Skip to comments.
Topless feminists upset Belgian Church, but not bishop
AFP ^
| 4/25/2013
Posted on 04/25/2013 4:09:21 AM PDT by markomalley
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
"Raw" pictures from the Belgian paper, de Standaard, are
here.
To: markomalley
Why don’t they try this with Muslims? If they did I (might) have more respect for them...maybe.
2
posted on
04/25/2013 4:15:47 AM PDT
by
Cowboy Bob
(Democrats: Robbing Peter to buy Paul's vote.)
To: markomalley
Looks like paint, not water. Oh, and the angry lesbians (yes, redundant) are GUILTY.
To: markomalley
Slide 15. I’m not sure I would be doing that considering where that container may have been.
To: markomalley
The Rooskies incarcerate their blasphemous attention whores, the Europeans expel them from the venue, and the U.S. government puts them on taxpayer-funded welfare.
To: markomalley
Wow!!!!!!
That was ugly. No wonder those broads are lesbians.Only another ugly broad would want sex with any of them. They wouldn’t even get prettier at closing time.
The Bishop handled himself with dignity while they made fools of themselves.
6
posted on
04/25/2013 4:43:28 AM PDT
by
Venturer
To: Venturer
The Bishop handled himself with dignity... probably well aware that what is seen can NOT be un-seen.
7
posted on
04/25/2013 4:46:59 AM PDT
by
C210N
(When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
To: markomalley
Look for more attackst to happen against the Church. Not surprised.
8
posted on
04/25/2013 4:50:12 AM PDT
by
Biggirl
("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
To: markomalley
composed and apparently at prayer Or composed and counting backward from 100 ;-).
9
posted on
04/25/2013 4:51:18 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
("I think amnesty is deader than a Chechen bomber." ~ LS)
To: markomalley
D u u u u d e !
The chick [term used loosely] with the sign is in dire need of +situps / -twinkies
Absent the concept of 'gentleman', many females would need to recalibrate 180°
10
posted on
04/25/2013 4:53:38 AM PDT
by
tomkat
( nationalis caterva fornicari in processus)
To: markomalley
11
posted on
04/25/2013 4:56:37 AM PDT
by
JoeProBono
(A closed mouth gathers no feet - Mater tua caligas exercitus gerit ;-{)
To: markomalley; Venturer
The most amazing thing is that picture 4 totally captures the sheer hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance on the left.
It shows a woman throwing an unknown substance all over a bishop's body.....
.... while the second woman holds a sign that proclaims "MY BODY, MY RULES".
So apparantly it is "MY BODY, MY RULES; THE BISHOP'S BODY, *ALSO* MY RULES."
12
posted on
04/25/2013 4:59:21 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
("AP" clearly stands for American Pravda. Our news media has become completely and proudly Soviet.)
To: Cowboy Bob
Why dont they try this with Muslims? If they did I (might) have more respect for them...maybe. They DO protest against Islam in front of Mosques.
They had a major protest against Islam in Paris and Germany just a few weeks ago. See Femen stages a topless jihad (warning: has pics, not safe for work). FR thread from April 5
Topless Jihad in Kiev (above) in front of a mosque.
13
posted on
04/25/2013 5:00:08 AM PDT
by
PapaBear3625
(You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
To: Lazamataz
NICE POINT, Laz.
The protesters have self-negated their own negative display. In this posture the negative + negative is compounded and additive rather than becoming anything positive, and we can all look on them (if we must) as being at least 2x dumber than they appear in the images.
To: markomalley
It's apparent these women have chosen to live their lives contrary to church teaching. They are free to do do.
Considering the church has no power to compel these women to accept her edicts, why the rage?
15
posted on
04/25/2013 5:09:20 AM PDT
by
Oratam
To: markomalley
In contrast to the protester that strutted her stuff to Putin (leading him to obviously think “Nice hooters”), these four are just skanks.
What’s the use of having semi-naked females if they aren’t even worth looking at?
16
posted on
04/25/2013 5:15:11 AM PDT
by
John O
(God Save America (Please))
To: C210N
17
posted on
04/25/2013 5:19:44 AM PDT
by
Carriage Hill
(No one can go back and make a new start, but anyone can start from now, and make a new ending.)
To: PapaBear3625
I thought feminists were always shouting “Keep your hands off our bodies!!”
An actual mosque protester who IMO is Not Guilty.
She seems to be enjoying all the attention......
;^)
18
posted on
04/25/2013 5:34:02 AM PDT
by
elcid1970
("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
To: markomalley
This interests me none. I just clicked on it to see a boob.
Thats what these hippie chicks can take away from this...
that 90% of people looked to see a boob....
analyze the boob... (hmm, not to saggy, well proportioned, not bad, I give her a 7.)
Then 5 seconds after closing the article completely forget about it forever.
19
posted on
04/25/2013 5:55:26 AM PDT
by
envisio
(Its on like Donkey Kong!)
To: Lazamataz
Everyone in the room can look at these *women and say:
“You have changed nothing. You confirmed everyone’s belief that you are raving lunatics. And, we have all seen you naked. HAHAHHA... dumbbitches”
20
posted on
04/25/2013 6:04:20 AM PDT
by
envisio
(Its on like Donkey Kong!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson