Brad Pitt's Mom Pens Anti-Gay Letter To Local Newspaper

Jul 5, 2012 Full story: The Huffington Post 72

Brad Pitt may be known as one of Hollywood's most gay-friendly leading men , but his mother's views are evidently less open-minded. In a letter to Missouri's Springfield News-Leader , Jane Pitt expresses her support for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney , noting that "any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to ... (more)

Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Aquarius

Castleton On Hudson, NY

#63 Jul 20, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Followers of "Christ" are "christians", though really they should be called "Saulians".
Either way, history does not show this to be any sort of recommendation.
There were many who spread Chrisianiaty besides St. Paul(Saul). St. Peter and all of the other apostles, and the authors of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke John and others spread the Word.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#64 Jul 20, 2012
Aquarius wrote:
<quoted text>
Brad Pitt's mother wasn't condemning homosexuals. She strongly disagrees with gay marriage. I agree with her. Marriage is for a man and a woman. She probably has no problem with all or most of the legal solutions gays are requesting. I agree with you that Jesus loves all. I have heard many Christians speak judgmentally about gays. I don't agree with that attitude.
Since you are opposed to gay marriage, then:

1. I see that you are opposed to Freedom Of religion, because some religious groups allow gay marriage in their institutions. What right do you have to say that they cannot allow gay marriage in their housses of worship ?

2. I see that you are opposed to our democratic system of gernment, because the New York legislature passed a Marriage Equality bill, which the governor signed into law. What right do you have to say that a state legislature cannot determine it's own marriage laws ? That's in the Bill Of Rights. Are you opposed to then Liberties protected by the Bill Of Rights also ?!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#65 Jul 21, 2012
Aquarius wrote:
<quoted text>
There were many who spread Chrisianiaty besides St. Paul(Saul). St. Peter and all of the other apostles, and the authors of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke John and others spread the Word.
Luke was a gentile follower of Saul, who blatantly plagiarized Plato, the Stoics and Philo of Alexandria, and never once quoted Yeshua, btw, but threw his name around a lot. "Acts" was penned by Luke.

John was written by a gentile thoroughly influenced by the thought of Philo of Alexandria, and a polemic against both Judaism and Sadduceeism.

Mark is the oldest of the "gospel" accounts, the sole survivor of the proto-gospels.

Matthew, based upon Mark, also incorporates significant remnants of the earlier "Gospel of the Hebrews" which WAS penned by Matthew, while the "Gospel of Matthew" itself was not.

NONE of the extant gospels were written by the people whose names have become attached to them.

There is information available about how the canon came to be compiled, and by whom ... all followers of Saul.

Hence ... Saulianity.

At this time, I'm not going to overburden you with all the ways in which "Jesus" and "Christ" need not go together, and should not ... not if you really care about Yeshua's message.

“Your Gods' Rules not mine.”

Since: Apr 07

Indianapolis

#67 Jul 23, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The rights of other minority groups have always been debated and voted upon by someone. The rights of Black Americans were debated and voted upon. The rights of Native Americans were debated and voted upon. The rights of women were debated and voted upon. The rights of teenagers were debated and voted upon.
Are you THAT stupid ?!
I'm talking CURRENTLY. Are YOU that stupid? It's not 1968 anymore. Voting on the rights of minorities is barbaric.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#68 Jul 23, 2012
lndychick wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm talking CURRENTLY. Are YOU that stupid? It's not 1968 anymore. Voting on the rights of minorities is barbaric.
No, it's not. It's American. You don't even have a federal constitutional RIGHT to vote on ANYTHING at all !

“Your Gods' Rules not mine.”

Since: Apr 07

Indianapolis

#69 Jul 24, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's not. It's American. You don't even have a federal constitutional RIGHT to vote on ANYTHING at all !
I'll take ignorant non-sequiturs for $1000 Alex.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#70 Jul 24, 2012
lndychick wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take ignorant non-sequiturs for $1000 Alex.
Are you saying there's a federal constitutioal right to vote ?!

If you are arguing that, you are WRONG ! States have the SOLE DISCRETION to set voting requirements in their states with certain LIMITED exceptions.

If the states want to pass legislation saying that you must wear a funny blue hat with a red feather in it to be eligible to vote, that is perfectly constitutional, and states CAN DO THAT IF THEY WANT TO.

“Your Gods' Rules not mine.”

Since: Apr 07

Indianapolis

#71 Jul 28, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying there's a federal constitutioal right to vote ?!
If you are arguing that, you are WRONG ! States have the SOLE DISCRETION to set voting requirements in their states with certain LIMITED exceptions.
If the states want to pass legislation saying that you must wear a funny blue hat with a red feather in it to be eligible to vote, that is perfectly constitutional, and states CAN DO THAT IF THEY WANT TO.
Uh, no, they can't. Unless they provide the hat for free, it's a poll tax. Try again twitwit.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#72 Jul 28, 2012
lndychick wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, no, they can't. Unless they provide the hat for free, it's a poll tax. Try again twitwit.
No, it's not.

“Your Gods' Rules not mine.”

Since: Apr 07

Indianapolis

#73 Jul 28, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's not.
Idiot: if you require anything that has to be paid for in order to vote, it's a de facto poll tax and not allowed under the 24th Amendment (its also a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause):

In the 1966 case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Breedlove v. Suttles, and extended the prohibition of poll taxes to state elections. It declared that the imposition of a poll tax in state elections violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Try Again Fwit.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#74 Jul 28, 2012
lndychick wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot: if you require anything that has to be paid for in order to vote, it's a de facto poll tax and not allowed under the 24th Amendment (its also a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause):
In the 1966 case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Breedlove v. Suttles, and extended the prohibition of poll taxes to state elections. It declared that the imposition of a poll tax in state elections violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Try Again Fwit.
A "poll tax" IS a "tax". Merely requiring something ridiculous in order to be able to vote does NOT violate the U.S. Constitution.

There is NO federal "RIGHT TO VOTE" !

“Your Gods' Rules not mine.”

Since: Apr 07

Indianapolis

#75 Jul 28, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
A "poll tax" IS a "tax". Merely requiring something ridiculous in order to be able to vote does NOT violate the U.S. Constitution.
There is NO federal "RIGHT TO VOTE" !
Drooler:

You're not really an American Citizen are you? I really hope you're not because anyone that stupid should not have computer access; or even access to sharp objects.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/in...

Strike Three, Yer OUT!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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.

Crime Movies Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Paul Walker Cannot Lie (Feb '06) 15 hr nonstopnick 11,724
Mel Gibson apologizes for drunk driving (Jul '06) Thu Swedenforever 22
Cooke: Tim Scott, Free-Speech Savior? (Mar '14) Oct 21 PREMIER POOLS 3
Five things the goss mags swear are true (Mar '14) Oct 21 raphan banksters 7
Def Jam's Top 5 Most Underrated Videos Oct 21 brandy t 1
See New Movies By Adam McKay, Catherine Hardwic... Oct 19 High I 1
Weekend Planner: October 18-19, 2014 Oct 17 Kid_Tomorrow 1

Crime Movies People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE