About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

March 29, 2014 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 29 March 2014

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment170

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (170)

Login to comment or vote

UglyTruth

Trust me, if I have established anything, it is that UT’s take on Scripture is batshit crazy.

Why would anyone trust you? Remember the Anglican involvement in the Canadian genocide?

His whacky notion that one part of Revelations supports the 19th century Khazar theory that the Jews are not really Jews is one of the worst examples of abusing Scripture I have ever seen.

Not my notion. Jews that are not really Jews is a contradiction in terms.
What Rev 2 refers to is: “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan”.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:09pm
ShawnLH

“Why would anyone trust you?”

I’m a trustworthy guy. 🙂

“Remember the Anglican involvement in the Canadian genocide?”

Assuming your take on that is correct, are you saying I was personally involved? They were your ancestors, not mine.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:14pm
griffith

It would already be a four decades of anti church subversion too late.
The memories of successive pastor, priest missionary JW morman and catholic daughters all keen to throw off the shackles of their closeted lifes and their virginity at this poor confused atheist will always make me grin.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:14pm
nasska

What’s your secret Griff? 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:17pm
UglyTruth

I’m a trustworthy guy.

Why would anyone believe that, after your little excursion into deceit, ie “Jews are not really Jews”?

Assuming your take on that is correct, are you saying I was personally involved?

No. I’m simply questioning your integrity because of your history of deceit and your religious affiliation.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:24pm
ShawnLH

Got another Lizard people video UT? Those are a hoot! 🙂
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:30pm
griffith

poor confused atheist

nice puppy

cute little confused atheist.

pat..pat

…..

Committed, Atheist , Teen age,Over Sexed,Spawn from Hell.

I think they were attracted to the mental freedom and alternative structure of morality I embodied.

Long time ago nasska..

Just a grin now….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:31pm
Nostradamus

UglyTruth:

Just for those of us who don’t read the same websites as you, and who clearly aren’t as well informed, could you please rank the following in order of batshit craziness:

– UFOs were <<< over here <<<
– Lizard people walk amongst us
– 9/11 was an inside job
– Queen Elizabeth ate Canadian children
– Moon landings were faked
– JFK was an inside job

Did I miss anything?
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:34pm
nasska

Think of the poor respectable, God-fearing men they married Griff. 🙂

Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wsk9teahk8nfmex/married_man.JPG
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:35pm
Johnboy

“Did I miss anything?”

Maori love and cherish their children? 🙂
3 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:37pm
RichardX

ShawnLH (764 comments) says:
March 29th, 2014 at 12:01 am
No Evidence of the Supernatural?
Skeptics claim that there is no evidence that any kind of spiritual realm exists. However, scientific studies show the efficacy of intercessory prayer and the effects of religion on personal health. In addition, there is evidence of a spiritual realm that is devoted to the promulgation of evil.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evidence_of_the_supernatural.html

The scientific evidence is against you on the efficacy of intercessory prayer and as far as the effects of religion on personal health, no one denies the placebo effect
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-prayer-prescription/
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-power-of-faith-and-prayer/

This last one is just for the balance against your apologetics website
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/05/15/study-concludes-intercessory-prayer-doesnt-work-christians-twist-the-results/
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:38pm
Johnboy

Hell your fast Minus! 🙂
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:39pm
UglyTruth

Got another Lizard people video UT? Those are a hoot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmnTXhm2Its
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:39pm
ShawnLH

RichardX,

I already checked those out this morning.

“The placebo effect”

Riiiiiiight 🙂

Give it a rest. I’m trying to give the others a break from these debates.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:41pm
Johnboy

Hell Minus has a buddy! 🙂
4 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:43pm
SPC

UT, the term “those who say they are Jews and are not” had a meaning nearly 2000 years ago. Thus this meaning is not specific to Khazars converting to Judaism centuries later.

Do you think Jews have to be of the male line of Abraham? Thus those who are not and who convert to Judaism are not Jews? Are those who are born to Jewish women but also not of the male line of Abraham, not Jews? Do Jews have to obey the Torah law of the covenant nation to be Jews?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:45pm
UglyTruth

Queen Elizabeth ate Canadian children

What the witness said is that the children were never seen again, not that they has been eaten. The witness was one of the survivors of the genocide, and he died in suspicious circumstances after he had given testimony.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:50pm
Nostradamus

UglyTruth:

What the witness said is that the children were never seen again, not that they has been eaten.

Are you saying that the entire case against Queen Elizabeth is based on one witness?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:51pm
ShawnLH

“Are you saying that the entire case against Queen Elizabeth is based on one witness?”

Of course not. There was a reptilian shapeshifter standing nearby on a grassy knoll as well. 😉
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:56pm
griffith

I helped cure most of the virus nasska. 😆
A few were already showing signs of neurosis that such a restrictive lifestyle and upbringing can bring about.
Some now have normal and sane and successful life’s away from the shackles of superstition. My sig others religious faith has been strong enough to batter my onslaught of rationality to a comfortable truce as long as we keep our relationships agreed degree of separation intact.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 9:57pm
ShawnLH

“Some now have normal and sane and successful life’s away from the shackles of superstition.”

Atheism? 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:03pm
UglyTruth

UT, the term “those who say they are Jews and are not” had a meaning nearly 2000 years ago. Thus this meaning is not specific to Khazars converting to
Judaism centuries later.

The Khazar angle was from ShawnLH, not from me.

Do you think Jews have to be of the male line of Abraham?

No, the house of Judah refers to a group of people, not just the males.
Also the house of Israel is a separate house. The two houses make up the 12 tribes.

Thus those who are not and who convert to Judaism are not Jews?

No, there is provision with Judasim for strangers to join them.

Are those who are born to Jewish women but also not of the male line of Abraham, not Jews?

Bloodline is only important in relation to the inheritance of the land. Historically the bloodlines have been patriarchal, not matriarchal.

Do Jews have to obey the Torah law of the covenant nation to be Jews?

Hard to say. It seems to be the general idea according to old-school Judasim, but today it seems to be not so much.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:03pm
UglyTruth

Are you saying that the entire case against Queen Elizabeth is based on one witness?

No, there is the historical context of her role as “supreme governor” of the Anglican church during the religious genocide.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:06pm
griffith

Nostradamus

More credible still twelfth year of age at the time of witnessing her friends disappear with Q. lizzy.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:09pm
Nostradamus

Ugly Truth:

You say “historical context” and “religious genocide” – but neither assertion is substantiated. Merely saying it, or linking to a non-mainstream website, doesn’t make it true. So what I’m trying to ascertain from you is precisely how many people you say supposedly saw Queen Elizabeth spiriting away children. More than one person, surely?
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:11pm
Don the Kiwi

nasska (9,296 comments) says:
March 29th, 2014 at 9:03 pm
Settle down there Griff…..best to keep Don onside.

If the worst comes to the worst he’s got the qualifications to do an exorcism on you. 🙂
Edit: He’s offering a March special…..20% off for Kiwiblog clients….for cash.

Gee nasska, thanks for the promotion.
Sadly, nowadays there’s no money in exorcism – at least, not the catholic variety – and I’m not an exorcist – that requires a lot more qualification than I’ve got.

But I can give a simple blessing, and there’s no fee attached to that.
But I’m sure you’re are such good guy you really don’t need that – even if you believed in it. 🙂
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:12pm
Johnboy

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/9883196/Drilling-rig-towed-to-gas-field-off-Taranaki

You can really only laugh at this shite otherwise you would get very sad! 🙂

“The drilling rig delivered to Admiralty Bay in the Marlborough Sounds on Wednesday was blessed by iwi before being taken under tow to its destination off Taranaki. “
3 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:13pm
Nostradamus

Don the Kiwi:

But I can give a simple blessing, and there’s no fee attached to that.

You’re clearly a charitable guy. Now, does the simple blessing come with a guarantee of success, or is it a case of hope for the best?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:17pm
UglyTruth

You say “historical context” and “religious genocide” – but neither assertion is substantiated. Merely saying it, or linking to a non-mainstream website, doesn’t make it true.

The truth isn’t limited to mainstream websites.

So what I’m trying to ascertain from you is precisely how many people you say supposedly saw Queen Elizabeth spiriting away children. More than one person, surely?

