidity in the posts of others if I were you.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 84734
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #83 - Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:40pm

Is the provocation necessary in the name of free speech. I think not, however we should all be entitled to provoke certain groups if we feel like doing so, but we should always be prepared to take the consequences because by now we know what they will likely be.

Perhaps it is long overdue for the groups that feel provoked by mild criticism to take a long and had look at themselves, and to take the consequences' of their own actions.

They are alienating a society that sheltered and harboured them.

Sorry to say - it is THEY who are promoting jihad against themselves, and let's be honest - how many will actually grieve for a few Muslim innocent bystanders caught up in the jihad of some of their own?

You were standing beside Osama Bin Laden with bullshit when the missile struck? Tough titties....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49067
At my desk.

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #84 - Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:41pm

Quote:

That is a lie. You made that suggestion to another poster, not to me.

I have made it to several posters, including you. But in any case, here it is again. If you really do not know what freedom of speech means, start a thread on it. Otherwise, this is just another attempt by you to deflect from your eagerness to appease terrorists and your unwillingness to take any kind of position on the issue. With such a clear-cut case like Charlie Hebdo, there is a serious problem with anyone who cannot figure out where they stand.

Quote:

That's your over all problem, well.......one of many. You are tarring everyone with your preconceptions.

There is a small group of posters here that refuses to stand up for freedom of speech, Charlie Hebdo etc. They are not Muslims, but for some reason eager to discard freedom in order to appease terrorists. What they all have in common is a complete refusal to explain their position on the matter. So far, only Phem has made an effort, by throwing together a few double negatives to point out that he has not taken a principled stance on anything. As far as I am concerned, you are all in the same basket.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38761
Gender: male

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #85 - Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:46pm

Gee, you just do not see your own duplicity do you. Have a read of this....your words.

Quote:

but for some reason eager to discard freedom in order to appease terrorists. What they all have in common is a complete refusal to explain their position on the matter.

You want me to defend a concept.....freedom or freedom of speech,

YET

it is

YOU

who refuses to explain your position on that threshold matter! Do you see that?

Back to top

IP Logged

Ex Dame Pansi

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 24168

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #86 - Jan 19^th, 2015 at 6:27am

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:22pm:

Quote:

BUT BOTH>...in my OPINION MADE THE WRONG CHOIC E..

You have this opinion because you do not value freedom of speech, or if you do, you don't have the spine to stand up for it. We still do not know of course, because as ever, you refuse to explain just how far you would bend over to appease terrorists.

Quote:

Neither cods or I believe the victims deserve what they got.

Pansi, how else are we expected to interpret you and cods saying they made the wrong choice and are to blame for the outcome?

Quote:

It seems they both knew it was a likely outcome

How so Pansi? This is a just another lie the spineless appeasers spin to try to shift more of the blame onto the victim. You are so eager to appease the terrorists you make up obvious lies to do so.

I'm calling you the appeaser freediver, until you walk the talk and get your butt to a mosque and tell the Muslims what you think.

Have any of you appeasers done it yet?

There is nothing worse than someone who is prepared to blather for days on end, but is not prepared to come face to face with the problem at hand.

If I've got a beef with a politician at least I go to their office and tell them straight out.

Get your anti-Islam t shirt on and go to the mosque. What will it take for you to stop appeasing the terrorists?

Back to top

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Hendrix
andrei said: Great isn't it? Seeing boatloads of what is nothing more than human garbage turn up.....

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #87 - Jan 19^th, 2015 at 7:42am

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 6:27am:

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:22pm:

Quote:

BUT BOTH>...in my OPINION MADE THE WRONG CHOIC E..

You have this opinion because you do not value freedom of speech, or if you do, you don't have the spine to stand up for it. We still do not know of course, because as ever, you refuse to explain just how far you would bend over to appease terrorists.

Quote:

Neither cods or I believe the victims deserve what they got.

Pansi, how else are we expected to interpret you and cods saying they made the wrong choice and are to blame for the outcome?

