Local high school seeks principal by advertising in hardcore homosexual newspaper!

massresistance.org ^ | 05/09/2011 | n/a

[manc]

that is what gets me.

These cowards state they are conservatives, then show it, report on what the left is dong and that means the commie manifesto of 63 and how the homostapo was set up in rules of 24 etc

Now asking Hannity etc so say they are disgusting but for crying out loud show their parades, show them loitering around public bathrooms dog parks etc, show who they really are and how they are getting into the schools

[little jeremiah]

At this point there is no excuse for ignorance. It’s got to be more than mere not knowing or being lazy, as NONE of them even touch it.

It’s much more malignant reason/s.

[ansel12]

The Mitch Daniels/anti-conservative crowd are not pleased with this thread, keep up the good work.

[rogator]

Can you show that Episcopalians or any other denomination advertised for a bishop in this rag?

I didn’t think so.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[dsc]

“for crying out loud show their parades, show them loitering around public bathrooms”

There must be films of sodomites raping pre-pubescent boys. Every fag-hag, every “whatever consenting adults do behind closed doors” idiot should be shown these, even if Clockwork Orange measures have to be used.

[TradicalRC]

Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity kinda says it all.

[Migraine]

I, like most posters on this forum, sometimes illustrate absurdity by being absurd. Get a life and see purposeful hyperbole for what it is before calling a fellow freeper a liar.

[ansel12]

Bishop Romney was Governor of the state, but it is a Catholic (Bishops) state.

[Durus]

Catholics voted 53% to 46% in favor of Obama which is indistinguishable from the general population, so it's hardly “overwhelming”. Additionally if you either separate out the Hispanic catholic vote, or those that claim to be Catholic but only go to mass a few times a year, you get a very different picture.

[JudgemAll]

Yep. HLN is quick to jump on the Tiger Woods and Sheen gossip, but nothing about Unions doing hidden dirty work.

The protection racket, to which the media belongs psychologicaly, is much worse than the Church pedophile scandals. People go to the media for informative protection while the media is Union owned and promote a pedophile and perversion agenda... tsk tsk tsk... “come to me my little minions”

[manc]

nail on head, well said.

unions on the front door of bankers etc and they ignore it.
Sheen is seeing some woman and they’re all over it.

Disgusting and yet hey still get away with it as they are doing covering for their messiah

[subterfuge]

Catholics voted 53% to 46% in favor of Obama which is indistinguishable from the general population, so it's hardly “overwhelming”.

I just can't figure out why Catholics vote to the tune of 53% in a national election, for a party that shuns God, promotes abortion and persecutes Christians?

And by "Overwhelming," I really meant over the course of time. The democrats have been able to count on Catholics since at least all the way back to JFK.

Our Jewish friends are the same way.

[Durus]

Catholics that were involved in the church (going to mass once a week) voted for McCain almost identically to that of Evangelical Christians (who went to worship at least once a week).

I wasn't around when Kennedy was running for president and I am not going to spend a lot of time on looking it up but I would bet that it was roughly the same then.

Trying to brand Catholics as being in the tank for Democrats is simply absurd.

[subterfuge]

okay. I’ll just have to take you at your word.

[ansel12]

Catholics that were involved in the church (going to mass once a week) voted for McCain almost identically to that of Evangelical Christians (who went to worship at least once a week). I wasn't around when Kennedy was running for president and I am not going to spend a lot of time on looking it up but I would bet that it was roughly the same then. Trying to brand Catholics as being in the tank for Democrats is simply absurd.

You can't take Durus's word for it, he is making up BS.

The Catholics have always been a Democratic Party constituency having only voted Republican about 5 times in history, and most of those were to reelect.

Protestants have only voted Democrat 3 times and Kennedy was not one of those, Protestants voted democrat in 1932, 1936, and 1964 only.

