Tucker's attempt to normalize Nick Fuentes

303,642 Views | 3702 Replies | Last: 3 hrs ago by historian
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:



I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

Mothra said:

The_barBEARian said:



Thanks for the laugh.

The funniest part is Boomers like yourself would actually vote for Byron Donalds over James FIshback


I love how much you are so easily triggered by boomers like myself. I live rent-free in your tiny millennial brain. Makes me love being a boomer.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

Doc Holliday said:

muddybrazos said:

historian said:

Mothra said:

The_barBEARian said:

Mothra said:

Realitybites said:

historian said:

Tucker is no longer a Republican. If he talks and acts like a Dem / fascist, he probably is a Dem / fascist.


You Boomercons have lost your minds.

Do you agree with Tucker that Trump may be the anti-Christ? Do you agree with him that Islamic terrorism isn't really as bad as it's made out to be?


Do you agree with Satanyahu that America exists because of the "Hebrew" bible?

Its stolen valor... none of the founding fathers were jews but they have to claim they were responsible for America's success because they cant have those pesky goys running around looking like they were granted more providence than "God's Chosen"... its a bad look for all the dispensationalists

Shia Islamic terrorism is greatly exaggerated.

99% of Islamic terrorism in the west is Sunni and largely Wahhabism funded by Saudi.



To the extent that it what Netanyahu said or suggested, no.

Now how about my question?

Muslims killed over 4k Christians last year alone, just FYI. They are the largest purveyor of religious terrorism in the world today, and it's not even close.

Muslims have been the largest purveyors of religious terrorism for 1,400 years except a brief interregnum when their buddy Hitler was killing millions of Jews, Gypsies, etc. The only other major exception I can think of (there probably are others) were the native people's of America (Aztecs, Mayans, etc) whose religion was centered on human sacrifice, sometimes on a large scale.

The Bolsheviks killed probably 10x what the nazis did. The Holodomor alone was more than the 6milion number.

Way worse. They killed Orthodox Christians making them the most persecuted Christians and religious group in history. More Christians were martyred in the 20th century under Soviet rule than in all previous centuries combined.

Over 100k Orthodox clergy, monastics, and lay leaders were executed in a single two year wave during the Great Purge alone. Over 200,000 clergy were murdered, and millions of Orthodox believers perished in the Gulag system or in state executions. By 1939, out of 54,000 churches, barely 500 remained open...

And most Christians don't even realize this. That's how bad propaganda is in the west, we don't teach it in our schools, universities, nor is it common knowledge to even different types of Christians in the US.





Kill em all!

Says something about the collective IQ of America that dumbasses like yourself get sucked in by Putin. This board is a Russian propaganda machine lol
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:



I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

The_barBEARian said:

Mothra said:

The_barBEARian said:



Thanks for the laugh.

The funniest part is Boomers like yourself would actually vote for Byron Donalds over James FIshback


I love how much you are so easily triggered by boomers like myself. I live rent-free in your tiny millennial brain. Makes me love being a boomer.

BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

historian said:

muddybrazos said:



No way he could win but go for it, bro.

There is nothing serious about that proposition. He's more of a fringe politician who cannot attract masses of voters from various demographics and regions. Besides, a candidate who loses a primary in his own district will not have much national appeal. He would be lucky to be around on Super Tuesday.


You say this as Donald Trump is literally our sitting President…


This is truly is an apples to bowling balls comparison. Trump had his name on hotels all over the world and the highest rated show on TV for about a 5 year period before he decided to run. He was a pop culture icon.

Massie on the other hand…

It ain't happening. Pointing to Trump as a basis for the idea that Massie can win an election is just absurd. And I say that as someone who is much more aligned with Massie in my politics (save the anti-Jew positions).


Yes… obviously Trump and Massie have different backgrounds. But one of you morons said Massie has a near zero percent chance of winning, when Trump began with similar odds. And Trump was a far more controversial figure going into his first election.

Also, we've all been kindly waiting for you to provide evidence that Massie is "anti-Jew".

So the only similarity in your comparison is people wrote both of them off?

LOL. Just take the L here. It was a ridiculous comparison and wishful thinking from the get go. Trump's success doesn't prove that Massie can or will be successful anymore than his success proves barbearian will get a girlfriend.

As for the anti-Jewish positions, I've already posted them. Of course you disagree, given you are a Massie fanboy. We will agree to disagree.


Yes…? That was what I said from the get-go. Donald Trump is infinitely more absurd than Thomas Massie.

And you've never provided proof of anti-Jewish positions. Critical of Israel doesn't make you antisemitic unless your criticisms employ anti-jewish prejudice. None of his statements have done that.


He's the only member of Congress who didn't support a resolution condemning October 7th. That has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with being a decent human being.

You're wrong as usual.


You're purposely misleading, as usual. He has personally condemned Hamas but voted against the resolution because it committed open-ended foreign aid and economic sanctions, which is pretty consistent with his beliefs.

The second resolution condemned Hamas as well as reaffirmed Israel's right to exist, and designates its denial as antisemitism. He voted no because he doesn't believe anti-Zionism should be equated to antisemitism. Once again, this is consistent with his libertarian views. I know you're a fanboy of overreaching government, but some people believe in principle.

Would you like to try again?
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:



I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

Mothra said:

The_barBEARian said:

Mothra said:

The_barBEARian said:



Thanks for the laugh.

The funniest part is Boomers like yourself would actually vote for Byron Donalds over James FIshback


I love how much you are so easily triggered by boomers like myself. I live rent-free in your tiny millennial brain. Makes me love being a boomer.




This boomer lives rent free…
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

historian said:

muddybrazos said:



No way he could win but go for it, bro.

There is nothing serious about that proposition. He's more of a fringe politician who cannot attract masses of voters from various demographics and regions. Besides, a candidate who loses a primary in his own district will not have much national appeal. He would be lucky to be around on Super Tuesday.


You say this as Donald Trump is literally our sitting President…


This is truly is an apples to bowling balls comparison. Trump had his name on hotels all over the world and the highest rated show on TV for about a 5 year period before he decided to run. He was a pop culture icon.

Massie on the other hand…

It ain't happening. Pointing to Trump as a basis for the idea that Massie can win an election is just absurd. And I say that as someone who is much more aligned with Massie in my politics (save the anti-Jew positions).


Yes… obviously Trump and Massie have different backgrounds. But one of you morons said Massie has a near zero percent chance of winning, when Trump began with similar odds. And Trump was a far more controversial figure going into his first election.

Also, we've all been kindly waiting for you to provide evidence that Massie is "anti-Jew".

So the only similarity in your comparison is people wrote both of them off?

LOL. Just take the L here. It was a ridiculous comparison and wishful thinking from the get go. Trump's success doesn't prove that Massie can or will be successful anymore than his success proves barbearian will get a girlfriend.

As for the anti-Jewish positions, I've already posted them. Of course you disagree, given you are a Massie fanboy. We will agree to disagree.


Yes…? That was what I said from the get-go. Donald Trump is infinitely more absurd than Thomas Massie.

And you've never provided proof of anti-Jewish positions. Critical of Israel doesn't make you antisemitic unless your criticisms employ anti-jewish prejudice. None of his statements have done that.


He's the only member of Congress who didn't support a resolution condemning October 7th. That has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with being a decent human being.

You're wrong as usual.


You're purposely misleading, as usual. He has personally condemned Hamas but voted against the resolution because it committed open-ended foreign aid and economic sanctions, which is pretty consistent with his beliefs.

The second resolution condemned Hamas as well as reaffirmed Israel's right to exist, and designates its denial as antisemitism. He voted no because he doesn't believe anti-Zionism should be equated to antisemitism. Once again, this is consistent with his libertarian views. I know you're a fanboy of overreaching government, but some people believe in principle.

Would you like to try again?


So condemning a terrorist organization and confirming a country who that terrorist organization wants to destroy has a right to exist is "Zionism"?

lol. You are a clown.
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:



I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

historian said:

muddybrazos said:



No way he could win but go for it, bro.

There is nothing serious about that proposition. He's more of a fringe politician who cannot attract masses of voters from various demographics and regions. Besides, a candidate who loses a primary in his own district will not have much national appeal. He would be lucky to be around on Super Tuesday.


You say this as Donald Trump is literally our sitting President…


This is truly is an apples to bowling balls comparison. Trump had his name on hotels all over the world and the highest rated show on TV for about a 5 year period before he decided to run. He was a pop culture icon.

Massie on the other hand…

It ain't happening. Pointing to Trump as a basis for the idea that Massie can win an election is just absurd. And I say that as someone who is much more aligned with Massie in my politics (save the anti-Jew positions).


Yes… obviously Trump and Massie have different backgrounds. But one of you morons said Massie has a near zero percent chance of winning, when Trump began with similar odds. And Trump was a far more controversial figure going into his first election.

Also, we've all been kindly waiting for you to provide evidence that Massie is "anti-Jew".

So the only similarity in your comparison is people wrote both of them off?

LOL. Just take the L here. It was a ridiculous comparison and wishful thinking from the get go. Trump's success doesn't prove that Massie can or will be successful anymore than his success proves barbearian will get a girlfriend.

