Comments on: Read The Constitution And Save Money

By: Hot 4 teach

Hot 4 teach — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:18:07 +0000

I am confused. A man named Ronnie writes every one on this blog a moron and child molester yuck yet this Amanda is on someone’s ass because they mentioned their sexuality.
Where is the sexuality talk? Isn’t calling someone child molester a huge personal attack. I must be missing something.

By: amanda

amanda — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:36:53 +0000

And,Bethany wins! Gotcha takes over converstation, debate or wit! Collect 200 bucks as you pass go…

And what about those darn FLDS?

By: Bethany

Bethany — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:58:27 +0000

Wait….did you just make the post about him?

By: amanda

amanda — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:48:53 +0000

That’s what I like to hear. You should go huntin’ or fishin’ with my other half. Of course, you would be in in an fabulous ensemble by Robert Graham, camo with a preppy stripe, but both men would happily dive into a plate of calf fries at a truck stop in west Texas and discuss what a bitch I am.

By: Jack Jett

Jack Jett — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:02:15 +0000

Yes mam.

Thank you mam.

By: amanda

amanda — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:00:01 +0000

Post away, Jack, just don’t make it about yourself (or anyone else)…just the topic at hand.

By: Jack Jett

Jack Jett — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:50:50 +0000

amanda

You are right. Sometimes I do 1,2 and 3 in the same sentence.

I guess I got confused when you seemed upset that I had agreed with someone.

So if I refrain from posting;
a) a personal attack on anyone
b) never bash a religion
c) keep my sexuality to myself

Will you be okay with me posting my opinion even if it may differ from yours? Because I think I can do that. I can be a good boy.
And my apology to the CPS.

By: amanda

amanda — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:26:45 +0000

Jack, most, if not all of your “insights” eventually lead to 1) a personal attack, 2) a refernce to Baptists, and 3)some tie-in to your sexuality. None of which edify or advance a discussion…

For more information on 1,2,3 see your above posts.

By: Jack Jett

Jack Jett — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:38:34 +0000

amanda

I don’t think the DNA test were for fun. I assume at some point we will find out what they were for. My view is that it just seems like a bit of overkill. I really don’t understand how that puts me back to my old tricks, sucking up to Wick, are has another alternative universe to be created.

I am sure your animosity towards me is validated even though I don’t understand what it has to do with the subject at hand.
I will say that if I have said something to antagonize you, I am sorry. Let’s try and disagree with a sense of humor.

All my tricks are old, just like me. I prefer not to name names here though.

By: amanda

amanda — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:27:48 +0000

Jack, why do you think they did DNA on 430 children? For fun?

Nice to see you are back to your old tricks.