Horror Show Sunday: Even the Satanists Are Doing It!

Jose Reyes
Jose Reyes smiles for the cameras before his court appearance for murder.

I sometimes get accused of picking on Christianity because the overwhelming majority of the Religious Horror Show stories come from that tradition, but let’s be honest, most atheists live in a Christian-heavy culture, where they see the abuses day in and day out, it shouldn’t be surprising that Christians, as the single largest religious group on the planet, are also guilty of the lion’s share of the harm caused by religion.  I talk about Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as smaller sects quite often though and now I add something a bit different to the mix.  Here comes the harm caused by the Satanists.

Now most Satanists, at least those that follow the LaVeyan tradition, really don’t believe in Satan, they’re just hedonists who are trying to piss off the Christians, but there are those out there who really do believe that magic and spirits and the like are real.  In Texas, prosecutors charged 17 year old Jose Reyes with taking part in the murder of a 15-year old girl to aid him in selling his soul to the devil.  Reyes convinced a 16-year old friend to help him murder Corianne Cervantes, whose body was found in an abandoned apartment after having been missing for several days, by promising that once he had sold his soul to the powers of darkness, he would help his accomplice to do the same.  Cervantes was raped, beaten and then beaten over the head with both an ashtray and the lid of a toilet tank until she died.  When she was found, the body was surrounded by what police described as “religious items”.  The corpse was found to have an inverted crucifix carved into her stomach.  It is unclear whether it was carved into her flesh before or after she died.

Reyes, for reasons unclear to me, is being charged as a juvenile in the murder and if convicted, will receive life in prison with the possibility of parole.  This person should never get out, but like Charles Manson, who comes up for parole every now and then, the chances that he’ll ever be released are slim to none.  His 16 year old accomplice has also been charged with capital murder but details of his sentencing are unclear at this time.

So there you go.  It’s not just the crazy Christians that are out causing demonstrable harm, even the crazy Satanists do it.

I think this is particularly interesting  because, way back in the day, I went to a very religious private high school and one of my acquaintances was a guy named Ben, who was a self-professed Satanist.  The school let him stay because his parents were rich and made regular donations to the school.  Yes, they were hypocrites.  Ben used to carry around the collected work of Anton LaVey, especially the Satanic Bible and talk to people about Satanism, but like most Satanists, I don’t think he bought into any supernatural elements, I think he just wanted to  be a rebel.

Some people clearly buy into the bullshit.  They need to be stopped.  Welcome, Jose, to your well-deserved spot on Horror Show Sunday.


465 thoughts on “Horror Show Sunday: Even the Satanists Are Doing It!”

  1. "…it shouldn’t be surprising that Christians, as the single largest religious group on the planet, are also guilty of the lion’s share of the harm caused by religion."

    There is no doubt that Christianity causes a great deal of harm. But your claim that it causes the greatest amount of harm of all the world's religions may not be the established fact you seem to think it is. A strong case can be made that Islam causes more harm than does Christianity. Christianity doesn't even come close to the level of harm and oppression Islam inflicts on women, gays, apostates, and other muslims in general. If you are going to maintain the claim you make above then you will need to offer some kind of comparative data to support the claim.

    1. And when are you going to look around and mention the religion that demands it and is involved in the majority of conflicts around the world?

      It's true many Christians fail to live up to the standards their religion calls for.
      But you should blame them, not the religion that condemns their actions.

      1. Which religion are you speaking of in your first sentence? If it is Islam, then I did in fact already mention it in my comment. But the acts of Islamic fundamentalists does not excuse nor exempt Christianity from criticism for its share of acts of harm and injury.

        I do in fact blame those who commit the acts. Christianity shares in the blame and the guilt because these believers are acting in the name of their belief or they are able to commit these acts under the safety of that religion because of the privileged position we unjustifiably grant to religious belief. And you can't hide behind the defense that they are not following the principles of their religion. Christianity has such conflicted principles that there is no one standard, as you are claiming. If there were a single standard then there would be no division, for example, within the Christian community over the subject of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

        1. But they didn't act under the safety of that religion.

          If you actually understood Christianity it doesn't provide a safety net for those wanting to commit evil.
          Even those that do good won't all make it, it's based on a relationship with Christ.

          Matt 7:23
          "Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

          You really should be more well versed when you try to discredit something.

  2. Isn't Christianity at least somewhat culpable for Satanic horrors, given that Satan is part of the Christianity package? Would there even be the concept of Satan if there were no Christianity?

      1. Satan is no less a fiction than is your God. But sadly we have been afflicted with both fictions for some 2000 years.

        Yes, other religions do have their fictions about evil. But this does not excuse Christianity for plaguing us with its own version in the form of Satan.