Quote:

It seems they both knew it was a likely outcome

How so Pansi? This is a just another lie the spineless appeasers spin to try to shift more of the blame onto the victim. You are so eager to appease the terrorists you make up obvious lies to do so.

I'm calling you the appeaser freediver, until you walk the talk and get your butt to a mosque and tell the Muslims what you think.

Have any of you appeasers done it yet?

There is nothing worse than someone who is prepared to blather for days on end, but is not prepared to come face to face with the problem at hand.

If I've got a beef with a politician at least I go to their office and tell them straight out.

Get your anti-Islam t shirt on and go to the mosque. What will it take for you to stop appeasing the terrorists?

pansi... you are not giving fd the answers he is seeking in his version of Freedom of SPeech...

he basically turns a very interesting subject into a pain....

I think its very important to get peoples opinion on these topics... its all about how we deal with something and the general outcome...

as we can see with fds version and a few others... there is a very INTENSE situation i nFrance and now Belgium..the ring leader of the extremists is still on the loose. which means he is desperate to inflict more pain.....all for a cartoon..

I have noticed a few agreeing with us....regarding the choice Charlie made.....and thats cool...even Pope Frances agrees haha.. we are blessed....

to me it was a no brainer....

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #88 - Jan 19^th, 2015 at 7:44am

Aussie wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Gee, you just do not see your own duplicity do you. Have a read of this....your words.

Quote:

but for some reason eager to discard freedom in order to appease terrorists. What they all have in common is a complete refusal to explain their position on the matter.

You want me to defend a concept.....freedom or freedom of speech,

YET

it is

YOU

who refuses to explain your position on that threshold matter! Do you see that?

its laughable aussie that someone like fd thinks to cancel an abusive cartoon is giving up your FREEDOM OF SPEECH....

I mean... REALLY!

Back to top

IP Logged

it_is_the_light

Gold Member

Offline

Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #89 - Jan 19^th, 2015 at 7:55am

cods wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 7:42am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 6:27am:

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:22pm:

Quote:

BUT BOTH>...in my OPINION MADE THE WRONG CHOIC E..

You have this opinion because you do not value freedom of speech, or if you do, you don't have the spine to stand up for it. We still do not know of course, because as ever, you refuse to explain just how far you would bend over to appease terrorists.

Quote:

Neither cods or I believe the victims deserve what they got.

Pansi, how else are we expected to interpret you and cods saying they made the wrong choice and are to blame for the outcome?

Quote:

It seems they both knew it was a likely outcome

How so Pansi? This is a just another lie the spineless appeasers spin to try to shift more of the blame onto the victim. You are so eager to appease the terrorists you make up obvious lies to do so.

I'm calling you the appeaser freediver, until you walk the talk and get your butt to a mosque and tell the Muslims what you think.

Have any of you appeasers done it yet?

There is nothing worse than someone who is prepared to blather for days on end, but is not prepared to come face to face with the problem at hand.

If I've got a beef with a politician at least I go to their office and tell them straight out.

Get your anti-Islam t shirt on and go to the mosque. What will it take for you to stop appeasing the terrorists?

pansi... you are not giving fd the answers he is seeking in his version of Freedom of SPeech...

he basically turns a very interesting subject into a pain....

I think its very important to get peoples opinion on these topics... its all about how we deal with something and the general outcome...

as we can see with fds version and a few others... there is a very INTENSE situation i nFrance and now Belgium..the ring leader of the extremists is still on the loose. which means he is desperate to inflict more pain.....all for a cartoon..

I have noticed a few agreeing with us....regarding the choice Charlie made.....and thats cool...even Pope Frances agrees haha.. we are blessed....

to me it was a no brainer....

many blessings , and it is recorded on and for the record ..

many freemasonic fairygodmothers deliberately

polarise debate and antagonise the issue of the novelty of the day, whatever that happens to be ...

this is well established and they continue to hoodwink

as they go ... many see these clueless dupes for what and whom they are..

and so be it , carry on regardless

namaste

- : ) =

Back to top

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : ) ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

IP Logged