As for the anti-Jewish positions, I've already posted them. Of course you disagree, given you are a Massie fanboy. We will agree to disagree.


Yes…? That was what I said from the get-go. Donald Trump is infinitely more absurd than Thomas Massie.

And you've never provided proof of anti-Jewish positions. Critical of Israel doesn't make you antisemitic unless your criticisms employ anti-jewish prejudice. None of his statements have done that.


He's the only member of Congress who didn't support a resolution condemning October 7th. That has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with being a decent human being.

You're wrong as usual.


You're purposely misleading, as usual. He has personally condemned Hamas but voted against the resolution because it committed open-ended foreign aid and economic sanctions, which is pretty consistent with his beliefs.

The second resolution condemned Hamas as well as reaffirmed Israel's right to exist, and designates its denial as antisemitism. He voted no because he doesn't believe anti-Zionism should be equated to antisemitism. Once again, this is consistent with his libertarian views. I know you're a fanboy of overreaching government, but some people believe in principle.

Would you like to try again?


So condemning a terrorist organization and confirming a country who that terrorist organization wants to destroy has a right to exist is "Zionism"?

lol. You are a clown.


He condemned Hamas you nitwit. His "no" is consistent with his beliefs, why can't you understand this?
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:



I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?

You state these kind of half-truths and allege others are dishonest? Remarkable.

Keinah Fort wasn't a mere employee of Fishback's organization. She was a student at the high school who partnered with Fishback's organization. She was on the debate team in high school, and she was trained by Fishback and his organization (i.e. his student). She later joined the organization as a student-employee. She alleges that the romantic relationship began when she was only 17, which makes sense given they moved into together about 2 weeks after she turned 18. She later filed a TRO against him for stalking behavior. The judge ultimately denied the TRO but warned him to stay away from the teen.

But regardless of the seediness of the relationship, what Catholic doctrine and all Christian doctrine teaches is that fornication, or sex with someone before marriage, is sexual sin. Shacking up with someone who isn't your wife, regardless of her age, is sin. It's just more seedy and sick in this case, given how the relationship began and the age of the parties.

I truly can't believe I am having to explain these simple truths about sin to you. You should know these things already.

You have much to learn.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

historian said:

muddybrazos said:



No way he could win but go for it, bro.

There is nothing serious about that proposition. He's more of a fringe politician who cannot attract masses of voters from various demographics and regions. Besides, a candidate who loses a primary in his own district will not have much national appeal. He would be lucky to be around on Super Tuesday.


You say this as Donald Trump is literally our sitting President…


This is truly is an apples to bowling balls comparison. Trump had his name on hotels all over the world and the highest rated show on TV for about a 5 year period before he decided to run. He was a pop culture icon.

Massie on the other hand…

It ain't happening. Pointing to Trump as a basis for the idea that Massie can win an election is just absurd. And I say that as someone who is much more aligned with Massie in my politics (save the anti-Jew positions).


Yes… obviously Trump and Massie have different backgrounds. But one of you morons said Massie has a near zero percent chance of winning, when Trump began with similar odds. And Trump was a far more controversial figure going into his first election.

Also, we've all been kindly waiting for you to provide evidence that Massie is "anti-Jew".

So the only similarity in your comparison is people wrote both of them off?

LOL. Just take the L here. It was a ridiculous comparison and wishful thinking from the get go. Trump's success doesn't prove that Massie can or will be successful anymore than his success proves barbearian will get a girlfriend.

As for the anti-Jewish positions, I've already posted them. Of course you disagree, given you are a Massie fanboy. We will agree to disagree.


Yes…? That was what I said from the get-go. Donald Trump is infinitely more absurd than Thomas Massie.

And you've never provided proof of anti-Jewish positions. Critical of Israel doesn't make you antisemitic unless your criticisms employ anti-jewish prejudice. None of his statements have done that.


He's the only member of Congress who didn't support a resolution condemning October 7th. That has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with being a decent human being.

You're wrong as usual.


You're purposely misleading, as usual. He has personally condemned Hamas but voted against the resolution because it committed open-ended foreign aid and economic sanctions, which is pretty consistent with his beliefs.

The second resolution condemned Hamas as well as reaffirmed Israel's right to exist, and designates its denial as antisemitism. He voted no because he doesn't believe anti-Zionism should be equated to antisemitism. Once again, this is consistent with his libertarian views. I know you're a fanboy of overreaching government, but some people believe in principle.

Would you like to try again?


So condemning a terrorist organization and confirming a country who that terrorist organization wants to destroy has a right to exist is "Zionism"?

lol. You are a clown.


He condemned Hamas you nitwit. His "no" is consistent with his beliefs, why can't you understand this?

Good Lord, son. Read what you wrote.

"The second resolution condemned Hamas as well as reaffirmed Israel's right to exist."

I repeated what you alleged the second resolution said, that he would not support: 1) condemnation of Hamas; and 2) confirm Israel's right to exist. This is not in dispute.

Seriously, you need to improve your reading comprehension.

His no vote is consistent with his idea that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. I understand this perfectly well.
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:



I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?

You state these kind of half-truths and allege others are dishonest? Remarkable.

Keinah Fort wasn't a mere employee of Fishback's organization. She was a student at the high school who partnered with Fishback's organization. She was on the debate team in high school, and she was trained by Fishback and his organization (i.e. his student). She later joined the organization as a student-employee. She alleges that the romantic relationship began when she was only 17, which makes sense given they moved into together about 2 weeks after she turned 18. She later filed a TRO against him for stalking behavior. The judge ultimately denied the TRO but warned him to stay away from the teen.

But regardless of the seediness of the relationship, what Catholic doctrine and all Christian doctrine teaches is that fornication, or sex with someone before marriage, is sexual sin. Shacking up with someone who isn't your wife, regardless of her age, is sin. It's just more seedy and sick in this case, given how the relationship began and the age of the parties.

I truly can't believe I am having to explain these simple truths about sin to you. You should know these things already.

You have much to learn.


You said she was his student, that was wrong. Now you're saying that they were having sex, how do you know that? There's no definitive proof of that.

And for what it's worth, every man sins. Doesn't mean they're necessarily a bad person.

I can't believe I have to continue cleaning up after you. It's become a second full-time job for me.
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

historian said:

muddybrazos said:



No way he could win but go for it, bro.

There is nothing serious about that proposition. He's more of a fringe politician who cannot attract masses of voters from various demographics and regions. Besides, a candidate who loses a primary in his own district will not have much national appeal. He would be lucky to be around on Super Tuesday.


You say this as Donald Trump is literally our sitting President…


This is truly is an apples to bowling balls comparison. Trump had his name on hotels all over the world and the highest rated show on TV for about a 5 year period before he decided to run. He was a pop culture icon.

Massie on the other hand…

It ain't happening. Pointing to Trump as a basis for the idea that Massie can win an election is just absurd. And I say that as someone who is much more aligned with Massie in my politics (save the anti-Jew positions).


Yes… obviously Trump and Massie have different backgrounds. But one of you morons said Massie has a near zero percent chance of winning, when Trump began with similar odds. And Trump was a far more controversial figure going into his first election.

Also, we've all been kindly waiting for you to provide evidence that Massie is "anti-Jew".

So the only similarity in your comparison is people wrote both of them off?

LOL. Just take the L here. It was a ridiculous comparison and wishful thinking from the get go. Trump's success doesn't prove that Massie can or will be successful anymore than his success proves barbearian will get a girlfriend.

As for the anti-Jewish positions, I've already posted them. Of course you disagree, given you are a Massie fanboy. We will agree to disagree.


Yes…? That was what I said from the get-go. Donald Trump is infinitely more absurd than Thomas Massie.

And you've never provided proof of anti-Jewish positions. Critical of Israel doesn't make you antisemitic unless your criticisms employ anti-jewish prejudice. None of his statements have done that.


He's the only member of Congress who didn't support a resolution condemning October 7th. That has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with being a decent human being.

You're wrong as usual.


You're purposely misleading, as usual. He has personally condemned Hamas but voted against the resolution because it committed open-ended foreign aid and economic sanctions, which is pretty consistent with his beliefs.

The second resolution condemned Hamas as well as reaffirmed Israel's right to exist, and designates its denial as antisemitism. He voted no because he doesn't believe anti-Zionism should be equated to antisemitism. Once again, this is consistent with his libertarian views. I know you're a fanboy of overreaching government, but some people believe in principle.

Would you like to try again?


So condemning a terrorist organization and confirming a country who that terrorist organization wants to destroy has a right to exist is "Zionism"?

lol. You are a clown.


He condemned Hamas you nitwit. His "no" is consistent with his beliefs, why can't you understand this?

Good Lord, son. Read what you wrote.

"The second resolution condemned Hamas as well as reaffirmed Israel's right to exist."

I repeated what you alleged the second resolution said, that he would not support: 1) condemnation of Hamas; and 2) confirm Israel's right to exist. This is not in dispute.

Seriously, you need to improve your reading comprehension.

His no vote is consistent with his idea that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. I understand this perfectly well.

BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

historian said:

muddybrazos said:



No way he could win but go for it, bro.

There is nothing serious about that proposition. He's more of a fringe politician who cannot attract masses of voters from various demographics and regions. Besides, a candidate who loses a primary in his own district will not have much national appeal. He would be lucky to be around on Super Tuesday.


You say this as Donald Trump is literally our sitting President…


This is truly is an apples to bowling balls comparison. Trump had his name on hotels all over the world and the highest rated show on TV for about a 5 year period before he decided to run. He was a pop culture icon.

Massie on the other hand…

It ain't happening. Pointing to Trump as a basis for the idea that Massie can win an election is just absurd. And I say that as someone who is much more aligned with Massie in my politics (save the anti-Jew positions).


Yes… obviously Trump and Massie have different backgrounds. But one of you morons said Massie has a near zero percent chance of winning, when Trump began with similar odds. And Trump was a far more controversial figure going into his first election.

Also, we've all been kindly waiting for you to provide evidence that Massie is "anti-Jew".

So the only similarity in your comparison is people wrote both of them off?

LOL. Just take the L here. It was a ridiculous comparison and wishful thinking from the get go. Trump's success doesn't prove that Massie can or will be successful anymore than his success proves barbearian will get a girlfriend.

As for the anti-Jewish positions, I've already posted them. Of course you disagree, given you are a Massie fanboy. We will agree to disagree.


Yes…? That was what I said from the get-go. Donald Trump is infinitely more absurd than Thomas Massie.

And you've never provided proof of anti-Jewish positions. Critical of Israel doesn't make you antisemitic unless your criticisms employ anti-jewish prejudice. None of his statements have done that.


He's the only member of Congress who didn't support a resolution condemning October 7th. That has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with being a decent human being.

You're wrong as usual.


You're purposely misleading, as usual. He has personally condemned Hamas but voted against the resolution because it committed open-ended foreign aid and economic sanctions, which is pretty consistent with his beliefs.

The second resolution condemned Hamas as well as reaffirmed Israel's right to exist, and designates its denial as antisemitism. He voted no because he doesn't believe anti-Zionism should be equated to antisemitism. Once again, this is consistent with his libertarian views. I know you're a fanboy of overreaching government, but some people believe in principle.

Would you like to try again?


So condemning a terrorist organization and confirming a country who that terrorist organization wants to destroy has a right to exist is "Zionism"?

lol. You are a clown.


He condemned Hamas you nitwit. His "no" is consistent with his beliefs, why can't you understand this?

Good Lord, son. Read what you wrote.

"The second resolution condemned Hamas as well as reaffirmed Israel's right to exist."

I repeated what you alleged the second resolution said, that he would not support: 1) condemnation of Hamas; and 2) confirm Israel's right to exist. This is not in dispute.

Seriously, you need to improve your reading comprehension.

His no vote is consistent with his idea that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. I understand this perfectly well.


You're almost there. The second resolution did the following:

-Reaffirms the State of Israel's right to exist
-Recognizes that denying Israel's right to exist is a form of antisemitism
-Rejects calls for Israel's destruction and the elimination of the only Jewish State
-Condemns the Hamas-led terrorist attack on Israel

Massie's main objection was the second bullet. He doesn't want the House making broad declarations about what constitutes antisemitism.

Disagreeing with one of the bullets does not mean that he's against all of them. That's evident as he has publicly condemned Hamas and reaffirmed Israel's right to defend itself.

Got it?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:




I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?

You state these kind of half-truths and allege others are dishonest? Remarkable.

Keinah Fort wasn't a mere employee of Fishback's organization. She was a student at the high school who partnered with Fishback's organization. She was on the debate team in high school, and she was trained by Fishback and his organization (i.e. his student). She later joined the organization as a student-employee. She alleges that the romantic relationship began when she was only 17, which makes sense given they moved into together about 2 weeks after she turned 18. She later filed a TRO against him for stalking behavior. The judge ultimately denied the TRO but warned him to stay away from the teen.

But regardless of the seediness of the relationship, what Catholic doctrine and all Christian doctrine teaches is that fornication, or sex with someone before marriage, is sexual sin. Shacking up with someone who isn't your wife, regardless of her age, is sin. It's just more seedy and sick in this case, given how the relationship began and the age of the parties.

I truly can't believe I am having to explain these simple truths about sin to you. You should know these things already.

You have much to learn.


You said she was his student, that was wrong. Now you're saying that they were having sex, how do you know that? There's no definitive proof of that.

And for what it's worth, every man sins. Doesn't mean they're necessarily a bad person.

I can't believe I have to continue cleaning up after you. It's become a second full-time job for me.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I never said they had sex. I said they had a romantic relationship and shacked up. These are undisputed facts.

Your idea that they were living together and not having sex is your assumption. I believe what she said in her lawsuit - that the relationship was sexual and began when she was 17. If you want to believe the relationship wasn't sexual, well, ok. Even Fishback, while denying he began sleeping with her when she was 17, hasn't gone that far.

Personally, I don't know of any adult men who shacked up with a girl two weeks after she turned 18, against her parents' wishes. I also don't know too many who've had TROs filed against them for stalking. And I've known some pretty sinful dudes over the years, before they met Christ.

But if you want to believe Fishback is a "good" person, ok.

And indeed, she was his student - she was learning debate under his tutelage. He was her coach. I never said that was a public teacher-student relationship. Again, reading comprehension...
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:




I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?

You state these kind of half-truths and allege others are dishonest? Remarkable.

Keinah Fort wasn't a mere employee of Fishback's organization. She was a student at the high school who partnered with Fishback's organization. She was on the debate team in high school, and she was trained by Fishback and his organization (i.e. his student). She later joined the organization as a student-employee. She alleges that the romantic relationship began when she was only 17, which makes sense given they moved into together about 2 weeks after she turned 18. She later filed a TRO against him for stalking behavior. The judge ultimately denied the TRO but warned him to stay away from the teen.

But regardless of the seediness of the relationship, what Catholic doctrine and all Christian doctrine teaches is that fornication, or sex with someone before marriage, is sexual sin. Shacking up with someone who isn't your wife, regardless of her age, is sin. It's just more seedy and sick in this case, given how the relationship began and the age of the parties.

I truly can't believe I am having to explain these simple truths about sin to you. You should know these things already.

You have much to learn.


You said she was his student, that was wrong. Now you're saying that they were having sex, how do you know that? There's no definitive proof of that.

And for what it's worth, every man sins. Doesn't mean they're necessarily a bad person.

I can't believe I have to continue cleaning up after you. It's become a second full-time job for me.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I never said they had sex. I said they had a romantic relationship and shacked up. These are undisputed facts.

Your idea that they were living together and not having sex is your assumption. I believe what she said in her lawsuit - that the relationship was sexual and began when she was 17. If you want to believe the relationship wasn't sexual, well, ok. Even Fishback, while denying he began sleeping with her when she was 17, hasn't gone that far.

Personally, I don't know of any adult men who shacked up with a girl two weeks after she turned 18, against her parents' wishes. I also don't know too many who've had TROs filed against them for stalking. And I've known some pretty sinful dudes over the years, before they met Christ.

But if you want to believe Fishback is a "good" person, ok.

And indeed, she was his student - she was learning debate tactics under his tutelage. I never said that was a public teacher-student relationship. Again, reading comprehension...


Then why would you bring up the fact that fornication is a sin if you weren't insinuating that they were having sex? Constantly moving the goal posts over here hahaha

What are you, a public defender?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

historian said:

muddybrazos said:



No way he could win but go for it, bro.

There is nothing serious about that proposition. He's more of a fringe politician who cannot attract masses of voters from various demographics and regions. Besides, a candidate who loses a primary in his own district will not have much national appeal. He would be lucky to be around on Super Tuesday.


You say this as Donald Trump is literally our sitting President…


This is truly is an apples to bowling balls comparison. Trump had his name on hotels all over the world and the highest rated show on TV for about a 5 year period before he decided to run. He was a pop culture icon.

Massie on the other hand…

It ain't happening. Pointing to Trump as a basis for the idea that Massie can win an election is just absurd. And I say that as someone who is much more aligned with Massie in my politics (save the anti-Jew positions).


Yes… obviously Trump and Massie have different backgrounds. But one of you morons said Massie has a near zero percent chance of winning, when Trump began with similar odds. And Trump was a far more controversial figure going into his first election.

Also, we've all been kindly waiting for you to provide evidence that Massie is "anti-Jew".

So the only similarity in your comparison is people wrote both of them off?

LOL. Just take the L here. It was a ridiculous comparison and wishful thinking from the get go. Trump's success doesn't prove that Massie can or will be successful anymore than his success proves barbearian will get a girlfriend.

As for the anti-Jewish positions, I've already posted them. Of course you disagree, given you are a Massie fanboy. We will agree to disagree.


Yes…? That was what I said from the get-go. Donald Trump is infinitely more absurd than Thomas Massie.

And you've never provided proof of anti-Jewish positions. Critical of Israel doesn't make you antisemitic unless your criticisms employ anti-jewish prejudice. None of his statements have done that.


He's the only member of Congress who didn't support a resolution condemning October 7th. That has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with being a decent human being.

You're wrong as usual.


You're purposely misleading, as usual. He has personally condemned Hamas but voted against the resolution because it committed open-ended foreign aid and economic sanctions, which is pretty consistent with his beliefs.

The second resolution condemned Hamas as well as reaffirmed Israel's right to exist, and designates its denial as antisemitism. He voted no because he doesn't believe anti-Zionism should be equated to antisemitism. Once again, this is consistent with his libertarian views. I know you're a fanboy of overreaching government, but some people believe in principle.

Would you like to try again?


So condemning a terrorist organization and confirming a country who that terrorist organization wants to destroy has a right to exist is "Zionism"?

lol. You are a clown.


He condemned Hamas you nitwit. His "no" is consistent with his beliefs, why can't you understand this?

Good Lord, son. Read what you wrote.

"The second resolution condemned Hamas as well as reaffirmed Israel's right to exist."

I repeated what you alleged the second resolution said, that he would not support: 1) condemnation of Hamas; and 2) confirm Israel's right to exist. This is not in dispute.

Seriously, you need to improve your reading comprehension.

His no vote is consistent with his idea that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. I understand this perfectly well.


You're almost there. The second resolution did the following:

-Reaffirms the State of Israel's right to exist
-Recognizes that denying Israel's right to exist is a form of antisemitism
-Rejects calls for Israel's destruction and the elimination of the only Jewish State
-Condemns the Hamas-led terrorist attack on Israel

Massie's main objection was the second bullet. He doesn't want the House making broad declarations about what constitutes antisemitism.

Disagreeing with one of the bullets does not mean that he's against all of them. That's evident as he has publicly condemned Hamas and reaffirmed Israel's right to defend itself.

Got it?


It's pretty anti-semitic to say denying Israel's right to exist isn't anti-semitic or is some form of Zionism. That's absolutely absurd. Israel absolutely has the right to exist, and Massie equating that belief with a Zionist point of view is quite telling. There's a reason he was literally the only guy in Congress who wouldn't sign off.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:




I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?

You state these kind of half-truths and allege others are dishonest? Remarkable.

Keinah Fort wasn't a mere employee of Fishback's organization. She was a student at the high school who partnered with Fishback's organization. She was on the debate team in high school, and she was trained by Fishback and his organization (i.e. his student). She later joined the organization as a student-employee. She alleges that the romantic relationship began when she was only 17, which makes sense given they moved into together about 2 weeks after she turned 18. She later filed a TRO against him for stalking behavior. The judge ultimately denied the TRO but warned him to stay away from the teen.

But regardless of the seediness of the relationship, what Catholic doctrine and all Christian doctrine teaches is that fornication, or sex with someone before marriage, is sexual sin. Shacking up with someone who isn't your wife, regardless of her age, is sin. It's just more seedy and sick in this case, given how the relationship began and the age of the parties.

I truly can't believe I am having to explain these simple truths about sin to you. You should know these things already.

You have much to learn.


You said she was his student, that was wrong. Now you're saying that they were having sex, how do you know that? There's no definitive proof of that.

And for what it's worth, every man sins. Doesn't mean they're necessarily a bad person.

I can't believe I have to continue cleaning up after you. It's become a second full-time job for me.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I never said they had sex. I said they had a romantic relationship and shacked up. These are undisputed facts.

Your idea that they were living together and not having sex is your assumption. I believe what she said in her lawsuit - that the relationship was sexual and began when she was 17. If you want to believe the relationship wasn't sexual, well, ok. Even Fishback, while denying he began sleeping with her when she was 17, hasn't gone that far.

Personally, I don't know of any adult men who shacked up with a girl two weeks after she turned 18, against her parents' wishes. I also don't know too many who've had TROs filed against them for stalking. And I've known some pretty sinful dudes over the years, before they met Christ.

But if you want to believe Fishback is a "good" person, ok.

And indeed, she was his student - she was learning debate tactics under his tutelage. I never said that was a public teacher-student relationship. Again, reading comprehension...


Then why would you bring up the fact that fornication is a sin if you weren't insinuating that they were having sex? Constantly moving the goal posts over here hahaha

What are you, a public defender?

So, fornication is defined in scripture as ANY form of sexual contact, not simply sex or intercourse. So if you're fooling around with someone not your wife, you are engaged in fornication.

Regardless, Fort confirmed the relationship was sexual, and Fishback confirmed he was "engaged" to her and moved in with her 2 weeks after she turned 18, so the idea that they weren't have some sexual contact is just stupid, and unsupported. If you claim she is lying, where's the proof? More importantly, why hasn't Fishback denied it?

Do you always play dumb, or only when it suits your purposes - kind of like your Catholicism?
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:




I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?

You state these kind of half-truths and allege others are dishonest? Remarkable.

Keinah Fort wasn't a mere employee of Fishback's organization. She was a student at the high school who partnered with Fishback's organization. She was on the debate team in high school, and she was trained by Fishback and his organization (i.e. his student). She later joined the organization as a student-employee. She alleges that the romantic relationship began when she was only 17, which makes sense given they moved into together about 2 weeks after she turned 18. She later filed a TRO against him for stalking behavior. The judge ultimately denied the TRO but warned him to stay away from the teen.

But regardless of the seediness of the relationship, what Catholic doctrine and all Christian doctrine teaches is that fornication, or sex with someone before marriage, is sexual sin. Shacking up with someone who isn't your wife, regardless of her age, is sin. It's just more seedy and sick in this case, given how the relationship began and the age of the parties.

I truly can't believe I am having to explain these simple truths about sin to you. You should know these things already.

You have much to learn.


You said she was his student, that was wrong. Now you're saying that they were having sex, how do you know that? There's no definitive proof of that.

And for what it's worth, every man sins. Doesn't mean they're necessarily a bad person.

I can't believe I have to continue cleaning up after you. It's become a second full-time job for me.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I never said they had sex. I said they had a romantic relationship and shacked up. These are undisputed facts.

Your idea that they were living together and not having sex is your assumption. I believe what she said in her lawsuit - that the relationship was sexual and began when she was 17. If you want to believe the relationship wasn't sexual, well, ok. Even Fishback, while denying he began sleeping with her when she was 17, hasn't gone that far.

Personally, I don't know of any adult men who shacked up with a girl two weeks after she turned 18, against her parents' wishes. I also don't know too many who've had TROs filed against them for stalking. And I've known some pretty sinful dudes over the years, before they met Christ.

But if you want to believe Fishback is a "good" person, ok.

And indeed, she was his student - she was learning debate tactics under his tutelage. I never said that was a public teacher-student relationship. Again, reading comprehension...


Then why would you bring up the fact that fornication is a sin if you weren't insinuating that they were having sex? Constantly moving the goal posts over here hahaha

What are you, a public defender?

So, fornication is defined in scripture as ANY form of sexual contact, not simply sex or intercourse. So if you're fooling around with someone not your wife, you are engaged in fornication.

Regardless, Fort confirmed the relationship was sexual, and Fishback confirmed he was "engaged" to her and moved in with her 2 weeks after she turned 18, so the idea that they weren't have some sexual contact is just stupid.

Do you always play dumb, or only when it suits your purposes - kind of like your Catholcism?


The Greek word for fornication translates to "porneia", which can mean premarital sex, prostitution, adultery, or other illicit sexual acts.

Living with someone out of wedlock doesn't necessarily equate to "porneia". Fort says they were engaging in sexual acts but that's all he said/she said.

They were engaged early on in their relationship, and Fishback married his current wife after a short time. Perhaps he gets engaged after a short time because he doesn't want to engage in premarital fornication?

The fact of the matter, I may play dumb but you're just plain dumb.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:




I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?

You state these kind of half-truths and allege others are dishonest? Remarkable.

Keinah Fort wasn't a mere employee of Fishback's organization. She was a student at the high school who partnered with Fishback's organization. She was on the debate team in high school, and she was trained by Fishback and his organization (i.e. his student). She later joined the organization as a student-employee. She alleges that the romantic relationship began when she was only 17, which makes sense given they moved into together about 2 weeks after she turned 18. She later filed a TRO against him for stalking behavior. The judge ultimately denied the TRO but warned him to stay away from the teen.

But regardless of the seediness of the relationship, what Catholic doctrine and all Christian doctrine teaches is that fornication, or sex with someone before marriage, is sexual sin. Shacking up with someone who isn't your wife, regardless of her age, is sin. It's just more seedy and sick in this case, given how the relationship began and the age of the parties.

I truly can't believe I am having to explain these simple truths about sin to you. You should know these things already.

You have much to learn.


You said she was his student, that was wrong. Now you're saying that they were having sex, how do you know that? There's no definitive proof of that.

And for what it's worth, every man sins. Doesn't mean they're necessarily a bad person.

I can't believe I have to continue cleaning up after you. It's become a second full-time job for me.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I never said they had sex. I said they had a romantic relationship and shacked up. These are undisputed facts.