        1. I realize you can't and won't accept any other opinion other than yours.

          But try to read my comment before attacking it. Are you denying that other cultures have their own story or legends on the origins of evil?

  3. Mussys, Christards, and Jewdumb are a blight on human existence. All nothing more than a product of a stupid group of sheep shagging bronze age genocidal tribe of an ignorant baby eating, cult of land stealing dumbasses. The fact that people today still connect to these retarded fucks is mind boggling in itself. Of all of the 100,000 gods in human history that one could choose to follow; this Yahweh fuck has to be the worst possible choice.

      1. Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot were blights on humanity. But contrary to your idiotic understanding, they did not kill others in the name of atheism. They were ruthless dictators who killed in the name of their twisted political ideology. Among their millions of victims were people of different religious beliefs, and those of non-belief, i.e. atheists, They were all madmen who happen to be atheists, with the exception of Hitler, who was a christian. They did not commit their genocides and crimes against humanity in the name of atheism.

        1. And you once more side stepped my point. Millions have died due to atheist communists that were doing exactly what their beliefs led them to do.

          Treat life as an accident that had no value.

          1. Yet none of those people acted out of their atheism, any more than Joseph Stalin's mustache is responsible for his actions. Find us a direct quote from any of these people where they say their actions were caused by their atheism. We can find quotes from Hitler that his actions were caused by his Christianity. Do the same.

          2. But they did. The atheist view is that life is an accident and not something to cherish, they acted on that.

            And if you dig out those quotes from Hitler I'll ask you the same thing I ask every time. Which one of Christ's teachings did Hitler follow when did those acts of evil?

          3. You're just pulling that out of your ass, as usual. The only thing any two atheists have in common is not believing in gods. That's it. That's the whole of atheism. Anything else that you add, you're no longer talking about atheism, you're talking about something else.

            Stop being an ass, Roger.

          4. Cephus if it's coming out of anyone's backside it's not mine.

            You have been lecturing and explaining how life is an accident of evolution, the leap from the primordial ooze a random occurrence. That's atheism.

            That lack of respect for life is a commonality, since life wasn't by design something to be cherished. With no God or higher power holding us accountable.

            And accordingly the largest number of murders had happened by those communists who held atheist dogma.

          5. I know this is really difficult for you to comprehend, most things seem to be, but just because an atheist talks about something, that doesn't mean it's atheism. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, in fact, the majority of Christians and other world religions accept evolution. We've all realized that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, maybe it's time you figured it out.

          6. And likewise Christians have views that don't mean it's about Christianity.

            And evolution is necessary for atheism to make any sense.

          7. Jesus was a Jew.
            He may not have agreed with them, but He lived with them and worked with them during His lifetime.

          8. There's no real evidence that the mythical Jesus hated Jews. We know that the early Christians certainly did, they blamed the Jews for crucifying Jesus, but Jesus himself, there isn't anything in the Bible to suggest that he hated Jews at all.

          9. The disciples of Jesus were Jews.
            That is, if you accept historical records by the people most involved in the situation.

            It seems you don't know about Christianity and don't care to learn. You only care to toss out mud to see if you can get any to stick.

          10. And how does that make the disciples of Jesus less Jewish?

            You really do need to learn to control all the hate you have.

          11. And how does that make the disciples of Jesus any less Jewish?

            Or the tomb used to bury the historical Jesus, how does it make the owner any less Jewish?

          12. Just pointing out Jews don't like jesus with objective evidence to back up my claim.

            What tomb? Can you provide objective evidence this tomb exist or this historical jesus ever existed?

          13. Just pointing out you are wrong and used the records of the most involved at the time to show as objective evidence you're wrong.

          14. Jews don't like jesus and I provided objective evidence to show that. You provided your opinion, which means nothing

          15. Let's see….

            The most carefully preserved writings of the people involved at the time vs TNM.

            Yep. You're wrong, you know you're wrong and you don't care. You just come to this forum to spew mud and hope it sticks.

          16. You have not provided any objective evidence to show the Jewish links I provided are wrong

          17. You haven't shown them to be credible or accurate.

            The most carefully protected writings of the people involved the time is evidence more credible than yours.

            And you haven't shown it was wrong.
            I mentioned well accepted historical fact, like the destruction of Jerusalem and the early Christian church activities. You haven't shown it was wrong.

            You are simply pushing a failing agenda and don't like that I call you on it.

          18. Sure I have.

            John 3, the entire chapter.
            A carefully preserved document by the people most involved in the situation.

            A member of the leading Jews came to interview Jesus and left convinced.

          19. John 3 is not objective evidence. The Gospel of John disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Moreover the unknown author(s) of this gospel wrote it in Greek near the end of the first century, and according to Bishop Shelby Spong, the book "carried within it a very obvious reference to the death of John Zebedee (John 21:23)." [Spong]

          20. Of course it's objective. It was a careful recording by the people most involved at the time.

            That's just your hate filled opinion spewing as normal.

          21. Objective evidence is Information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.

            Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/obje

            It was hearsay:



            noun: hearsay

            information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

          22. You fucking stupid motherfucker. You have hearsay I have objective evidence. Learn the fucking difference retard

          23. You have hearsay.

            Read the opening paragraph in your link.

            It states what the consensus is.

            That's hearsay according to your own standards.

            Wee, instead of resorting to foul language why don't you actually read your links before expecting everyone else to?

          24. Foul language that was truthful. I provided three links with objective evidence you have not provided a fucking thing except your normal trollish bulls hit

          25. Nope, it was just your opinion based on the heat of the moment realizing you were quoting formal gossip and pretending it proved anything.

          26. Nope it was objective evidence from the Jews and from Jewish scripture.

            Why do you make schooling you sooooo easy?

          27. Still lying about it?

            You have formal gossip, I have an eye witness explaining in how own words why he recorded the events he saw.

            Check mate.

          28. Sure I have.

            Direct quotes from witnesses. You haven't done that.

            Why not?

            You prefer formal gossip evidently.

            That's not proof according to your own standards.

            So, are you going to lie and pretend or are you going to man up and admit you have been owned and have lost this simply because you are an agenda driven hack?

          29. That's an assertion, there is no evidence that any of the people recorded in John 3 were actually real, we have no independent evidence that any of them existed at all. You're confusing mythology with history once again.

          30. Been explaining that to him all day and for 4 years. HE still does not understand

          31. Because by understanding, he undermines his own beliefs. Since his beliefs are more important to him than the truth, he will never understand.

          32. I guess I just can't fathom how someone can be so obtuse and put false beliefs over logic

          33. Gossip is wrong and an eye witness is right.

            And your jews had opinions that they chat about, and so do mine.

            You haven't offered proof, I have. You have offered gossip.

            You don't even meet your own standards, I'm waiting for you to pretend you do at least that much.

          34. I gave 3 links, one link providing OE and two more with Jews explaining their culture. Of course you say they wrong and you are right because you know more about them then they do. YOu have no OE to shoe you have an EW either

          35. And none of them proved a thing, I quoted from one that proved you were wrong, but has that stopped you?


            Facts are not your friends, but then again you don't seem to care about them so that probably doesn't bother you.

          36. You haven't produced a demonstrable fact yet, your ridiculous beliefs are not facts until you support them with objective evidence, something you have patently refused to do time and time again.

          37. Yes, actually I have.

            For example proving there are Jews with a tradition that Jesus was the messiah, the messianic Jews and provided a link.

            For someone that disagrees with me you don't even read what I post.

            You might try reading what I say before telling me I'm wrong.

          38. But that's what all theists do. If they didn't, they couldn't be theists because it's painfully obvious to anyone who wants to look at the evidence objectively that religion is idiotic and asinine. Just look at how Roger operates, he's a perfect example of this kind of fallacious thinking. He refuses to provide objective evidence to support his claims, he finds some way to weasel out of it every time he's asked. He refuses to examine his beliefs critically and any time anyone criticizes what he believes, he flies off the handle and treats it like a personal attack.

            It's really pretty funny when you look at it, but Roger will never understand just how idiotic the things that he believes really are, he can't allow himself to see it.

          39. I have presented more than TNM has, and more than you do.

            When you're pinned down you say it's not your job to educate me.

            When TNM meets his own standards then you might have a point.

            But for you to ignore his failings because he's part of your atheist club it does show how shallow that group is.

            Fair is fair, you ought to apply the same standards if you want to keep that veneer of objectivity.

          40. You have not presented a damn thing except your worthless opinion that no one wants to see

          41. Sure I did, including a quote from your own sources, and the link to messianic Jews proving that there are Jewish people with a tradition of Jesus being the Messiah.

            Yet you won't admit to being owned on this.

          42. "It's really pretty funny when you look at it, but Roger will never understand just how idiotic the things…." Another example of how Cepuss won't allow personal digs. He's a phony? You're damn right he is.

          43. There's a difference between saying Roger is an idiot and saying that the things Roger says are idiotic. Learn that difference.

          44. Yes there is evidence they were real people and the site they lived is protected.

            He is using mythology, if you want to have a level playing field, Cephus why don't you apply the same standards to his views too?

          45. Try reading my comments before replying to them.

            And I'm still waiting for you to prove you point, you made an assertion and haven't proved it wee, you need to try meeting the same standards you demand from others.

