Feds seek to reverse Ted Stevens' con...

Feds seek to reverse Ted Stevens' conviction

There are 441 comments on the www.klewtv.com story from Apr 1, 2009, titled Feds seek to reverse Ted Stevens' conviction. In it, www.klewtv.com reports that:

The Justice Department asked a judge Wednesday to toss out the corruption conviction of former Sen. Ted Stevens because prosecutors withheld evidence from his defense team during his trial.

Stevens was convicted of seven felony counts of lying on Senate financial disclosure forms to conceal hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and home renovations from a wealthy oil contractor.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.klewtv.com.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#431 Apr 5, 2009
Freddy Pickle wrote:
<quoted text>
Put up or shut up, show me where and when I have lied or contradicted myself.
ANOTHER CONTRADICTION!

First you claimed Pro-life should be doing the services they are doing for women, and should be doing them more than they already are. Later you changed your story and said they are providing those services only to control women and compared them to child molesters and wife-beaters for the motivation behind offering the services! First you for it, now you are against it?

PROOF: First you agreed they should offer these services to women Post 300

Skombolis wrote:
So I guess you think all the services the pro-life movement provides to mothers:
1) Free babysitting
2) Rides
3) Financial assistance for food, shelter, clothing
4) Parenting classes
5) Counseling
6) Helping with adoptions

Freddy Pickle wrote:
The "pro-life" movement should offer all of that to any and every mother in the country. It, unfortunately, does not. Its too busy bombing abortion clinics and pressuring legislators into passing laws to control women.

Then you disagreed saying they only provide the services to control women.

Proof : Post 350
Skombolis wrote:
And lastly, if he knew anything about the pro-life movement, he would know that they do TONS of financial assitance, parenting classes, baby-sitting, counseling, rides, help with adoptions, etc to help out as much as they possibly can."

Freddy Pickle wrote:
That is all done to try and fulfill their aim at controlling women. That is like saying a child molester really cares about the kids he is abusing because he buys them school clothes and Nintendos. Or a wife-beater can get off the hook by buying his wife a pretty dress and some sunglasses. The "pro-life" movement isn't doing all that stuff for shits and giggles. They're trying to bribe women into not getting abortions (i.e. controlling them). 350

Contradict, lie, contradict, lie. That's all you do. Just like when In post #351 you said "Pro-choicers KNOW babies are not being murdered" but then said ""Even if life begins at conception, just because something is living doesn't mean it deserves rights."

If life begins at conception, how is it not a baby?!! But don't forget to explain how you went from saying pro-life should offer services and even more than they do now to saying they offer services to control women and likened the reason why they do it to child molesters!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#432 Apr 5, 2009
@ Freddy Pickle

I'm done talking to you about abortion. I have posted and documented all the times you lied and contradicted yourself. I'm not going to entertain your denials or semantics of the proof right in front of you, showing you to be a liar. Nor am I going to waste any more time on you. I just wanted those things posted so everybody else can see you for what you really are.

“Rickroll me I dare you.”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#433 Apr 6, 2009
None of your rants proved I lied or contradicted myself. All you're doing is proving you've taken what I said out of context and/or put words into my mouth.

You're a real piece of work. And you're a liar. Unlike your attempts at pointing out my "lies", I've documented yours and pointed them out in this thread.
Skombolis wrote:
@ Freddy Pickle
I'm done talking to you about abortion. I have posted and documented all the times you lied and contradicted yourself.
Hey liar, you haven't posted or documented ONE time that I have lied or contradicted myself. You've posted about a dozen where you have taken what I said out of context. And you have posted about a half dozen where you put words into my mouth.

But you've refused to point out ANY contradicting statements or lies, even though you have had ample time to do so.

You're a proven liar and you're a proven woman-hater. The proof is in the pudding, my friend. If you really want to prove that I lied or contradicted myself, then do so. But as of right now, all you have done is requote posts where you have taken my words out of context or just put words into my mouth.

You woman-bashers are all the same. Don't you have a Planned Parenthood office you should be picketing or firebombing?

“Rickroll me I dare you.”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#434 Apr 6, 2009
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
ANOTHER CONTRADICTION!
First you claimed Pro-life should be doing the services they are doing for women, and should be doing them more than they already are. Later you changed your story and said they are providing those services only to control women and compared them to child molesters and wife-beaters for the motivation behind offering the services! First you for it, now you are against it?
PROOF: First you agreed they should offer these services to women Post 300
Skombolis wrote:
So I guess you think all the services the pro-life movement provides to mothers:
1) Free babysitting
2) Rides
3) Financial assistance for food, shelter, clothing
4) Parenting classes
5) Counseling
6) Helping with adoptions
Freddy Pickle wrote:
The "pro-life" movement should offer all of that to any and every mother in the country. It, unfortunately, does not. Its too busy bombing abortion clinics and pressuring legislators into passing laws to control women.
Then you disagreed saying they only provide the services to control women.
That doesn't mean I didn't say they should be provided. Neither statement contradicts the other. For it to have been a contradiction, I would have said "The "pro-life" movement" should not provide these services to women. You're demonstrating, again, that you do not know what a contradiction is.
Skombolis wrote:
Proof : Post 350
Skombolis wrote:
And lastly, if he knew anything about the pro-life movement, he would know that they do TONS of financial assitance, parenting classes, baby-sitting, counseling, rides, help with adoptions, etc to help out as much as they possibly can."
Freddy Pickle wrote:
That is all done to try and fulfill their aim at controlling women. That is like saying a child molester really cares about the kids he is abusing because he buys them school clothes and Nintendos. Or a wife-beater can get off the hook by buying his wife a pretty dress and some sunglasses. The "pro-life" movement isn't doing all that stuff for shits and giggles. They're trying to bribe women into not getting abortions (i.e. controlling them). 350
Contradict, lie, contradict, lie. That's all you do. Just like when In post #351 you said "Pro-choicers KNOW babies are not being murdered" but then said ""Even if life begins at conception, just because something is living doesn't mean it deserves rights."
If life begins at conception, how is it not a baby?!!
You still have no idea what a contradiction is. Just because something is living, doesn't mean its a baby. I'm living. I'm not a baby. My cat is also living and she is not a baby.

Life =/= Baby

This is a fine example of you taking something I say out of context. Thanks for doing my homework for me, and now I don't have to look for this example in the future.

“Rickroll me I dare you.”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#435 Apr 6, 2009
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, LIAR! In post 384
Skombolis wrote:
And how is it wrong if a women decides to have a baby once she knows there are groups out there that will help her unless you don't want women changing their minds and deciding to have their baby which would make you pro-abortion.
Freddy Prickle wrote:
Being pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. You anti-choicers will do anything to get women to have their kids. If thats not the very definition of control, then I don't know what is.
You obviously are against it if you think someone changing their mind is the very definition of pro-life exerting their control over someone.
Another fine example of you taking what I said out of context. When you said this:
Skombolis wrote:
You obviously are against it if you think someone changing their mind is the very definition of pro-life exerting their control over someone.
When you said "you are obviously against...", thats you reaching a conclusion based on my words, not taking my words at face value. Another fine example of you putting words into my mouth and taking what I have said out of context.

I thought you were supposed to be finding posts where I lied or contradicted myself?

Go back to bashing women, its what you're good at.

“Rickroll me I dare you.”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#436 Apr 6, 2009
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, here is the proof you lied 3 times: In post #421 you said
"And then AGAIN you asked "When did I say I didn't say "If they cared about the babies, there wouldn't be any up for adoption because they'd all have Mommies and Daddies."?
Proof:
Skombolis wrote:
You said pro-life doesn't care about babies because if they did they would make sure every baby in America would be adopted.
Freddy Prickle wrote
Where did I say that? When?
Post 400
Thats me asking a question, not me lying. Do you even know what the definition of what a lie is?

“Rickroll me I dare you.”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#437 Apr 6, 2009
Skombolis wrote:
MORE LIES HERE: IN post 361 you denied you said the following
Skombolis write:
He specifically said pro-lifers don't give a shit about the baby or mother after the baby is born"
Freddy Prickle wrote:
No, I did not "specifically say that".
But here is proof you did in post #233
Freddy Prickle wrote:
The fact of the matter is that these "pro-lifers" couldn't give a crap less about the babies once they're actually born.
Here's the entire post:

http://www.topix.com/forum/us/T7RVUB35JJ2H5A9...

If you read the entire post (not just a snippet) and understand what I am getting at (which you have not), you can easily see I did not "specifically" say "pro-lifers don't give a shit about the baby or mother after the baby is born".