Your idea that they were living together and not having sex is your assumption. I believe what she said in her lawsuit - that the relationship was sexual and began when she was 17. If you want to believe the relationship wasn't sexual, well, ok. Even Fishback, while denying he began sleeping with her when she was 17, hasn't gone that far.

Personally, I don't know of any adult men who shacked up with a girl two weeks after she turned 18, against her parents' wishes. I also don't know too many who've had TROs filed against them for stalking. And I've known some pretty sinful dudes over the years, before they met Christ.

But if you want to believe Fishback is a "good" person, ok.

And indeed, she was his student - she was learning debate tactics under his tutelage. I never said that was a public teacher-student relationship. Again, reading comprehension...


Then why would you bring up the fact that fornication is a sin if you weren't insinuating that they were having sex? Constantly moving the goal posts over here hahaha

What are you, a public defender?

So, fornication is defined in scripture as ANY form of sexual contact, not simply sex or intercourse. So if you're fooling around with someone not your wife, you are engaged in fornication.

Regardless, Fort confirmed the relationship was sexual, and Fishback confirmed he was "engaged" to her and moved in with her 2 weeks after she turned 18, so the idea that they weren't have some sexual contact is just stupid.

Do you always play dumb, or only when it suits your purposes - kind of like your Catholcism?


The Greek word for fornication translates to "porneia", which can mean premarital sex, prostitution, adultery, or other illicit sexual acts.

Living with someone out of wedlock doesn't necessarily equate to "porneia". Fort says they were engaging in sexual acts but that's all he said/she said.

They were engaged early on in their relationship, and Fishback married his current wife after a short time. Perhaps he gets engaged after a short time because he doesn't want to engage in premarital fornication?

The fact of the matter, I may play dumb but you're just plain dumb.

I am glad you were able to admit that fornication includes sexual acts other than just sex or intercourse - just like I explained to you. That must have been a blow to your massive ego. Perhaps next time you will read a little closer, instead of mischaracterizing my comments.

As for Fort, Fishback never denied the allegation they were having sex. He merely said it was consensual. He admitted to shacking up with her when she turned 18. So, what we have is undisputed (if not confirmed) fornication on the part of Fishback. And it's seedy at that, followed by harassment, and allegations of physical abuse.

Did you also hear that he told the black guy who confronted him on the allegations that he needed to be lynched?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/republican-florida-governor-race-tells-191737975.html

He sounds like a real, "good" Christian, that Fishback. Of course, any person who listens to Nick Fuentes lacks the moral compass to make such judgments in the first place.

Son, don't fool yourself - you're as dumb as a box of rocks. You think the word games and intellectual dishonesty you regularly engage in on these boards makes you smart. You're not. My teen has better reasoning skills than you.

The good news, you're young and stupid, instead of just stupid, so there's still hope for you. Don't go the way of barbearian.

The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Like a swarm of ticks feeding on its host...

Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

historian said:

muddybrazos said:



No way he could win but go for it, bro.

There is nothing serious about that proposition. He's more of a fringe politician who cannot attract masses of voters from various demographics and regions. Besides, a candidate who loses a primary in his own district will not have much national appeal. He would be lucky to be around on Super Tuesday.


You say this as Donald Trump is literally our sitting President…


This is truly is an apples to bowling balls comparison. Trump had his name on hotels all over the world and the highest rated show on TV for about a 5 year period before he decided to run. He was a pop culture icon.

Massie on the other hand…

It ain't happening. Pointing to Trump as a basis for the idea that Massie can win an election is just absurd. And I say that as someone who is much more aligned with Massie in my politics (save the anti-Jew positions).


Yes… obviously Trump and Massie have different backgrounds. But one of you morons said Massie has a near zero percent chance of winning, when Trump began with similar odds. And Trump was a far more controversial figure going into his first election.

Also, we've all been kindly waiting for you to provide evidence that Massie is "anti-Jew".

So the only similarity in your comparison is people wrote both of them off?

LOL. Just take the L here. It was a ridiculous comparison and wishful thinking from the get go. Trump's success doesn't prove that Massie can or will be successful anymore than his success proves barbearian will get a girlfriend.

As for the anti-Jewish positions, I've already posted them. Of course you disagree, given you are a Massie fanboy. We will agree to disagree.


Yes…? That was what I said from the get-go. Donald Trump is infinitely more absurd than Thomas Massie.

And you've never provided proof of anti-Jewish positions. Critical of Israel doesn't make you antisemitic unless your criticisms employ anti-jewish prejudice. None of his statements have done that.


He's the only member of Congress who didn't support a resolution condemning October 7th. That has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with being a decent human being.

You're wrong as usual.


You're purposely misleading, as usual. He has personally condemned Hamas but voted against the resolution because it committed open-ended foreign aid and economic sanctions, which is pretty consistent with his beliefs.

The second resolution condemned Hamas as well as reaffirmed Israel's right to exist, and designates its denial as antisemitism. He voted no because he doesn't believe anti-Zionism should be equated to antisemitism. Once again, this is consistent with his libertarian views. I know you're a fanboy of overreaching government, but some people believe in principle.

Would you like to try again?


So condemning a terrorist organization and confirming a country who that terrorist organization wants to destroy has a right to exist is "Zionism"?

lol. You are a clown.


He condemned Hamas you nitwit. His "no" is consistent with his beliefs, why can't you understand this?

Good Lord, son. Read what you wrote.

"The second resolution condemned Hamas as well as reaffirmed Israel's right to exist."

I repeated what you alleged the second resolution said, that he would not support: 1) condemnation of Hamas; and 2) confirm Israel's right to exist. This is not in dispute.

Seriously, you need to improve your reading comprehension.

His no vote is consistent with his idea that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. I understand this perfectly well.



You're triggered!
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:




I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?

You state these kind of half-truths and allege others are dishonest? Remarkable.

Keinah Fort wasn't a mere employee of Fishback's organization. She was a student at the high school who partnered with Fishback's organization. She was on the debate team in high school, and she was trained by Fishback and his organization (i.e. his student). She later joined the organization as a student-employee. She alleges that the romantic relationship began when she was only 17, which makes sense given they moved into together about 2 weeks after she turned 18. She later filed a TRO against him for stalking behavior. The judge ultimately denied the TRO but warned him to stay away from the teen.

But regardless of the seediness of the relationship, what Catholic doctrine and all Christian doctrine teaches is that fornication, or sex with someone before marriage, is sexual sin. Shacking up with someone who isn't your wife, regardless of her age, is sin. It's just more seedy and sick in this case, given how the relationship began and the age of the parties.

I truly can't believe I am having to explain these simple truths about sin to you. You should know these things already.

You have much to learn.


You said she was his student, that was wrong. Now you're saying that they were having sex, how do you know that? There's no definitive proof of that.

And for what it's worth, every man sins. Doesn't mean they're necessarily a bad person.

I can't believe I have to continue cleaning up after you. It's become a second full-time job for me.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I never said they had sex. I said they had a romantic relationship and shacked up. These are undisputed facts.

Your idea that they were living together and not having sex is your assumption. I believe what she said in her lawsuit - that the relationship was sexual and began when she was 17. If you want to believe the relationship wasn't sexual, well, ok. Even Fishback, while denying he began sleeping with her when she was 17, hasn't gone that far.

Personally, I don't know of any adult men who shacked up with a girl two weeks after she turned 18, against her parents' wishes. I also don't know too many who've had TROs filed against them for stalking. And I've known some pretty sinful dudes over the years, before they met Christ.

But if you want to believe Fishback is a "good" person, ok.

And indeed, she was his student - she was learning debate tactics under his tutelage. I never said that was a public teacher-student relationship. Again, reading comprehension...


Then why would you bring up the fact that fornication is a sin if you weren't insinuating that they were having sex? Constantly moving the goal posts over here hahaha

What are you, a public defender?

So, fornication is defined in scripture as ANY form of sexual contact, not simply sex or intercourse. So if you're fooling around with someone not your wife, you are engaged in fornication.

Regardless, Fort confirmed the relationship was sexual, and Fishback confirmed he was "engaged" to her and moved in with her 2 weeks after she turned 18, so the idea that they weren't have some sexual contact is just stupid.

Do you always play dumb, or only when it suits your purposes - kind of like your Catholcism?


The Greek word for fornication translates to "porneia", which can mean premarital sex, prostitution, adultery, or other illicit sexual acts.

Living with someone out of wedlock doesn't necessarily equate to "porneia". Fort says they were engaging in sexual acts but that's all he said/she said.

They were engaged early on in their relationship, and Fishback married his current wife after a short time. Perhaps he gets engaged after a short time because he doesn't want to engage in premarital fornication?

The fact of the matter, I may play dumb but you're just plain dumb.

I am glad you were able to admit that fornication includes sexual acts other than just sex or intercourse - just like I explained to you. That must have been a blow to your massive ego. Perhaps next time you will read a little closer, instead of mischaracterizing my comments.

As for Fort, Fishback never denied the allegation they were having sex. He merely said it was consensual. He admitted to shacking up with her when she turned 18. So, what we have is undisputed (if not confirmed) fornication on the part of Fishback. And it's seedy at that, followed by harassment, and allegations of physical abuse.