            You want to try turning that around? I don't think so.

          46. A site proving my point, like the one to Messianic Jews was spam?

            You don't like being owned on this, it offends your empty shell of an over inflated ego.

          47. I was proving my point. I don't care about your point. Debate works by proving yourself right which I did.

            What tomb? Can you provide objective evidence this tomb exist or this historical jesus ever existed?

          48. You know you're wrong.
            That would be a secondary point of course.

            If you reject that the existence of historical Jesus then you can't claim He was hated by anyone. Either you admit it is an actual historical life lived as a fact or you admit you're just trolling.

          49. I am correct and my objective evidence shows I am correct.

            You claim a tomb and historical jesus exists, so I will ask where is your objective evidence?

            Asking someone to back up their claim is debating not trolling. When you fail (as you always do) to provide objective evidence and spew 3rd grade insults (which you are doing) is called trolling

          50. I claim that the records available show that Jesus worked with Jews in the Jewish society and that after His death it was Jews that carried on His work.

            Can you prove that wrong?

          51. What evidence? Hearsay?

            That's not evidence according to your own standards.

            You really need to figure out that you can't have three sets of standards.

            One for you to actually follow.
            One for you to lay out pretending you follow.
            One for you to demand everyone else follow.

          52. The Jewish community explaining why they don't believe jesus is divine is objective evidence

          53. And that is cultural, verbal thinking passed down generation to generation.

            Hearsay, gossip in a formal setting, nothing more.

            You still lose.

          54. And none of them prove anything other than there is formalize gossip in the Jewish culture.

            That's hearsay and by your own standards you lose.

          55. You're a fucking idiot. You have shown you have no idea what objective evidence is.

            You're done, but go ahead and reply like a retarded monkey because I command you to

          56. I don't and you didn't give any. Gossip handed down for 2,000 years from generation to generation is formal gossip, by your own standards you fail.

            Don't blame me that you laid out what is real evidence.

          57. So I just gave you marching orders to reply and you did.

            HAHAHAHA. You stupid monkey now reply again. That is an order

          58. Glad you do as commanded, now reply you reatrded monkey and show you are a posse member

          59. Roger you ignorant fuck. The bibles New Testament was written by Greeks all of the Gospels are Greek! All of the early church leaders were GREEK/Roman. Jews would not convert to this new GREEK cult of Satan's own because they would never worship this false god of the GREEKS! Jesus/Satan even tells people in Rev 22:16 that he is Satan when he claims the title of being the Morning Star. A title given him in Isaiah 42:12 only thru the Christian cult has he managed to set his throne above that of God. You have been fooled, and will burn. If you believe this stupid book? Jews, and Muslims are the true people of God. Christians are Satan's people. That explains you.

          60. No, he's not.
            Greek was the language of intellectuals at the time, yes.

            But it was written by the people most involved and the most qualified to report on things.

            He's just another angry pagan lashing out.
            And of course part of the posse trying to back you up as you fail.

          61. You are entitled to your opinions, and that's all they are. And then I come along and explain why your opinions are flawed.

            Quit trolling.

          62. Sure I have. The comment was pulled, but 1 John 1 explains the witness to those events wrote them because it made him happy to share what happened.
            (it made his joy complete).

            You of course will ignore all that.

          63. His own words.

            That's more than you have in your link.

            Ouch, that must smart. You don't like to admit you're a loser that can't debate and get all cranky when you've been showed up.

            Are you going to redefine even more words to try salvaging a hopeless situation? Or are you going to rely on the other trolls to come to your rescue?

          64. Yes I have. 1 John 1

            1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our[a] joy complete.

          65. It's more than you provided.

            When you do better than a quote from an eye witness, then you'll have the grounds to demand more from me.

            You are an apparent two faced hypocrite in that you demand things you don't provide yourself.

            Prove me wrong.

          66. Where is your objective evidence he was an eye witness. Only retarded posse member monkeys will reply

          67. Good afternoon. Thanks for the correction and being man enough to admit when you made a mistake. Real men own up to mistakes, cowards dance around them

          68. Too bad you aren't man enough to do so.

            And he was wrong, Luke was the only greek to have written in the New Testament. The story was by Jews and about Jews until later.

          69. No, I used three links to back up my claim. Jews do not think jesus was divine.

            There is no Jewish tradition of a divine-human Messiah

          70. You used gossip sites that ignore that there is an actual record written by eye witnesses.

            You prefer gossip since you are so agenda driven a hack that doesn't even live up to the standards you try imposing and in the process ignore the eye witnesses recorded and protected ever since by those that wanted it safe.