Yes, the witness said that 10 were taken from the group. AFAIK he didn’t know of any other surviving witnesses.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:20pm
ShawnLH

Boarding schools, both religious and secular during the 19th and early twentieth centuries were pretty appalling. UT is drawing a very long bow in claiming that the Queen is personally responsible for what happened in Canada, and is based on his confusion about the role of the Queen. The Queen is supreme governor only of the Church of England, not the Anglican Communion, and even then it is a ceremonial role only. The Anglican Church in Canada is not under the Queen, nor is any other Anglican province other than York and Canterbury (England).
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:21pm
Don the Kiwi

tradamus (2,713 comments) says:
March 29th, 2014 at 10:17 pm
Don the Kiwi:

Never any guarantees of success Nosti, simply a plea for divine assistance to remain on the straight and narrow – provided you live by the rules 🙂
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:25pm
UglyTruth

Boarding schools, both religious and secular during the 19th and early twentieth centuries were pretty appalling.

Yet the low survival rates and accounts of torture and murder of children paint a darker picture.

UT is drawing a very long bow in claiming that the Queen is personally responsible for what happened in Canada

And so the lying starts. I never claimed that Elizabeth was personally responsible, the genocide started long before her coronation.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:27pm
ShawnLH

“And so the lying starts. I never claimed that Elizabeth was personally responsible”

You have in fact claimed that the British Crown is responsible based on your mistaken notion that the Crown is supreme governor of the entire Anglican Communion. And you have claimed that the Queen kidnapped children.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:31pm
UglyTruth

You have in fact claimed that the British Crown is responsible based on your mistaken notion that the Crown is supreme governor of the entire Anglican Communion.

Wrong. Elizabeth was also the head of state of Canada during the latter part of the genocide, and the Canadian state was implicated.
The responsibility is not hers alone, but it happened under her watch and within her dominion.

And you have claimed that the Queen kidnapped children.

Quote where I said it or you are lying.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:38pm
ShawnLH

So what DID the Queen do then UT? Your story seems to be constantly changing.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:42pm
Nostradamus

UglyTruth:

I never claimed that Elizabeth was personally responsible, the genocide started long before her coronation.

I’ve just looked up some of your previous comments on this issue.

Exhibit A:

UglyTruth (2,511 comments) says:
March 24th, 2014 at 7:16 pm
…

Suffice to say, Ugly, that you are as wrong about this as you are about Queen Elizabeth

I wasn’t wrong about the involvement of the Anglican church in the Canadian genocide happening under her watch.
…

Exhibit B:

UglyTruth (2,511 comments) says:
March 24th, 2014 at 9:04 pm

But is she strong enough to personally strangle ten kids UT?

Who said that they were strangled?

Link

In October, 1964 when I was 12 years old, I was an inmate at the Kamloops school and we were visited by the Queen of England and Prince Phillip. I remember it was strange because they came by themselves, no big fanfare or nothing. But I recognized them and the school principal told us it was the Queen and we all got given new clothes and good food for the first time in months the day before she arrived.

The day the Queen got to the school, I was part of a group of kids that went on a picnic with her and her husband and some of the priests, down to a meadow near Dead Man’s Creek. I remember it was weird because we all had to bend down and kiss her foot, a white laced boot.

After awhile, I saw the Queen leave the picnic with ten children from the school, and those kids never returned. We never heard anything more about them and never met them again even when we were older. They were all from around there but they all vanished.

The group that disappeared was seven boys and three girls, in age from six to fourteen years old. They were all from the smart group in class. Two of the boys were brothers and they were Metis from Quesnel. Their last name was Arnuse or Arnold. I don’t remember the others, just an occasional first name like Cecilia and there was an Edward.

And Exhibit C:

UglyTruth (2,511 comments) says:
March 9th, 2014 at 3:43 pm

The fact that the house of Windsor had no involvement in the first place.

If you’re head of an organisation which is involved in criminal activity and you don’t oppose it then you’re complicit. I don’t accept that they were ignorant of what was going on there.

So, UglyTruth, you do seem to be saying (by endorsing the person quoted in your link) that Queen Elizabeth was directly responsible.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:42pm
ShawnLH

Seems to be quite a lot of lying from you UT.

“If you’re head of an organisation which is involved in criminal activity and you don’t oppose it then you’re complicit.”

Oops.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:47pm
UglyTruth

So, UglyTruth, you do seem to be saying (by endorsing the person quoted in your link) that Queen Elizabeth was directly responsible.

I have no reason to endorse William Coombes, I don’t know his background.

Like I said previously: Elizabeth was also the head of state of Canada during the latter part of the genocide, and the Canadian state was implicated.
The responsibility is not hers alone, but it happened under her watch and within her dominion.
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:47pm
ShawnLH

So what is the whole picnic story about then?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:51pm
UglyTruth

Seems to be quite a lot of lying from you UT.