Here you go lying again, saying you are quoting me word for word when you're actually just putting words into my mouth and hoping no one has the nerve to go back to the posts and prove wrong.
Skombolis wrote:
MORE PROOF YOU LIE in post 365
Skombolis wrote:
He...compared the pro-life movement multiple times as using the same tactics as child rapists!
Freddy Prickle wrote:
I have not claimed that. QUIT PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!!!
PROOF post 352
Why don't you put the links instead of paraphrasing and only quoting what you want to?

http://www.topix.com/forum/us/T7RVUB35JJ2H5A9...
http://www.topix.com/forum/us/T7RVUB35JJ2H5A9...

All you're doing is taking snippets of what I post and basing your entire argument around one sentence which you have taken out of context. You're just not man enough to post the link because you know if you did, your entire argument would disappear. Hmm...not man enough. Typical for a woman bashing anti-choicer Catholic pedophile defender like yourself.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#438 Apr 6, 2009
Freddy Pickle wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you put the links instead of .
Where did I ever say I defend Catholic priests abusing chidren you delusional nutjob! Haha! You are the ones that compared pro-life giving financial aid and services to needy women as the same as priests bribing children they molest, which shows what a whackjob you really are!! And they offer the services to anyone, even women who had their children before they ever even spoke to someone in pro-life so how is it a bribe when they don't get anything in return. Only a crazy person would compare charity work to child molesters!! And you originally agreed they should offer these services and more than they do already! Take your meds!!

I don't use the links dumbass because if you checked, you'd see the bring up every post on the page! By giving you the exact post#, it is much more specific. I knew you'd try to play sematics.

1) If someone says you said something and you reply, "when did I say that, where?" you are obviously denying you said it!

2) If because you said pro-life doesn't give a CRAP about a baby after its born instead of pro-life doesn't give a SHIT about a baby after it is born is just playing semantics. Denying you said it because you used a synonym is laughable!

3) First you were for pro-life offering services. Then later you claimed they only offer the services to bribe women and control them. Then compared them offering those services to child rapists and wife beaters. But you are going to try to say, I never techincally said they shouldn't offer those services?!! Gimme a break, what a liar you are! Like you think they should offer services that you consider as bribing and controling women?! Right! Sorry, you are a liar!!

And its you that doesn't know what the word contradicts means. When you say "Pro-choicers KNOW babies are not being murdered" but then said ""Even if life begins at conception, just because something is living doesn't mean it deserves rights." You are contradicting yourself stupid because if life does begin at conseption, then it is a baby!

The only reason replied because it was very easy to point out what a joke your denials and semantic game playing is. Anybody reading your quotes know what you meant by them. Sorry buddy, you are a liar!! Whosever kid you are raising, I hope you teach him better morals than the ones you have shown on here!! Later liar! Haha!!

“Rickroll me I dare you.”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#439 Apr 6, 2009
Skombolis wrote:
I don't use the links dumbass because if you checked, you'd see the bring up every post on the page!
LOL, thats the point. I tried in three different browsers and all three times it brought up the entire page and scrolled directly to where the post is.

The reason why you're not posting the links is because you don't want it to be that easy for someone to go back and check what sort of lies and BS you're posting. Unfortunately for you, I don't mind doing your homework for you. Especially if its going to expose you for the liar that you are.
Skombolis wrote:
By giving you the exact post#, it is much more specific. I knew you'd try to play sematics.
By posting the link to the exact post (which contains the "exact post #"), you're not only being much more specific but much more thorough as well.

You want to hide behind semantics and word games? Fine. Thats all you woman hating anti-choicers are good at.
Skombolis wrote:
1) If someone says you said something and you reply, "when did I say that, where?" you are obviously denying you said it!
No, you're asking someone a question. You're not denying anything. The denial would be "No I did not."

I posted the Merriam-Webster definition of contradiction. Why don't you post your Bizarro Land definition of the word since you're using one that nobody else uses.
Skombolis wrote:
2) If because you said pro-life doesn't give a CRAP about a baby after its born instead of pro-life doesn't give a SHIT about a baby after it is born is just playing semantics. Denying you said it because you used a synonym is laughable!
Thats not what I'm denying. Quit putting words into my mouth.
Skombolis wrote:
3) First you were for pro-life offering services. Then later you claimed they only offer the services to bribe women and control them. Then compared them offering those services to child rapists and wife beaters.
None of those examples contradicts any of the others. You are demonstrating once again that you just do not know what a contradiction means. You're using your own made up definition of the word and believing everyone else uses your made up definition.
Skombolis wrote:
But you are going to try to say, I never techincally said they shouldn't offer those services?!! Gimme a break, what a liar you are! Like you think they should offer services that you consider as bribing and controling women?! Right! Sorry, you are a liar!!
Are you going to prove that I'm a liar? Or where I contradicted myself? Or are you just going to keep blowing hot air?
Skombolis wrote:
And its you that doesn't know what the word contradicts means.
LOL. If you believe "When did I say that" contradicts "You said I was a poopyhead", then you're high. I've posted the definition from Merriam-Webster. You're using your own definition of the word and believing everyone else does, too.
Skombolis wrote:
When you say "Pro-choicers KNOW babies are not being murdered" but then said ""Even if life begins at conception, just because something is living doesn't mean it deserves rights." You are contradicting yourself stupid because if life does begin at conseption, then it is a baby!
#1 Its not a baby.
#2 Its not a contradiction.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#440 Apr 6, 2009
Freddy Pickle wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, thats the point. I tried in three different browsers and all three times it brought up the entire page and scrolled directly to where the post is.
The reason why you're not posting the links is because you don't want it to be that easy for someone to go back and check what sort of lies and BS you're posting. Unfortunately for you, I don't mind doing your homework for you. Especially if its going to expose you for the liar that you are.
<quoted text>
By posting the link to the exact post (which contains the "exact post #"), you're not only being much more specific but much more thorough as well.
You want to hide behind semantics and word games? Fine. Thats all you woman hating anti-choicers are good at.
<quoted text>
No, you're asking someone a question. You're not denying anything. The denial would be "No I did not."
I posted the Merriam-Webster definition of contradiction. Why don't you post your Bizarro Land definition of the word since you're using one that nobody else uses.
<quoted text>
Thats not what I'm denying. Quit putting words into my mouth.
<quoted text>
None of those examples contradicts any of the others. You are demonstrating once again that you just do not know what a contradiction means. You're using your own made up definition of the word and believing everyone else uses your made up definition.
<quoted text>
Are you going to prove that I'm a liar? Or where I contradicted myself? Or are you just going to keep blowing hot air?
<quoted text>
LOL. If you believe "When did I say that" contradicts "You said I was a poopyhead", then you're high. I've posted the definition from Merriam-Webster. You're using your own definition of the word and believing everyone else does, too.
<quoted text>
#1 Its not a baby.
#2 Its not a contradiction.
Haha, whatever guy, you are a liar! When someone says you said something and you respond " "when did I say that, where?" you are obviously implying you didn't say it! Why would you ask for proof of something you aren't denying you said?! You KEEP saying you didn't say pro-lifers don't give a crap about the baby after it is born but here is your quote "The fact of the matter is that these "pro-lifers" couldn't give a crap less about the babies once they're actually born" Post #361. You are contradicting yourself when first you say pro-life should offer the services but then say they only offer the services to try to bribe and control women and compare them to child rapists! You are a liar and contradict yourself!

Now, go back to trying to bribe your "fiance" into marrying you! It is obviously not your kid you are raising and while that would normally be commendable, you have used it to take advantage of the fact that your "fiance" now needs a father, and she knows what you are trying to do which is why she hasn't married you. As soon as a better offer comes along, you are a distant memory. So if pro-life offering free services to any woman with a child in need is bribing and controling women, what you are doing with your "fiance" is a much, much worse. How desperate must you be to try to take advantage of this poor girl's situation when you know if she never had the baby she would have nothing to do with you! Let me guess, she has a headache every night! Have a good life liar!!

“Rickroll me I dare you.”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#441 Apr 6, 2009
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Haha, whatever guy, you are a liar! When someone says you said something and you respond " "when did I say that, where?" you are obviously implying you didn't say it!
No, you are not. See, you're putting words into my mouth again.

This is getting old. Every single post of yours, you're either putting words into my mouth or taking what I have said out of context. You're like a broken, woman bashing record.
Skombolis wrote:
Post #361. You are contradicting yourself when first you say pro-life should offer the services but then say they only offer the services to try to bribe and control women and compare them to child rapists! You are a liar and contradict yourself!
Thats not a contradicting, you woman hater! For it to be a contradicting, I would have to say the anti-choicers should offer their services. And then I would have to say they should NOT offer their services. Saying that they are a bunch of bribers does not contradict either statement.