            You just don't understand do you? Your propaganda isn't working, not today and not very often when someone is willing to explain why you're just a hack.

          71. Ok, I will give you that. You have provided objective evidence that a different cult sect of Judaism believes jesus was divine. Mainstream Judaism does not though.

          72. So, you have two different groups that both have cultures with a history, and I have an eye witness to events with a protected site of living while he wrote it.

            You lost.

          73. So present an eyewitness. Not a claim of an eyewitness, an actual eyewitness who you can prove was actually present and actually existed in the first place.

          74. I've uysed quotes from the sites he used to make my point. If those links are good enough for him, then why aren't they good enough for me? Fair is fair.

          75. Not in this case.

            Can you prove it wasn't the religious leaders that set the culture? Your own links say otherwise, the opening paragraph on the one says it was the religious leaders.

            You're still owned, still behaving as a two faced hack troll and you can't even live up to your own standards in the very same thread where you lay them out.

            Why don't you pretend you can grow up?

          76. This is where you keep failing, Roger. We don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right. When do you think you'll get around to doing that on ANYTHING?

          77. You are the one making baseless claims no one else is. Every claim I have made I backed up with facts

          78. Still making that mistake and answering for TNM as if you are two different people?

            And why is it that you pretend that your fantasies have anything to do with my realities?

            They don't.

          79. And I just pointed out with the writings of the people most involved at the time why you're wrong.

            You can't show that the people Jesus taught and that followed Him up to His death weren't Jews. You can't. You know why? It wouldn't be factual even if a a convenient fake set of talking points.

          80. I never said they were not Jews. My claim and my evidence shows Jews do not like jesus

          81. And I showed that Jews did like Jesus.

            Not all, but most and that Jesus liked them.

            So, you're wrong. Not a big surprise. So, you won't admit it Another predictable reaction.

            You are predictable.

          82. You post links to less credible sources than this.

            It is the most carefully protected document in man's history and it was written by the people most involved at the time.

            Your opinions mean less than nothing, since they seem to be agenda driven instead of factually driven.

          83. Why? Just because you don't like it?

            I don't like your sources and they were less carefully put together, so by your own standards you are not providing objective evidence.

          84. My sources came from the Jewish community. The bible is subjective not objective, you should learn the difference

          85. That would mean you have to conclude your sources are hearsay.

            Even by your own standards.

            You're still a loser.

          86. Nope, I used objective evidence and explained it. You use opinion

            You're still a worthless POS Nazi

          87. You used hearsay, not objective and since it's from a particular point of view it was subjective.

            And while you hare entitled to your own flawed and proven wrong opinions, you aren't entitled to your own facts.

            Name calling? So early in the day? Wow, that's sad, usually you get more of your daily quota out of the way.

          88. Well you started with the name calling first. I was replying in kind.

            I used objective evidence from the Jewish community

          89. It was subjective since it was a rumor they kept repeating, hearsay.

            By your own standards you fail.

            Are you man enough to admit it? That's another one of your standards.

          90. Let's see. The elite Jewish rulers that wanted Jesus dead. What happened to them? And what happened to the Jews who spread the teachings of Jesus?

            One was inside the city of Jerusalem and died horribly, the other changed the world.

            So, what was your point again about Jews and Jesus?

          91. There's no record of what happened to either of them really, just a couple of claims for specific individuals. What do you think happened to them and where is your evidence?

          92. So you refuse to read a blog but you linked to three of them today?

            You're done.

            You can't even meet your own standards. How pathetic.

          93. You linked to a site with formalized gossip, not a site that provided any proof and I provided proof for my position hat you were 1)wrong (the messianic Jews did that)
            2)the formalized gossip you linked to proved my point for me. The opening paragraph I quoted from your site laid out my case just fine.

          94. Why do you think you can mislabel my comment a lie and not have me challenge you on it?

            They were exactly what I just laid out. Why do you get so angry and cranky when someone explains that you can't debate, need a special set of new and different standards to pretend you can, and then ignore everything everyone else explains as if you're the final authority?

            Tradition is formalized gossip, deal with it or not. That's what it is. And that's what you tried using.

          95. You just lied. You know the links you used explained traditions. Traditions are stories told repeatedly, that would be formalized gossip.

            And you just ignore reality to push your agenda.

          96. Now you are lying again. Why do you think you are more an expert on Jewish tradition then Jewish scripture and the Jewish people themselves?

          97. You said the Jews, that was proven wrong. The Jews as a religion are fragmented, you call them cults. I don't.

            But it still proved that your comment was not accurate. You were owned.

            Dont' blame your empty ego on me.

          98. No, you went round and round on it, there was no "we". So again, where is your independent objective evidence for your claims? You know, things outside of the Bible. Let us all know when you come up with some.