For example? Responsibility and complicity are different things.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:52pm
ShawnLH

“Responsibility and complicity are different things.”

Not really.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:53pm
UglyTruth

The difference is that complicity acknowledges the involvement of others.

Did you learn calumny as part of your religious education, ShawnLH?
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:57pm
Nostradamus

UglyTruth:

I have no reason to endorse William Coombes, I don’t know his background.

Your case against Queen Elizabeth is (at least in part) based on William Coombes’ evidence. You said above that “The witness [ie Coombes] was one of the survivors of the genocide, and he died in suspicious circumstances after he had given testimony”.

Now, without Coombes’ evidence, what’s left to support your case against Queen Elizabeth?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 10:58pm
UglyTruth

Now, without Coombes’ evidence, what’s left to support your case against Queen Elizabeth?

Coombe’s evidence remains relevant without my endorsement.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:02pm
Sofia

Kamloops School is between Vancouver and Calgary, western Canada.
The Elizabeth II and The Duke of Edinburgh Tour 1964 was Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Quebec City in the East.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:02pm
ShawnLH

“The difference is that complicity acknowledges the involvement of others.”

It makes no moral difference. Complicity still means that those complicit in a crime are personally responsible.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:02pm
ShawnLH

“Coombe’s evidence remains relevant without my endorsement.”

You have posted it as part of your claims. That’s endorsing it.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:03pm
UglyTruth

You have posted it as part of your claims.

No, I have posted it in support of my claims.

Still no comment on your predisposition towards making false accusations, ShawnLH?
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:07pm
ShawnLH

“”You have posted it as part of your claims.”

No, I have posted it in support of my claims.”

Your playing word games. Support/endorse, whatever. Your using it to make a claim about the Queen that looks every bit as kooky as your reptilian shapeshifter silliness.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:10pm
UglyTruth

It makes no moral difference.

The difference is a matter of degree. To hold someone personally responsible implies that the guilt isn’t shared with anyone else.

Where is the “quite a lot of lying” that you were banging on about before, ShawnLH?
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:12pm
ShawnLH

UglyTruth (2,517 comments) says:
March 15th, 2014 at 11:29 am

“Technically the state is Anglican since the head of state is “supreme governor” of the Anglican Church.”

These are your words. Which are totally false.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:15pm
ShawnLH

I’m still wondering what the Queen was supposed to have done at this apparently mythical picnic.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:20pm
UglyTruth

These are your words. Which are totally false.

Wrong again.

The Sovereign holds the title ‘Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England’.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandtheChurchofEngland.aspx

Anglican means “of England”.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:21pm
UglyTruth

I’m still wondering what the Queen was supposed to have done at this apparently mythical picnic.

I’m wondering if you think I’m stupid enough to let you off the hook for your false accusations.

Speak volumes about the character of those who serve Liz.
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:23pm
ShawnLH

The Church of England is only two provinces in the Anglican Communion. The Queen is Supreme Governor only of those two provinces. All others, including the Canadian and NZ Anglican churches are independent. The Queen is not Supreme Governor of any other Anglican province, including NZ.

You made that comment in reference to the New Zealand State, claiming that the NZ State is Anglican due to the Queen being, as you wrongly claim, Supreme Governor.

Epic Fail.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:28pm
ShawnLH

“I’m wondering if you think I’m stupid”

Yes. I do. Seriously.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:30pm
ShawnLH

Is the Queen a reptilian shapeshifter as well?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:39pm
griffith

Both Just a little odd.

Spawn
He has obviously educamateted a lot since last term.

Unfortunately the same whirring noise persists in being implicit in both of their logic down falls.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:44pm
ShawnLH

Don’t forget to say your prayers before bed Griff. *hugz* 🙂
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 29, 2014 11:55pm
griffith

Priestly overtures of a physical contact nature.

culturally unacceptable out side of the vestry in todays modern church,

Thank {insert one of -deity , fate , random chance} for the distance that the holy wireless networks give me.

That and the two large trained dogs at my feet.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 30, 2014 12:19am
UglyTruth

You made that comment in reference to the New Zealand State, claiming that the NZ State is Anglican due to the Queen being, as you wrongly claim, Supreme Governor.

Still misrepresenting what I said, I see, ShawnLH.