At least, not if we're using the common definition of the word contradiction. The one found in Merriam Webster's. The one that everyone using the English language (except you) has come to agree upon.

Just because you're using your own made up definitions in your own woman hating head doesn't mean there is any validity to them.
Skombolis wrote:
Now, go back to trying to bribe your "fiance" into marrying you! It is obviously not your kid you are raising and while that would normally be commendable, you have used it to take advantage of the fact that your "fiance" now needs a father, and she knows what you are trying to do which is why she hasn't married you.
LOL. Back to woman bashing, huh? Thats what you anti-choicers are good at. Abusing women. You scumbags make the average American sick.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#442 Apr 6, 2009
Freddy Pickle wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are not. See, you're putting words into my mouth again.
This is getting old. Every single post of yours, you're either putting words into my mouth or taking what I have said out of context. You're like a broken, woman bashing record.
<quoted text>
Thats not a contradicting, you woman hater! For it to be a contradicting, I would have to say the anti-choicers should offer their services. And then I would have to say they should NOT offer their services. Saying that they are a bunch of bribers does not contradict either statement.
At least, not if we're using the common definition of the word contradiction. The one found in Merriam Webster's. The one that everyone using the English language (except you) has come to agree upon.
Just because you're using your own made up definitions in your own woman hating head doesn't mean there is any validity to them.
<quoted text>
LOL. Back to woman bashing, huh? Thats what you anti-choicers are good at. Abusing women. You scumbags make the average American sick.
Are you really so stupid that you don't understand first saying you are for something, than later saying you are against something is contradicting yourself?! Go ask a first grader if that is contradicting yourself and he will explain it to you that it is!! Haha.

I'm not bashing women. I feel horrible for your fiance. You have clearly taken advantage of her situation. You caught her at a vulnerable moment and exploited it for your own benefit. She would never choose to be with you if she didn't have a baby but you know you have her over a barrel. If you really cared about her or the baby, you would be there no strings attached. But instead you used it as an opportunity to try to force her to marry you. And you are the douchebag claiming you are against anybody controlling women?? What do you call trying to force a girl into marriage that doesn't love you because you know she needs help raising the baby?

Now I am done with you, save your lies for your fiance, they just bore me!

“Rickroll me I dare you.”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#443 Apr 6, 2009
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really so stupid that you don't understand first saying you are for something, than later saying you are against something is contradicting yourself?!
But thats not what I did. And you have failed to show me a post where that happened.

You keep calling me stupid but its evident to everyone but you (and maybe a few woman bashers like yourself) that you're the idiot here. You wouldn't last five seconds on a grade school debate team, you just have no idea what it is to discuss or debate things in a rational way.
Skombolis wrote:
Go ask a first grader if that is contradicting yourself and he will explain it to you that it is!! Haha.
!! Haha. Dude, how high are you? Going on a 4 day bender already? Lemme guess, you haven't even gotten started?
Skombolis wrote:
I'm not bashing women. I feel horrible for your fiance. You have clearly taken advantage of her situation.
I guess you don't understand how child support works in this country, do you? Men don't pretend babies are theirs to get things out of mothers. Its the other way around. Irregardless, the child is most certainly mine. She has all my features, right down to the incredible intelligence.

Thanks for wondering though. You can go back to harassing women or whatever you anti-choicers do in your spare time.

“Rickroll me I dare you.”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#444 Apr 6, 2009
Its really sad that, since I've defeated all your arguments, now you're just making up stories, bashing and attacking my fiance and eight month old child. I'm pretty sure anyone that wasn't a woman hating maniac like yourself can see through your bull shit.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#445 Apr 6, 2009
Freddy Pickle wrote:
<quoted text>
But thats not what I did. And you have failed to show me a post where that happened.
Irregardless, the child is most certainly mine. She has all my features, right down to the incredible intelligence.
me.
Um...stupid. You first said pro-life should offer services to women (thus being for it) then you said they only offer services to try to bribe women, control them, and compared them to child rapists for offering the services (thus being against it) That is what contradicting yourself means stupid! Haha. Do you even understand what words imply when you put them together in a sentence?!