          99. You were there and after I posted it for others I repeated the link on the cave that John the revelator lived in. And I've done so again just now. It's objective facts on finds in archeology.

            Let me know when you find something that disputes it.

  4. Satanist, are nothing more than another sick Christian cult. The Christian cult consists of multi-tier system of god heads God the father, Casper the ghost, Jesus the good son? Satan the bad boy, and many other lower sub-divines like Angels, Demons, Saints, and so forth. Clearly the God of the bible states that Satan/Lucifer is the lord of the earth. Mormons like Roger's Ex Mormon Bishop Mittens GOP darling believes that Jesus, and Satan are actually brothers. So one expects this from yet another wack-a-doo Christian cult like the Satanist.

      1. For a paganist. He wasn't spot on, Mittens was never my Bishop and his views don't reflect mine.

        But I expect the posse will band together and work as one coordinated group.

    1. In reality, most Satanists don't believe in Satan, any more than they believe in God. They're just hedonists trying to piss off the dominant religion in society. If you read some of the works by Anton LaVey and others, you'd see that all the rituals are really just making fun of Christianity, they don't buy into any of the bullshit.

      The rest of it, yes, you're right.

  5. Yes you do advocate for violence outside self defense:
    Roger 168p • 49 minutes ago
    Attacking you for just about anything is the only decent thing to do.
    14 hours ago @ Conservative Victory News – Open Thread – April 18… • 0 replies • +2 points

    It's like poking a dying snake. It's almost fun to watch them get angry.
    12 hours ago @ http://912wolverines.com/ – growl • 4 replies • +2 points

    At least it smoked out who was for us, and who was against us.

    Lindsay Graham is up for election this next cycle, he needs taken out.

    1. 111 weeks ago @ Breitbart.com – Ala. grandmother shoot… • 0 replies • +3 points

      If you're going to have to clean your gun, fire more bullets.

      Keep it aimed at center of mass and just keep pulling the trigger as the slime bag falls to the floor, stand over him if necessary and keep pulling the trigger until you hear a click.

      Roger 166p • 12 minutes ago
      I love the smell of fresh napalm in the morning….
      Roger 170p • 9 hours ago

      Well, she might have shown hair and neck.
      In all fairness should a slut like that be allowed to live?

      1. Wow, on a thread about self defense I advocate for self defense. That's a shocker.
        And mocking islamic values, me? That's another shocker.

        Could it be that you described people like this for a reason?

        13 minutes ago @ http://iamchristianiam… – Black Mass Christian… · 0 replies · 0 points
        "Well Christians are bat shit crazy."

        Could that reason be that you might wonder if it fits you?

        1. Because they are bat shit crazy and since you pretend to be the spokesman for your religion I have to base my opinion off that because you are bat shit crazy

          1. Do they? I don't think so.

            I sort of know what I said and how it was meant.
            You can show it was said but keep making up what it means.

          2. You haven't shown that any religious 'freaks' have impeded your freedoms.

            But you seem to feel free to try telling me my rights aren't as important as yours when it comes to you religious positions.

            Double standard much?

          3. When I state my position like intelligent design then provide reasons I believe in it, that is defending that position.

            You seem confused by that concept, but at least with you I understand your need to lay out the denial.

            Some of these other people, they can't even bother the pretense of laying out a position.

          4. And then you ignore all the problems with your reasons, you ignore all calls for evidence for your claims, etc. You're not defending the factual correctness of your claims, you're just giving rationalizations why you believe it. That's not impressive.

          5. Coming from the person who said this today, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

            10 hours ago @ Speak Out America – Speak Out America · 2 replies · +2 points
            "Good Lordk, yu can't eve spell "are" rigtht."

          6. Since he has no control over what you say here, he can't possibly be doing that. Only I can impede your "freedom of speech". 🙂

          7. You could but it would just be someone tired and cranky being bitchy.

            When I come here or any other site I try to keep the focus the admin says he wants. Since you pretended to want to find a Christian that could debate and lay out facts, that's what I do.

            You don't deny the facts I put out, you just don't have the same conclusions.

          8. Me opening my own website won't make Cephus less of a coward. Did you read what you wrote before clicking "submit"?

          9. "I don't think…." Nice you finally admitted it.

            As you sit at your work terminal pretending I say things, I might as well return the favor.

    2. Still pushing your agenda over facts? It's all you seem to manage.
      Attacking someone on a forum for debate is called debate.
      Poking someone verbally on a debate site is called debate.

      And Linsday Graham didn't see a comment on a debate site about his election, and his need for defeat as a threat of violence.

      Could it be that you are just.. how to say it? Well, how do you describe people you don't like?

      13 minutes ago @ http://iamchristianiam… – Black Mass Christian… · 0 replies · 0 points
      "Well Christians are bat shit crazy."

      Could it possibly be that it fits you instead?

      1. Taking people out means killing them.

        You think women who have shown hair and neck are "sluts" and should not be allowed to live, which explains your sexist comments to Poof

        Attack means one thing and one thing only.
        Smell of fresh Napalm huh?

        Yes you are bat shit crazy

        1. You might think so.

          And others might think that during an election it means defeat.

          Attack on a debate site is just that. Debate.

          And once more you allow your hate filled agenda to push your talking points.

          1. But you said "attack me anything is the only decent thing to do"

            So you would attack me for crossing me the street

          2. When you make comments like this on a debate site:

            24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
            "The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO "

            It does deserve to be verbally attacked, you do realize this is a debate site?

          3. OMG Roger — Are you STILL doing the same old shit? I didn't want to ever comment to you again because you truly sicken me, but I found a comment I made to you at least 2 years ago….you haven't changed one goddam bit:
            "88 weeks ago @ Frontpage Magazine – Why an Israeli Strike … · 172 replies · -2 points
            I'm poking my head in here because I just can't stand it any longer. When you go to my ID page, Roger, you'll find I'm a nobody who hasn't even commented in months. But JezusHCrist, don't you ever tire of mouthing your same crap day after day, week after week? I starting seeing your idiocy months and months ago on that Pirates site and watched in disgust as you rambled on and on, constantly throwing out your same tired reference to this Brietbart comment; then you started with the goat garbage. Here's an idea: If you can't find something else to do in Nebraska other than stalking another commenter, go do some volunteer work in an area that goes along with your political beliefs."
            Good gawd STFU!!!!!!!!!

          4. Are you still the same ill mannered shrew that can't actually discuss anything?

            STFU yourself, if you know how, and I don't think you do.

          5. You aren't exactly a lady's man. Hmmm…..what's the opposite of a lady's man? Roger.

          6. Someone who has that much time to sit at work and cruise the Internet probably has other things they ought to be doing. I wonder if his bosses know what he does all day.

          7. On a site geared towards debate, you do realize there is supposed to be debate?

            Is that to confusing for you and poof?

            Calling in the posse today since you're not doing so well?

          8. I'm not sure where "attacking" should come into play in a debate. Did you grow up in Iran?

          9. debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

            The word "attack" is conspicuously absent in the definition. Who thinks "attacking" people is normal in conversation?

          10. One that uses foul language and openly advocates for violence?

            24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
            "The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO "

          11. How about one that dances on the graves of murder victims.

            Roger's quote.

            "Self defense is many things, but it's the dead unarmed victims that are pathetic."

          12. Calling people that don't care enough to defend themselves pathetic is being honest.

            And you've called them sheeple, and even worse. Pot meet kettle.

          13. If someone decides to be helpless and does nothing to avoid being a victim, then I have little respect for them.

            And for you to rage against cops shooting dogs in one story then say you don't think anyone needs to take steps to protect themselves here? It's simply more of your agenda driven propaganda.

          14. Why would you pretend that is the kind of victim is who I was discussing?

            Can't you make up better talking points than that?

          15. Here is your quote:
            "Self defense is many things, but it's the dead unarmed victims that are pathetic."

            These are dead unarmed victims. Please explain why they are pathetic

          16. What is pathetic is that a minor child was unprotected, that her parents didn't make adequate measures to see their child was safe. That adults didn't care for her.

            That is pathetic, and if you can't see that double screw you right back.

          17. What is pathetic is that a minor child was unprotected and that her parents and guardians let that happen.

            That is pathetic, and more a tragedy.

            And if you can't see that, double screw you right back.

          18. Or it wasn't victim baiting.

            The original comment was about something else and he used it in a situation that it was never intended for.

            And I still found part of that victim that was pathetic, but not her fault.

          19. Yes and I love debate, be nice if you would instead of threatening to attack me for ANYTHING

            Physical threats of violence against me were uncalled for

          20. Who does that? Who thinks debate involves attacking others and describes it using military terms of offensive maneuvers?

          21. Someone who is mentally unstable. I mean he may want to attack me for feeding hungry children

          22. Or for just a rumor you haven't backed up?

            24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
            "The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO"

          23. Hi TNM. I don't agree with everything you say and I am more than willing to engage you in civil debate and share ideas with you. You lean conservative, I lean liberal, but I think we can exchange ideas and learn from each other. Isn't that the point of these forums? That's my understanding.