Elizabeth is isn’t the “Supreme Governor” of the NZ state, she is the head of the NZ state.

What I originally said was: “Technically the state is Anglican since the head of state is “supreme governor” of the Anglican Church.”

Liars for Christ, is it, ShawnLH?

The Sovereign holds the title ‘Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England’.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandtheChurchofEngland.aspx
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 30, 2014 8:15am
ShawnLH

“What I originally said was: “Technically the state is Anglican since the head of state is “supreme governor” of the Anglican Church.”

Which is what I said you said. ‘You made that comment in reference to the New Zealand State, claiming that the NZ State is Anglican due to the Queen being, as you wrongly claim, Supreme Governor’ of the Church of England, is what I meant, obviously.

And it is still wrong, “technically” or otherwise.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 30, 2014 8:18am
UglyTruth

Which is what I said you said.

In your 11:15, not in your 11:28

In your 11:28 you said “… claiming that the NZ State is Anglican due to the Queen being, as you wrongly claim, Supreme Governor.”

‘You made that comment in reference to the New Zealand State, claiming that the NZ State is Anglican due to the Queen being, as you wrongly claim, Supreme Governor’ of the Church of England, is what I meant, obviously.

No, it wasn’t obvious that you meant that. Your history of lying speaks volumes.

8:59 “Trust me, if I have established anything, it is that UT’s take on Scripture is batshit crazy. His whacky notion that one part of Revelations supports the 19th century Khazar theory that the Jews are not really Jews is one of the worst examples of abusing Scripture I have ever seen.”

Not my notion, liar.

10:21 “UT is drawing a very long bow in claiming that the Queen is personally responsible for what happened in Canada, and is based on his confusion about the role of the Queen”

I never claimed that she was personally responsible, liar. I said that she was complicit.

10:31 “And you have claimed that the Queen kidnapped children.”

You are a liar, ShawnLH. I never said that.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 30, 2014 8:42am
ShawnLH

“In your 11:28 you said “… claiming that the NZ State is Anglican due to the Queen being, as you wrongly claim, Supreme Governor.”

Yes. Supreme Governor OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

My use of the title Supreme Governor should have been obvious, even to you.

As to ‘complicit’ your splitting hairs to cover you ass.

“You are a liar, ShawnLH. I never said that.”

Yet you are desperately avoiding telling us what you DO think the Queen did. You want to throw accusations about her around, but then whine like a child when anyone calls you on it.

So, here is your chance. What exactly DO you think the Queen did at this picnic?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 30, 2014 8:47am
UglyTruth

My use of the title Supreme Governor should have been obvious, even to you.

The only thing that is obvious here is your misrepresentation of what I have said.

As to ‘complicit’ your splitting hairs to cover you ass.

Fucking liar. She couldn’t be “personally responsible” for the murder of Canadian children when she wasn’t event in the same country, could she?

Yet you are desperately avoiding telling us what you DO think the Queen did.

No desperation here, liar. You don’t even deny it.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 30, 2014 8:55am
ShawnLH

“She couldn’t be “personally responsible” for the murder of Canadian children when she wasn’t event in the same country, could she?”

And yet you claim she was complicit. I get that you don’t seem to understand basic moral principles, but being complicit is certainly being personally responsible to at least some degree.

And still, silence on your picnic myth. Your the only liar here UT.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 30, 2014 9:00am
UglyTruth

Like I said before, the difference between personal responsibility and complicity is a matter of degree.

Your the only liar here UT.

Put up or shut up, asshole.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 30, 2014 9:48am
ShawnLH

Getting a bit hot under the collar there UT?

Queen? Mythical picnics? Ringing any bells? 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 30, 2014 2:03pm
UglyTruth

Getting a bit hot under the collar there UT?

Not at all. Did they forget to tell you that devil means slanderer, dickweed?

Here’s ShawnLH, defending his genocidal queen like a good Christian devil.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 30, 2014 2:35pm
ShawnLH

Oh, now she IS responsible! 🙂

Your story changes more times than your reptilian shapeshifters! 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 30, 2014 2:37pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« The biggest presidential lies

Is the Dotcom Party democratic enough to be registered? »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

No monopoly on stupid
Hompaddock
Band Aid at 40
Utopia
Open mike 23/11/2024
The Standard
The Working Class and The Classics
No Minister
Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
More young offenders will get boot camp, bus drivers will get some protection – and there’s relief for southern farmers
Point of Order
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d