Irregardless...she has your intelligence huh?! Haha! Only a white-trash uneducated idiot would think irregardless is a word! Haha, boy I sure hope she doesn't have your "intelligence"! Haha!! Let me help you, ir is a negative prefix and regardless is already a negative meaning without regard. So you just essentially said,without without regard, the child is mine! Suuure she is stupid! Haha!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#446 Apr 6, 2009
Check out your online dictionary. It says irregardless is:

1) A non-standard word
2) Etymology-probably blend of irrespective and regardless
3)Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

In other words, only trailer trash would consider it proper to use a word that by definition means "without without regard"! It was funny though to see you use it in a sentence proclaiming your intelligence! Why don't you and Jethro go make some moonshine instead of embarrassing yourself online! Haha!

Now look up contradiction again and see if you can finally grasp the meaning!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#447 Apr 6, 2009
Freddy Pickle wrote:
<quoted text>
you have failed to show me a post where that happened.
.
For the last time, 2 more documented times you lied!

Post 361
Skombolis write:
He specifically said pro-lifers don't give a shit about the baby or mother after the baby is born"

Freddy Prickle wrote:
No, I did not "specifically say that".

Post #233
Freddy Prickle wrote:
The fact of the matter is that these "pro-lifers" couldn't give a crap less about the babies once they're actually born.

MORE PROOF YOU LIE in post 365

Skombolis wrote:
He...compared the pro-life movement multiple times as using the same tactics as child rapists!
Freddy Prickle wrote:
I have not claimed that. QUIT PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!!!

PROOF post 352
1) Skombolis wrote:
"And if they don't give a rat's ass about the baby or mother once the baby is born, why do they offer financial assistance for food, rent, clothing, and furniture."

Freddy Prickle wrote:
The same reason why child molesters give their victims candy, drugs, money, etc: to placate them and to make it easier to control and manipulate them.

Freddy Prickle wrote:
I don't need to be a child rapist to know why child rapists bribe their victims with money, drugs, candy, etc

Freddy Prickle wrote:
I don't live in the Bizaaro World you do where child rapists are "showing that they care" when they buy their victims stuff and give them money and drugs.

You have some great traits to teach your "daughter". Being a liar, contradicting yourself, not understanding what the word contradict means, and using white-trash lingo like irregardless. Yeah, you sure are "intelligent". Haha!!

“Rickroll me I dare you.”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#448 Apr 7, 2009
Still talking to yourself? Shouldn't you be picketing at the local Planned Parenthood and/or harassing women into servitude?

Or maybe defending those child rapist sickos in your Church? Keep spinning your wheels, you lunatic. You're the only that believes your insane lies.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#449 Apr 7, 2009
Freddy Pickle wrote:
Still talking to yourself? Shouldn't you be picketing at the local Planned Parenthood and/or harassing women into servitude?
Or maybe defending those child rapist sickos in your Church? Keep spinning your wheels, you lunatic. You're the only that believes your insane lies.
I'd never support priests that abuse children. You repeatedly keep talking about child molestation, which has nothing to do with the subject of abortion. You have compared charity work as having shared tactics with child rapists. You seem to have some facination with child abuse, one has to wonder why? I hope Protective Services is keeping an eye on you. While I would enjoy talking to myself instead of you because then I would be talking to someone intelligent, you just keep posting stupid replies!! Shouldn't you be back at the trailer park hoping your baby's daddy doesn't swoop back in, therefore ruining your plan to bribe your fiance into marrying you in exchange for helping with the baby. "Irregardless" of what you say, anyone that reads your quotes can see who the liar is! Haha!!

Since: Dec 08

San Francisco, CA

#450 Apr 22, 2009
A democratic appointed Attorney General just recommended the release of a GUILTY Republican Senator, because a Republican Prosecutor 'cheated' while convicting an obviously guilty Senator.

Wow - wonders never cease!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Senator Mark Begich Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Democrats Are So Confident (Jul '14) Dec '14 wild child 7
News Executive order on immigration would ignite a p... (Nov '14) Nov '14 spytheweb 2
News Big welcome for Serb nationalist as he goes home (Nov '14) Nov '14 servoslaves 12
News Another result of Tuesday's election: fewer 'Bl... (Nov '14) Nov '14 Foster 42
News Poll: Majority Of Americans Want Immigration Re... (Nov '14) Nov '14 wild child 13
News Senate to vote on advance funding for VA (Oct '14) Nov '14 kuda 10
News Group Threatens Alaskan Public: Vote, Or We'll ... (Oct '14) Oct '14 Really 1
More from around the web