          24. And so long as people can engage rationally and politely, that's great, I'd love to engage with liberals and theists who can think about their beliefs intellectually. Unfortunately, as we see with Roger, that's very difficult to find.

          25. Cephus, stop being such a fucking phony. Do you even read your own comments? Once again, FUCK YOU!!!!

          26. So, we're back to this again?

            "I don't think…."
            You really hit that spot on, but some might try to pretend they do, even if they have your apparent limitation.

          27. I would also say I agree with liberal and conservative ideas. This whole concept of each side not agreeing with each other over anything is self defeating. Like I have said before conservatives and liberals will argue over what a piece of shit smells like. It's a fucking turd who cares?

          28. We need to stand for something.
            I stand for the values and principals in existence particularly since the European enlightenment and expounded on by our founding fathers.

            If that means I disagree with one side, or even both? I'll risk it.

          29. TNM, how many pretend profiles are you posing under this morning from your work terminal? Each one matches you so closely why do you think when you slip up and use on to answer for the other that people won't notice?

          30. I admitted to have one other profile.

            Tell you what, why not put your money where mouth is and prove it

          31. You admitted to having parallel profiles, and in the last two days you slipped up and revealed two that have been in use for a couple of months now.

          32. Why did you say this? Is English new to you?
            10 hours ago @ Speak Out America – Speak Out America · 2 replies · +2 points
            Good Lordk, yu can't eve spell "are" rigtht.

          33. There's nothing wrong with using multiple profiles, it's certainly not against the rules, I was just correcting Roger's misconception that some of these different accounts were not coming from the same IP.

          34. I can't say whether you do or not, all I can go by is the information I see here and I haven't seen evidence of it. Then again, I think this whole "following people around to different blogs" thing is really stupid and childish.

          35. Playing nice isn't when someone who does advocate for violence keeps saying I do.

            24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
            "The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO" His version of what is justified violence, (based on a rumor) and mine (based on self defense) are two different things entirely.

          36. But I don't, and you have yet to explain why verbal attacks on a site geared for debate are anything more than debate.

            Your propaganda points only work if unchallenged.
            And if you want to talk about attacks and talk referring to possible violence, you just posted this!

            Oh, I think I better keep this one handy to use over and over.
            36 minutes ago @ Storyleak – Officer Keeps Job Afte… · 1 reply · 0 points
            "Yep. he will not be around on here much longer I bet"

          37. Better keep it. The admins on SL are going to ban you which is why you won't be on there much longer.

          38. But I don't, but you did just get done posting this.

            It seems to be referring to possible violence.

            36 minutes ago @ Storyleak – Officer Keeps Job Afte… · 1 reply · 0 points
            "Yep. he will not be around on here much longer I bet"

          39. No, it refers to you being banned from Story Leak for having their web site named in your law suit

          40. Thank you for pretending you understand what you read.

            Breath! I command it!

            You know, TNM really isn't very good at running parallel profiles.

          41. This from the guy who posted this comment just today?

            4 hours ago @ Speak Out America – Speak Out America · 2 replies · +2 points
            "Good Lordk, yu can't eve spell "are" right."

          42. Says the guy that said….
            "A gentlemen never kisses and tells. 
            And I pretend to be a gentleman."

            You like pretending?

          43. Does that also apply to you, phony? Want me to quote you some more? Your website should be called HypocriteSpot.com

  6. My name is Roger. I showcase my stalking skills daily. I pretend I'm not nterested in men I meet online even though I have said otherwise.

    "No thanks, I'm interested in either of you."

          1. Why it seems to be a struggle for you.

            On a site that TNM has been wanting to spam and that you targeted yesterday you made this lame comment.

            1 hour ago @ Speak Out America – Speak Out America · 2 replies · +2 points
            "Good Lordk, yu can't eve spell "are" right."

            When you are such a lame case and can't do better than that, don't lecture me.

          2. Was that the same site that you admited this?

            "Being a drunk only goes so far as an excuse."

          3. I don't know, but even if I did… what's wrong with that comment?

            Just stuck here spamming from your work terminal trying to make a quota again?

          4. You don't know what you type nor where? Very trollish…… Could you stop being jealous that I have an amazing career that gives me free time to point out your hypocrisy? I'm guessing "no".

          5. Why is Roger blowing up my email inbox. Six replies since I stepped outside. I wonder what else he'd like to blow, but unlike him, I'm not interested.


            No thanks, I'm interested in either of you.

          6. Dont' blame me, you have your own settings for notifications.

            Isn't that just like a typical liberal hack troll, doing something then blaming anyone else when it doesn't work out the way he expected.

          7. Seems as though Roger is "interested" in me.

            "No thanks, I'm interested in either of you."

Leave a Reply to destroydogma Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)