Did you also hear that he told the black reporter who confronted him on the allegations that he needed to be lynched?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/republican-florida-governor-race-tells-191737975.html

He sounds like a real, "great" Christian, that Fishback. Of course, any person who listens to Nick Fuentes lacks the moral compass to make such judgments in the first place.

Son, don't fool yourself - you're as dumb as a box of rocks. You think the word games and intellectual dishonesty you regularly engage in on these boards makes you smart. You're not. My teen has better reasoning skills than you.

The good news, you're young and stupid, instead of just stupid, so there's still hope for you. Don't go the way of barbearian.




Oh man… you and Jasmine Crockett are living proof that anyone can pass the bar exam.

The act of living together is not sexual if you're not having sex, therefore it's not fornication. And it is not certain whether or not they had sex, as he hasn't commented on it so it's not definitive.

Hypothetically, if he did have sex, would that make him a bad person? You voted for Trump and he's the king of fornication lmao! So obviously none of this has to do with pre-martial sex, it's because he's not an Israel-first goyim like yourself.

And ya I saw that clip, it was awesome!
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:




I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?

You state these kind of half-truths and allege others are dishonest? Remarkable.

Keinah Fort wasn't a mere employee of Fishback's organization. She was a student at the high school who partnered with Fishback's organization. She was on the debate team in high school, and she was trained by Fishback and his organization (i.e. his student). She later joined the organization as a student-employee. She alleges that the romantic relationship began when she was only 17, which makes sense given they moved into together about 2 weeks after she turned 18. She later filed a TRO against him for stalking behavior. The judge ultimately denied the TRO but warned him to stay away from the teen.

But regardless of the seediness of the relationship, what Catholic doctrine and all Christian doctrine teaches is that fornication, or sex with someone before marriage, is sexual sin. Shacking up with someone who isn't your wife, regardless of her age, is sin. It's just more seedy and sick in this case, given how the relationship began and the age of the parties.

I truly can't believe I am having to explain these simple truths about sin to you. You should know these things already.

You have much to learn.


You said she was his student, that was wrong. Now you're saying that they were having sex, how do you know that? There's no definitive proof of that.

And for what it's worth, every man sins. Doesn't mean they're necessarily a bad person.

I can't believe I have to continue cleaning up after you. It's become a second full-time job for me.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I never said they had sex. I said they had a romantic relationship and shacked up. These are undisputed facts.

Your idea that they were living together and not having sex is your assumption. I believe what she said in her lawsuit - that the relationship was sexual and began when she was 17. If you want to believe the relationship wasn't sexual, well, ok. Even Fishback, while denying he began sleeping with her when she was 17, hasn't gone that far.

Personally, I don't know of any adult men who shacked up with a girl two weeks after she turned 18, against her parents' wishes. I also don't know too many who've had TROs filed against them for stalking. And I've known some pretty sinful dudes over the years, before they met Christ.

But if you want to believe Fishback is a "good" person, ok.

And indeed, she was his student - she was learning debate tactics under his tutelage. I never said that was a public teacher-student relationship. Again, reading comprehension...


Then why would you bring up the fact that fornication is a sin if you weren't insinuating that they were having sex? Constantly moving the goal posts over here hahaha

What are you, a public defender?

So, fornication is defined in scripture as ANY form of sexual contact, not simply sex or intercourse. So if you're fooling around with someone not your wife, you are engaged in fornication.

Regardless, Fort confirmed the relationship was sexual, and Fishback confirmed he was "engaged" to her and moved in with her 2 weeks after she turned 18, so the idea that they weren't have some sexual contact is just stupid.

Do you always play dumb, or only when it suits your purposes - kind of like your Catholcism?


The Greek word for fornication translates to "porneia", which can mean premarital sex, prostitution, adultery, or other illicit sexual acts.

Living with someone out of wedlock doesn't necessarily equate to "porneia". Fort says they were engaging in sexual acts but that's all he said/she said.

They were engaged early on in their relationship, and Fishback married his current wife after a short time. Perhaps he gets engaged after a short time because he doesn't want to engage in premarital fornication?

The fact of the matter, I may play dumb but you're just plain dumb.

I am glad you were able to admit that fornication includes sexual acts other than just sex or intercourse - just like I explained to you. That must have been a blow to your massive ego. Perhaps next time you will read a little closer, instead of mischaracterizing my comments.

As for Fort, Fishback never denied the allegation they were having sex. He merely said it was consensual. He admitted to shacking up with her when she turned 18. So, what we have is undisputed (if not confirmed) fornication on the part of Fishback. And it's seedy at that, followed by harassment, and allegations of physical abuse.

Did you also hear that he told the black reporter who confronted him on the allegations that he needed to be lynched?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/republican-florida-governor-race-tells-191737975.html

He sounds like a real, "great" Christian, that Fishback. Of course, any person who listens to Nick Fuentes lacks the moral compass to make such judgments in the first place.

Son, don't fool yourself - you're as dumb as a box of rocks. You think the word games and intellectual dishonesty you regularly engage in on these boards makes you smart. You're not. My teen has better reasoning skills than you.

The good news, you're young and stupid, instead of just stupid, so there's still hope for you. Don't go the way of barbearian.




Oh man… you and Jasmine Crockett are living proof that anyone can pass the bar exam.

The act of living together is not sexual if you're not having sex, therefore it's not fornication. And it is not certain whether or not they had sex, as he hasn't commented on it so it's not definitive.

Hypothetically, if he did have sex, would that make him a bad person? You voted for Trump and he's the king of fornication lmao! So obviously none of this has to do with pre-martial sex, it's because he's not an Israel-first goyim like yourself.

And ya I saw that clip, it was awesome!

Of course, he didn't admit he had sex with an 18 year old after shacking up with her, son. How else could naive imbeciles like yourself try to argue that nothing sexual ever happened? LOL.

She already told us they did, and he never denied it of course, but instead just claimed they were in a consensual, romantic relationship. But perhaps they're both lying and it was a nonsexual relationship, lol. Lots of people in romantic relationships move in together and don't have sex. LOL.

As for whether having sex makes him a bad person, we are all sinners that fall short of the glory of God. But you made the statement that Fishback was a "good" man. That statement doesn't seem to comport with a guy who allegedly had sex with a 17 year old, then shacked up with her after she turned 18, and then had a TRO filed against him for harassment and physical abuse. The latter two issues aren't in dispute.

For the record, I don't think Trump is a good person or a Christian. But I never touted him as a good person, as you did with Fishback.

As for his statement that a black person should be lynched being funny, no surprise you liked his racist comment. Bird of a feather.

I suspect you got your ass kicked a lot as a younger man. Amiright?

BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:




I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?

You state these kind of half-truths and allege others are dishonest? Remarkable.

Keinah Fort wasn't a mere employee of Fishback's organization. She was a student at the high school who partnered with Fishback's organization. She was on the debate team in high school, and she was trained by Fishback and his organization (i.e. his student). She later joined the organization as a student-employee. She alleges that the romantic relationship began when she was only 17, which makes sense given they moved into together about 2 weeks after she turned 18. She later filed a TRO against him for stalking behavior. The judge ultimately denied the TRO but warned him to stay away from the teen.

But regardless of the seediness of the relationship, what Catholic doctrine and all Christian doctrine teaches is that fornication, or sex with someone before marriage, is sexual sin. Shacking up with someone who isn't your wife, regardless of her age, is sin. It's just more seedy and sick in this case, given how the relationship began and the age of the parties.

I truly can't believe I am having to explain these simple truths about sin to you. You should know these things already.

You have much to learn.


You said she was his student, that was wrong. Now you're saying that they were having sex, how do you know that? There's no definitive proof of that.

And for what it's worth, every man sins. Doesn't mean they're necessarily a bad person.

I can't believe I have to continue cleaning up after you. It's become a second full-time job for me.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I never said they had sex. I said they had a romantic relationship and shacked up. These are undisputed facts.

Your idea that they were living together and not having sex is your assumption. I believe what she said in her lawsuit - that the relationship was sexual and began when she was 17. If you want to believe the relationship wasn't sexual, well, ok. Even Fishback, while denying he began sleeping with her when she was 17, hasn't gone that far.

Personally, I don't know of any adult men who shacked up with a girl two weeks after she turned 18, against her parents' wishes. I also don't know too many who've had TROs filed against them for stalking. And I've known some pretty sinful dudes over the years, before they met Christ.

But if you want to believe Fishback is a "good" person, ok.

And indeed, she was his student - she was learning debate tactics under his tutelage. I never said that was a public teacher-student relationship. Again, reading comprehension...


Then why would you bring up the fact that fornication is a sin if you weren't insinuating that they were having sex? Constantly moving the goal posts over here hahaha

What are you, a public defender?

So, fornication is defined in scripture as ANY form of sexual contact, not simply sex or intercourse. So if you're fooling around with someone not your wife, you are engaged in fornication.

Regardless, Fort confirmed the relationship was sexual, and Fishback confirmed he was "engaged" to her and moved in with her 2 weeks after she turned 18, so the idea that they weren't have some sexual contact is just stupid.

