Hey, Ms. Marsha!Quote:
Originally Posted by Moderator
I beg your pardon. Might you have meant, " Glen Beck FULL OF doo doo?" :smile2:
(Either way, that shyte needs to be flushed.)
Peace.
Printable View
Hey, Ms. Marsha!Quote:
Originally Posted by Moderator
I beg your pardon. Might you have meant, " Glen Beck FULL OF doo doo?" :smile2:
(Either way, that shyte needs to be flushed.)
Peace.
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Moderator
I'm afraid you may be right........Quote:
Originally Posted by Todash
Actually I'm afraid what they may NOT find......Quote:
Originally Posted by fljoe0
Truth!Quote:
Originally Posted by kingricefan
No, no you don't!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lily Sawyer
I have no other words than simply disgusting and vulgar......( actually I have quite a few words..I just can't use them here)
I don't get it. Was he attempting to mimic a similar piece depicting Christ in this manner? Was it some sort of free expression ordeal? I'm not really sure what his intent was.
...s'ok...neither does he...Quote:
Originally Posted by the_last_gunslinger
Somebody needs his lithium dose raised. :oo:
i think, to some extent, it was just that, gunny...he seemed to be stretching for a widely encompassing, acerbic sardonicism...but...since he's incapable of actual rational thought...never mind any form of intellectual cohesiveness...he just came across as he usually does....full of ****e and about as funny as an islamic beheading etiquitte course
This was a response to the government funded so-called "artistic" rendering of Jesus in a jar of urine and the leftist political nod and wink approval of it, and was apparently a charity funding event.
Not that I approve of it... just appeared to require a bit of explanation here.
Not quite accurate either. It was supposedly done in response to a painting of Obama being crucified which some Christians found offensive. The artist felt his First Amendment rights had been violated.Quote:
Originally Posted by shipwreked
I stand corrected - apologies.