White Catholics in 2008 that went to mass at least once a week did vote republican, but at about 22 points less than white Evangelicals that went to church weekly and about 5 points lower than white Evangelicals that are not regular church goers. One thing to cling to if you are a WHITE CATHOLIC THAT GOES TO CHURCH EVERY WEEK, is that the generic, everyday Hispanic Protestant only gave McCain 48% of their vote in 2008, which was less than the 56% of the Protestant Hispanic vote that went Republican in 2004

Catholics voted over 80% for the terrible JFK that flipped America into chaos and the path of destruction, Protestants voted Republican like they always do.

Trying to brand Catholics as being in the tank for Democrats is simply commonsense, even when a Catholic tries to play games with who is Catholic.

[Durus]

Trying to brand Catholics as being in the tank for Democrats is simply commonsense, even when a Catholic tries to play games with who is Catholic.

I'm not a Catholic, and neither are a huge number who identify themselves as Catholics in exit polls. I know plenty of people that call themselves Catholic that haven't been to Mass for years and don't agree with the basic principles of the Church. What would you call them? People that are actually Catholic (ie: They were baptized in the Catholic church, they go to mass, take communion, and go to confession regularly, understand and believe in the principles of the Bible and church cannon) are not natural Democrat supporters. Statistics bear this out, and in fact the stats you site demonstrate this. I guess a majority just isn't good enough for you.

Further what you claim as "Protestants" appear to be not just Protestants but evangelical Christians, which is a far cry from say...Anglicans or Episcopalians.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1022/exit-poll-analysis-religion

Saying that I'm making up BS could be construed as you calling me a liar. Is that what you are doing?

[ansel12]

Yes you are making it up, now you want to redefine Catholic and Protestant. All of those Catholics that call themselves Catholic, and that the Catholic church calls (and counts as) Catholic, are Catholic.

Catholics vote majority Democrat while Protestants vote majority Republican and of course Evangelicals are Protestant, whether they go to church or not, whether they are black or white, or liberal or conservative. Trying to remove the second largest church in America (second only to the Catholic church), the Southern Baptists for example from Protestantism is pretty silly, and of course dishonest.

[ansel12]

I don’t know what your agenda is, but you also tried to pass off that WHITE weekly church going Catholics voted like white weekly church going Evangelicals in 2008, you were trying to sell a 22 point lie, they didn’t even come close to equalling the white Evangelicals that rarely attend church, and then you tried to claim that Protestants and Catholics voted about the same for Kennedy, that was an incredible piece of nonsense to try and pass off.

Kennedy got about 80% of the Catholic vote, and he got less than 40% of the Protestant vote which was typical for Protestants.

People don’t realize that Protestants even voted against Roosevelt in 1940 and 1944, and of course against Truman in 1948, Catholics of course were always voting the Democratic Party.

You also don’t seem interested in the Hispanic Catholic/Protestant voting divide, are Catholic Hispanics Catholics in your eyes? they are in the Popes and are counted as such.

[Durus]

I don't have an agenda except defending groups that should be our natural allies instead of being excoriated for not being as dedicated as some other groups. What purpose is served by trying to drive wedges between conservative groups using identity politics? What do you gain by diminishing those Catholics that do support conservatives. Why is it that when presented with facts to show that it isn't really all that bad you start spouting about racial divides and keep using words like "protestant" as a description of Evangelical Christians which is disingenuous at best?

"...and then you tried to claim that Protestants and Catholics voted about the same for Kennedy, that was an incredible piece of nonsense to try and pass off".

It would be incredible nonsense to pass off had I ever said it.

You also don’t seem interested in the Hispanic Catholic/Protestant voting divide, are Catholic Hispanics Catholics in your eyes? they are in the Popes and are counted as such.

No I'm not particularly interested in it. Why are you? Catholic Hispanics are another group that is generally conservative in outlook by have been wooed by Democrats with lies and identity politics. Instead of seeing this and wondering how to bring them into the fold you point your finger and claim superiority for the "Protestants". Congrats.