Do you always play dumb, or only when it suits your purposes - kind of like your Catholcism?


The Greek word for fornication translates to "porneia", which can mean premarital sex, prostitution, adultery, or other illicit sexual acts.

Living with someone out of wedlock doesn't necessarily equate to "porneia". Fort says they were engaging in sexual acts but that's all he said/she said.

They were engaged early on in their relationship, and Fishback married his current wife after a short time. Perhaps he gets engaged after a short time because he doesn't want to engage in premarital fornication?

The fact of the matter, I may play dumb but you're just plain dumb.

I am glad you were able to admit that fornication includes sexual acts other than just sex or intercourse - just like I explained to you. That must have been a blow to your massive ego. Perhaps next time you will read a little closer, instead of mischaracterizing my comments.

As for Fort, Fishback never denied the allegation they were having sex. He merely said it was consensual. He admitted to shacking up with her when she turned 18. So, what we have is undisputed (if not confirmed) fornication on the part of Fishback. And it's seedy at that, followed by harassment, and allegations of physical abuse.

Did you also hear that he told the black reporter who confronted him on the allegations that he needed to be lynched?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/republican-florida-governor-race-tells-191737975.html

He sounds like a real, "great" Christian, that Fishback. Of course, any person who listens to Nick Fuentes lacks the moral compass to make such judgments in the first place.

Son, don't fool yourself - you're as dumb as a box of rocks. You think the word games and intellectual dishonesty you regularly engage in on these boards makes you smart. You're not. My teen has better reasoning skills than you.

The good news, you're young and stupid, instead of just stupid, so there's still hope for you. Don't go the way of barbearian.




Oh man… you and Jasmine Crockett are living proof that anyone can pass the bar exam.

The act of living together is not sexual if you're not having sex, therefore it's not fornication. And it is not certain whether or not they had sex, as he hasn't commented on it so it's not definitive.

Hypothetically, if he did have sex, would that make him a bad person? You voted for Trump and he's the king of fornication lmao! So obviously none of this has to do with pre-martial sex, it's because he's not an Israel-first goyim like yourself.

And ya I saw that clip, it was awesome!


I suspect you got your ass kicked a lot as a younger man. Amiright?




Nope, but watching a grown man fall apart like this is hilarious, your ego is so fragile LOL
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:




I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?

You state these kind of half-truths and allege others are dishonest? Remarkable.

Keinah Fort wasn't a mere employee of Fishback's organization. She was a student at the high school who partnered with Fishback's organization. She was on the debate team in high school, and she was trained by Fishback and his organization (i.e. his student). She later joined the organization as a student-employee. She alleges that the romantic relationship began when she was only 17, which makes sense given they moved into together about 2 weeks after she turned 18. She later filed a TRO against him for stalking behavior. The judge ultimately denied the TRO but warned him to stay away from the teen.

But regardless of the seediness of the relationship, what Catholic doctrine and all Christian doctrine teaches is that fornication, or sex with someone before marriage, is sexual sin. Shacking up with someone who isn't your wife, regardless of her age, is sin. It's just more seedy and sick in this case, given how the relationship began and the age of the parties.

I truly can't believe I am having to explain these simple truths about sin to you. You should know these things already.

You have much to learn.


You said she was his student, that was wrong. Now you're saying that they were having sex, how do you know that? There's no definitive proof of that.

And for what it's worth, every man sins. Doesn't mean they're necessarily a bad person.

I can't believe I have to continue cleaning up after you. It's become a second full-time job for me.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I never said they had sex. I said they had a romantic relationship and shacked up. These are undisputed facts.

Your idea that they were living together and not having sex is your assumption. I believe what she said in her lawsuit - that the relationship was sexual and began when she was 17. If you want to believe the relationship wasn't sexual, well, ok. Even Fishback, while denying he began sleeping with her when she was 17, hasn't gone that far.

Personally, I don't know of any adult men who shacked up with a girl two weeks after she turned 18, against her parents' wishes. I also don't know too many who've had TROs filed against them for stalking. And I've known some pretty sinful dudes over the years, before they met Christ.

But if you want to believe Fishback is a "good" person, ok.

And indeed, she was his student - she was learning debate tactics under his tutelage. I never said that was a public teacher-student relationship. Again, reading comprehension...


Then why would you bring up the fact that fornication is a sin if you weren't insinuating that they were having sex? Constantly moving the goal posts over here hahaha

What are you, a public defender?

So, fornication is defined in scripture as ANY form of sexual contact, not simply sex or intercourse. So if you're fooling around with someone not your wife, you are engaged in fornication.

Regardless, Fort confirmed the relationship was sexual, and Fishback confirmed he was "engaged" to her and moved in with her 2 weeks after she turned 18, so the idea that they weren't have some sexual contact is just stupid.

Do you always play dumb, or only when it suits your purposes - kind of like your Catholcism?


The Greek word for fornication translates to "porneia", which can mean premarital sex, prostitution, adultery, or other illicit sexual acts.

Living with someone out of wedlock doesn't necessarily equate to "porneia". Fort says they were engaging in sexual acts but that's all he said/she said.

They were engaged early on in their relationship, and Fishback married his current wife after a short time. Perhaps he gets engaged after a short time because he doesn't want to engage in premarital fornication?

The fact of the matter, I may play dumb but you're just plain dumb.

I am glad you were able to admit that fornication includes sexual acts other than just sex or intercourse - just like I explained to you. That must have been a blow to your massive ego. Perhaps next time you will read a little closer, instead of mischaracterizing my comments.

As for Fort, Fishback never denied the allegation they were having sex. He merely said it was consensual. He admitted to shacking up with her when she turned 18. So, what we have is undisputed (if not confirmed) fornication on the part of Fishback. And it's seedy at that, followed by harassment, and allegations of physical abuse.

Did you also hear that he told the black reporter who confronted him on the allegations that he needed to be lynched?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/republican-florida-governor-race-tells-191737975.html

He sounds like a real, "great" Christian, that Fishback. Of course, any person who listens to Nick Fuentes lacks the moral compass to make such judgments in the first place.

Son, don't fool yourself - you're as dumb as a box of rocks. You think the word games and intellectual dishonesty you regularly engage in on these boards makes you smart. You're not. My teen has better reasoning skills than you.

The good news, you're young and stupid, instead of just stupid, so there's still hope for you. Don't go the way of barbearian.




Oh man… you and Jasmine Crockett are living proof that anyone can pass the bar exam.

The act of living together is not sexual if you're not having sex, therefore it's not fornication. And it is not certain whether or not they had sex, as he hasn't commented on it so it's not definitive.

Hypothetically, if he did have sex, would that make him a bad person? You voted for Trump and he's the king of fornication lmao! So obviously none of this has to do with pre-martial sex, it's because he's not an Israel-first goyim like yourself.

And ya I saw that clip, it was awesome!


I suspect you got your ass kicked a lot as a younger man. Amiright?




Nope, but watching a grown man fall apart like this is hilarious, your ego is so fragile LOL


I feel bad for his children.

Hopefully they can forgive their father for being a complete fool.
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:




I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?

You state these kind of half-truths and allege others are dishonest? Remarkable.

Keinah Fort wasn't a mere employee of Fishback's organization. She was a student at the high school who partnered with Fishback's organization. She was on the debate team in high school, and she was trained by Fishback and his organization (i.e. his student). She later joined the organization as a student-employee. She alleges that the romantic relationship began when she was only 17, which makes sense given they moved into together about 2 weeks after she turned 18. She later filed a TRO against him for stalking behavior. The judge ultimately denied the TRO but warned him to stay away from the teen.

But regardless of the seediness of the relationship, what Catholic doctrine and all Christian doctrine teaches is that fornication, or sex with someone before marriage, is sexual sin. Shacking up with someone who isn't your wife, regardless of her age, is sin. It's just more seedy and sick in this case, given how the relationship began and the age of the parties.

I truly can't believe I am having to explain these simple truths about sin to you. You should know these things already.

You have much to learn.


You said she was his student, that was wrong. Now you're saying that they were having sex, how do you know that? There's no definitive proof of that.

And for what it's worth, every man sins. Doesn't mean they're necessarily a bad person.

I can't believe I have to continue cleaning up after you. It's become a second full-time job for me.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I never said they had sex. I said they had a romantic relationship and shacked up. These are undisputed facts.

Your idea that they were living together and not having sex is your assumption. I believe what she said in her lawsuit - that the relationship was sexual and began when she was 17. If you want to believe the relationship wasn't sexual, well, ok. Even Fishback, while denying he began sleeping with her when she was 17, hasn't gone that far.

Personally, I don't know of any adult men who shacked up with a girl two weeks after she turned 18, against her parents' wishes. I also don't know too many who've had TROs filed against them for stalking. And I've known some pretty sinful dudes over the years, before they met Christ.

But if you want to believe Fishback is a "good" person, ok.

And indeed, she was his student - she was learning debate tactics under his tutelage. I never said that was a public teacher-student relationship. Again, reading comprehension...


Then why would you bring up the fact that fornication is a sin if you weren't insinuating that they were having sex? Constantly moving the goal posts over here hahaha

What are you, a public defender?

So, fornication is defined in scripture as ANY form of sexual contact, not simply sex or intercourse. So if you're fooling around with someone not your wife, you are engaged in fornication.

Regardless, Fort confirmed the relationship was sexual, and Fishback confirmed he was "engaged" to her and moved in with her 2 weeks after she turned 18, so the idea that they weren't have some sexual contact is just stupid.

Do you always play dumb, or only when it suits your purposes - kind of like your Catholcism?


The Greek word for fornication translates to "porneia", which can mean premarital sex, prostitution, adultery, or other illicit sexual acts.

Living with someone out of wedlock doesn't necessarily equate to "porneia". Fort says they were engaging in sexual acts but that's all he said/she said.

They were engaged early on in their relationship, and Fishback married his current wife after a short time. Perhaps he gets engaged after a short time because he doesn't want to engage in premarital fornication?

The fact of the matter, I may play dumb but you're just plain dumb.

I am glad you were able to admit that fornication includes sexual acts other than just sex or intercourse - just like I explained to you. That must have been a blow to your massive ego. Perhaps next time you will read a little closer, instead of mischaracterizing my comments.

As for Fort, Fishback never denied the allegation they were having sex. He merely said it was consensual. He admitted to shacking up with her when she turned 18. So, what we have is undisputed (if not confirmed) fornication on the part of Fishback. And it's seedy at that, followed by harassment, and allegations of physical abuse.

Did you also hear that he told the black reporter who confronted him on the allegations that he needed to be lynched?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/republican-florida-governor-race-tells-191737975.html

He sounds like a real, "great" Christian, that Fishback. Of course, any person who listens to Nick Fuentes lacks the moral compass to make such judgments in the first place.

Son, don't fool yourself - you're as dumb as a box of rocks. You think the word games and intellectual dishonesty you regularly engage in on these boards makes you smart. You're not. My teen has better reasoning skills than you.

The good news, you're young and stupid, instead of just stupid, so there's still hope for you. Don't go the way of barbearian.




Oh man… you and Jasmine Crockett are living proof that anyone can pass the bar exam.

The act of living together is not sexual if you're not having sex, therefore it's not fornication. And it is not certain whether or not they had sex, as he hasn't commented on it so it's not definitive.

Hypothetically, if he did have sex, would that make him a bad person? You voted for Trump and he's the king of fornication lmao! So obviously none of this has to do with pre-martial sex, it's because he's not an Israel-first goyim like yourself.

And ya I saw that clip, it was awesome!


I suspect you got your ass kicked a lot as a younger man. Amiright?




Nope, but watching a grown man fall apart like this is hilarious, your ego is so fragile LOL


I feel bad for his children.

Hopefully they can forgive their father for being a complete fool.


I know one of them is my age. That means he's probably anti-Zionist because I don't know anyone from our generation who isn't lol
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wait??? HE NEED TO APOLOGIZE?!?! He was the victim... they doxxed him for simply saying he wasnt interested in PRIVATE communication!

The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

The_barBEARian said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

muddybrazos said:




I have to give it to Fishback bc he is based and not afraid to tell the truth. We need more people standing up and committing to stopping teen takeovers and black violence in our cities.


He's a good man. Black crime is major taboo topic to discuss, we need more honest leaders who aren't afraid to confront the issue.


Well except for shacking up with teenagers and having restraining orders filed against you and all.


There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. You're reaching as per usual, because you have nothing else


Ah so you see nothing wrong with a teacher who claims to be a purported Christian grooming his underage student and then moving in with her as soon as she turns 18 while he's almost 10 years older? That's just two "consenting adults" and evidence that said teacher is a "good man"?

Lol. I guess you put your purported Catholic faith on pause when it suits your purposes.

You're an absolute joke.


She wasn't his student, she worked for the organization. I don't recall the biblical teaching that says an employee can't be in a relationship with his/her employer.

Why are you so dishonest?

You state these kind of half-truths and allege others are dishonest? Remarkable.

Keinah Fort wasn't a mere employee of Fishback's organization. She was a student at the high school who partnered with Fishback's organization. She was on the debate team in high school, and she was trained by Fishback and his organization (i.e. his student). She later joined the organization as a student-employee. She alleges that the romantic relationship began when she was only 17, which makes sense given they moved into together about 2 weeks after she turned 18. She later filed a TRO against him for stalking behavior. The judge ultimately denied the TRO but warned him to stay away from the teen.

But regardless of the seediness of the relationship, what Catholic doctrine and all Christian doctrine teaches is that fornication, or sex with someone before marriage, is sexual sin. Shacking up with someone who isn't your wife, regardless of her age, is sin. It's just more seedy and sick in this case, given how the relationship began and the age of the parties.

I truly can't believe I am having to explain these simple truths about sin to you. You should know these things already.

You have much to learn.


You said she was his student, that was wrong. Now you're saying that they were having sex, how do you know that? There's no definitive proof of that.

And for what it's worth, every man sins. Doesn't mean they're necessarily a bad person.

I can't believe I have to continue cleaning up after you. It's become a second full-time job for me.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I never said they had sex. I said they had a romantic relationship and shacked up. These are undisputed facts.

Your idea that they were living together and not having sex is your assumption. I believe what she said in her lawsuit - that the relationship was sexual and began when she was 17. If you want to believe the relationship wasn't sexual, well, ok. Even Fishback, while denying he began sleeping with her when she was 17, hasn't gone that far.

Personally, I don't know of any adult men who shacked up with a girl two weeks after she turned 18, against her parents' wishes. I also don't know too many who've had TROs filed against them for stalking. And I've known some pretty sinful dudes over the years, before they met Christ.

But if you want to believe Fishback is a "good" person, ok.

And indeed, she was his student - she was learning debate tactics under his tutelage. I never said that was a public teacher-student relationship. Again, reading comprehension...


Then why would you bring up the fact that fornication is a sin if you weren't insinuating that they were having sex? Constantly moving the goal posts over here hahaha

What are you, a public defender?

So, fornication is defined in scripture as ANY form of sexual contact, not simply sex or intercourse. So if you're fooling around with someone not your wife, you are engaged in fornication.

Regardless, Fort confirmed the relationship was sexual, and Fishback confirmed he was "engaged" to her and moved in with her 2 weeks after she turned 18, so the idea that they weren't have some sexual contact is just stupid.

Do you always play dumb, or only when it suits your purposes - kind of like your Catholcism?


The Greek word for fornication translates to "porneia", which can mean premarital sex, prostitution, adultery, or other illicit sexual acts.

Living with someone out of wedlock doesn't necessarily equate to "porneia". Fort says they were engaging in sexual acts but that's all he said/she said.

They were engaged early on in their relationship, and Fishback married his current wife after a short time. Perhaps he gets engaged after a short time because he doesn't want to engage in premarital fornication?

The fact of the matter, I may play dumb but you're just plain dumb.

I am glad you were able to admit that fornication includes sexual acts other than just sex or intercourse - just like I explained to you. That must have been a blow to your massive ego. Perhaps next time you will read a little closer, instead of mischaracterizing my comments.

As for Fort, Fishback never denied the allegation they were having sex. He merely said it was consensual. He admitted to shacking up with her when she turned 18. So, what we have is undisputed (if not confirmed) fornication on the part of Fishback. And it's seedy at that, followed by harassment, and allegations of physical abuse.

Did you also hear that he told the black reporter who confronted him on the allegations that he needed to be lynched?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/republican-florida-governor-race-tells-191737975.html

He sounds like a real, "great" Christian, that Fishback. Of course, any person who listens to Nick Fuentes lacks the moral compass to make such judgments in the first place.

Son, don't fool yourself - you're as dumb as a box of rocks. You think the word games and intellectual dishonesty you regularly engage in on these boards makes you smart. You're not. My teen has better reasoning skills than you.

The good news, you're young and stupid, instead of just stupid, so there's still hope for you. Don't go the way of barbearian.




Oh man… you and Jasmine Crockett are living proof that anyone can pass the bar exam.

The act of living together is not sexual if you're not having sex, therefore it's not fornication. And it is not certain whether or not they had sex, as he hasn't commented on it so it's not definitive.

Hypothetically, if he did have sex, would that make him a bad person? You voted for Trump and he's the king of fornication lmao! So obviously none of this has to do with pre-martial sex, it's because he's not an Israel-first goyim like yourself.

And ya I saw that clip, it was awesome!


I suspect you got your ass kicked a lot as a younger man. Amiright?




Nope, but watching a grown man fall apart like this is hilarious, your ego is so fragile LOL


I feel bad for his children.

Hopefully they can forgive their father for being a complete fool.


I know one of them is my age. That means he's probably anti-Zionist because I don't know anyone from our generation who isn't lol


He brags about a story where some kids were disparaging Israel in the football locker room and his son walked up to them and beat the **** out of all of them... its amazing his son wasnt expelled for that! (But Mothra is also full of **** so I put the odds of that story really happening around < 0.000001
First Page Last Page
Page 100 of 106
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.