LIBERALS GET PWN3D AT WALMART LMAO!!!

You'll Hear 'Merry Christmas' at Wal-Mart Again!

:peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter

Quote:

---

(Little Rock, Arkansas) - It's 45 days until Christmas and there's no bah humbug at Wal-Mart stores for the 2006 holiday season. The aisles may be empty now, but a store spokesperson says Christmas is back and better than ever.

"You know we've learned our lesson, and this year we aren't afraid to say ‘Merry Christmas.’ So Christmas is officially back at Wal-Mart," says Marisa Bluestone.

The change comes after several groups boycotted the retail giant for saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”

---

More at link....
http://www.wltx.com/FYI/story.aspx?storyid=43890

:peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter

:claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps

There you go lieberals. You can keep your stupid protests about wages and such. This is how the Christian right gets results. We don't bitch, we don't moan, we get results! Endless protesting is for losers, losers!

Wait, it's even better. I know you people are dialing the ACLU up, but save it, losers.

Separation of Church and Walmart ain't in the constitution! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

How about another dose of liberal/socialist hypocracy:

John Edwards _ a vocal critic of the retailer _ asked his local Wal- Mart store for help in getting the potential 2008 presidential candidate a Sony PlayStation 3. Edwards said a volunteer did so by mistake.

Edwards told The Associated Press that the volunteer "feels terrible" about seeking the game unit at Wal-Mart a day after his boss criticized the company, saying it doesn't treat its employees fairly.

Wal-Mart had noted in a news release Thursday that on the same day Edwards was criticizing the company in a conference call with union- backed activists, the volunteer staff member had asked a Raleigh, N.C., electronics department manager to obtain a PS3 for the ex- senator's family.

From Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., company spokesman David Tovar said the person who called left a voicemail at the Raleigh store and identified himself as an Edwards staff member. When the manager returned the call, the staff member again identified himself as working for Edwards, and Wal-Mart said it confirmed that with Edwards' office.

The retailer's news release accused Edwards of not wanting to wait his turn.

"While the rest of America's working families are waiting patiently in line, Senator Edwards wants to cut to the front," the Wal-Mart statement said. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/16/D8LEJIOO0.html

Interesting how you quote the article but leave out the parts that don't seem to corroborate your story, WMC. But, thankfully, you've given us the link so we can reach our own conclusions.

Quote:

---

Edwards told The Associated Press that the volunteer "feels terrible" about seeking the game unit at Wal-Mart a day after his boss criticized the company, saying it doesn't treat its employees fairly.

"My wife, Elizabeth, wanted to get a Playstation3 for my young children. She mentioned it in front of one of my staff people," Edwards said. "That staff person mentioned it in front of a volunteer who said he would make an effort to get one. He was making an effort to go get one for himself.

"Elizabeth and I knew nothing about this. He feels terrible about this. He made a mistake, and he knows he should not have used my name," Edwards said.

Edwards said the volunteer was "a young kid" unaware of what he called flawed Wal-Mart policies. He called the Wal-Mart statement an effort to divert attention from its own problems.

After Wal-Mart this summer hired Edelman executive Leslie Dach as its public relations director and put him on the company's executive team, analysts said the retailer would likely become more aggressive toward its critics.

Wal-Mart had noted in a news release Thursday that on the same day Edwards was criticizing the company in a conference call with union- backed activists, the volunteer staff member had asked a Raleigh, N.C., electronics department manager to obtain a PS3 for the ex- senator's family.

---

I don't know whether Edwards is telling the truth or lying. All I know is that your posts are riddled with bias and you mangle each and every fact to suit your points.

And we won't be fooled that easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LG

Interesting how you quote the article but leave out the parts that don't seem to corroborate your story, WMC. But, thankfully, you've given us the link so we can reach our own conclusions.

Quote:

---

Edwards told The Associated Press that the volunteer "feels terrible" about seeking the game unit at Wal-Mart a day after his boss criticized the company, saying it doesn't treat its employees fairly.

"My wife, Elizabeth, wanted to get a Playstation3 for my young children. She mentioned it in front of one of my staff people," Edwards said. "That staff person mentioned it in front of a volunteer who said he would make an effort to get one. He was making an effort to go get one for himself.

"Elizabeth and I knew nothing about this. He feels terrible about this. He made a mistake, and he knows he should not have used my name," Edwards said.

Edwards said the volunteer was "a young kid" unaware of what he called flawed Wal-Mart policies. He called the Wal-Mart statement an effort to divert attention from its own problems.

After Wal-Mart this summer hired Edelman executive Leslie Dach as its public relations director and put him on the company's executive team, analysts said the retailer would likely become more aggressive toward its critics.

Wal-Mart had noted in a news release Thursday that on the same day Edwards was criticizing the company in a conference call with union- backed activists, the volunteer staff member had asked a Raleigh, N.C., electronics department manager to obtain a PS3 for the ex- senator's family.

---

I don't know whether Edwards is telling the truth or lying. All I know is that your posts are riddled with bias and you mangle each and every fact to suit your points.

And we won't be fooled that easily.

---

So Edwards` volunteers are so fucking stupid they can`t even remember what Edwards just said about Walmart ? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFan

There you go lieberals. You can keep your stupid protests about wages and such. This is how the Christian right gets results. We don't bitch, we don't moan, we get results! Endless protesting is for losers, losers!

Wait, it's even better. I know you people are dialing the ACLU up, but save it, losers.

---

Hey, since you're a member of the religious right, why don't you explain this article I found on CitizenLink.

Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many
from staff reports

The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.


A study commissioned by the U.S. government says about 1 percent of Web sites indexed by Google and Microsoft are sexually explicit.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) contends the study proves a point: Internet filters are doing their job. After all, they say, 1 percent is miniscule. But anti-porn lawyers say the percentage is deceptive.

One percent of all Web sites is still a huge number, according to Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America.

"If there are 1 percent of those that are pornographic, that would mean that there are over 1 million," LaRue told Family News in Focus. "It’s not just how many porn sites there are, but which sites on the Internet are getting the most traffic. Every survey we've ever seen indicates the sex and pornography Web sites are the top hits."

The study follows on the heels of the Justice Department’s plan to restore the 1998 Child Online Protection Act. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional, in large part, because the ACLU argued filtering software would curb the problem better than a law. But that theory is full of loopholes, according to Pat Trueman of the Alliance Defense Fund.

"Since we know that most parents won’t block or won’t effectively block pornography, that is not an effective means," Trueman said. "The ACLU just flat out doesn’t care about kids in this instance; they care about this phony notion that the First Amendment protects any communication – even pornography."




One porn site is too many...think HungAngels qualifies as porn?

And how do you defend the lawyer that said we must eliminate porn because parents can't be trusted to do it themselves? Any government that does that is LITERALLY being a nanny state, thought that was something only the liberals did...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LoadedRevolver66

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFan

There you go lieberals. You can keep your stupid protests about wages and such. This is how the Christian right gets results. We don't bitch, we don't moan, we get results! Endless protesting is for losers, losers!

Wait, it's even better. I know you people are dialing the ACLU up, but save it, losers.

---

Hey, since you're a member of the religious right, why don't you explain this article I found on CitizenLink.

Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many
from staff reports

The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.


A study commissioned by the U.S. government says about 1 percent of Web sites indexed by Google and Microsoft are sexually explicit.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) contends the study proves a point: Internet filters are doing their job. After all, they say, 1 percent is miniscule. But anti-porn lawyers say the percentage is deceptive.

One percent of all Web sites is still a huge number, according to Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America.

"If there are 1 percent of those that are pornographic, that would mean that there are over 1 million," LaRue told Family News in Focus. "It’s not just how many porn sites there are, but which sites on the Internet are getting the most traffic. Every survey we've ever seen indicates the sex and pornography Web sites are the top hits."

The study follows on the heels of the Justice Department’s plan to restore the 1998 Child Online Protection Act. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional, in large part, because the ACLU argued filtering software would curb the problem better than a law. But that theory is full of loopholes, according to Pat Trueman of the Alliance Defense Fund.

"Since we know that most parents won’t block or won’t effectively block pornography, that is not an effective means," Trueman said. "The ACLU just flat out doesn’t care about kids in this instance; they care about this phony notion that the First Amendment protects any communication – even pornography."




One porn site is too many...think HungAngels qualifies as porn?

And how do you defend the lawyer that said we must eliminate porn because parents can't be trusted to do it themselves? Any government that does that is LITERALLY being a nanny state, thought that was something only the liberals did...

---

Yeah we've already had this discussion, noob. Thanks for your contribution to this thread, though.

TFan posted this:

Quote:

---

Separation of Church and Walmart ain't in the constitution!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
How%20the%20George%20Stole%20Christmas.jpg: 148 Time(s) Viewed, 27.15 KB
http://www.hungangels.com/board/file...istmas_206.jpg

---

I'm surprise you have the nerve to post an image like that on a transexual website, TFan..

And did not Jesus say something like "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let him without sin cast the first stone"?

And, doesn't God love everybody?

For an interesting article written by a Presbyterian pastor entitled "Real Christians don't gay bash", look here:
http://www.metrobeat.net/gbase/Exped...oid=oid%3A3947

Quote:

---

I'm surprise you have the nerve to post an image like that on a transexual website, TFan..

---

What's so surprising? Is this a website about transexuals or gays? I'm not sure what the two have to do with each other.

Quote:

---

And did not Jesus say something like "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let him without sin cast the first stone"?

---

I'm so glad that so many on this message board are quoting scripture. It makes me feel good about you.

The bible consistently instructs Christians to use judgement and decide between right and wrong.

The Ten Commandments, for example, is basically God telling you what behavior is right and which behavior is wrong and to use that instruction as basis for many other moral decisions.

Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven."

What Jesus preached on the plain is DO NOT CONDEMN. By this, we do not condemn homosexuals. But they are, in the simplest of terms, wrong.

In short, Jesus was teaching "Treat others how you would like to be treated", which is also what the current American Constitution and Empancipation proclaimation teach. The book of Luke is indeed,very American. Which makes sense since this country was founded by Christians on Christian values.

Quote:

---

And, doesn't God love everybody?

---

Yes, even all of us sinners. I like to rip the tags off of new mattresses with my hands, myself. But I'm getting better.

Quote:

---

For an interesting article written by a Presbyterian pastor entitled "Real Christians don't gay bash", look here:
http://www.metrobeat.net/gbase/Exped...oid=oid%3A3947

---

Don't need to read that one because I already know that. Christians don't gay bash, we don't condemn but we do judge between right and wrong based on Gods word.

I don't know...if you disagree with all the communist propaganda on this board you get bashed but I guess right wing bashing is OK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guyone

I don't know...if you disagree with all the communist propaganda on this board you get bashed but I guess right wing bashing is OK?

---

why don´t you tell your super-patriot friends what you´re into?

this is not a gay-board but transsexuals and those who love them are only accepted by people with a liberal attitude.