Catholic Priest:Imagine the company you keep if you are an Obama voter...

[Image of a Bumber Sticker that reads "OBAMA IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU ALLOW IDIOTS, ILLEGALS AND WELFARE RECIPIENTS TO VOTE"]

Atheist Friend: Yup. Because advertisements are always cited as primary sources of factual evidence.

Atheist Friend: *bumper stickers. Even better.

Atheist Friend: Argh...you trolled me again!

Catholic Priest: Hey [Atheist Friend] - I have a simple test: do you think welfare recipients should forfeit their vote? If the answer is NO I know you are an Obama voter.

Atheist Friend: I welcome your arguments as to why receiving welfare should automatically disqualify one from their most basic right as a citizen.

Catholic Priest: Because they are a financially interested party. As Aristotle said, if you can vote yourself a benefit, the democracy is over. But I'm glad you proved my point: you believe welfare recipients should vote and you are an Obama voter.

Atheist Friend: Actually I'll be voting for Johnson. Thanks for playing "predictably ignorant." Remind me again how Congress votes on their own salary and benefits.Q

Atheist Friend: Also, the government of the USA is a republic, not a democracy. Try again.

Catholic Priest: I agree with you - but Johnson is a wasted vote. And you can't tell me that welfare recipients should vote. But if we took their vote away Obama would be 10 points behind - what does that tell you?

Catholic Priest: And you say you are voting for Johnson, but you will be voting for Obama

Catholic Priest: I know we are a republic [Atheist Friend] - Aristotle didn't know that and I was quoting him

Atheist Friend: Then your argument is invalid. I WILL be voting for Johnson because he is the candidate with whose policies I most agree. And you confuse correlation with causation. If I were to remove the fundamentalist Christian vote Romney would lose 90% of his fan base and people would start spitting out random fake percentages just to force an argument. Oh wait...

Atheist Friend: Following your "logic" we should also deny corporations the right to spend money financing campaigns and their owners from voting. Because they have a financial stake in it. And priests. Because they have the "morality" of the country at stake. And faith is worth more than money. What's a few bucks compared with an eternity burning in Hell, right?

Catholic Priest: [Atheist Friend] - read your post - I don't get a check from the government - but I would gladly forfeit my vote if it meant only property owners could vote, as was the plan of our founders. Meanwhile, the bottom line is that if you favor welfare voters, you are an Obama voter - I disbelieve your protests to the contrary. [Atheist Friend] is an Obama voter

Atheist Friend: Say what you like. It doesn't make it true. And if you're saying that money is the only motivator of one's actions, I remind you to look at that collar around your neck.

Catholic Priest: ?! - what does that mean? People rooted in a system of morality shouldn't vote? How about if Obama loses, I lose my monthly check - huge difference. But you are an Obama voter

Atheist Friend: What I'm saying is that vested interests aren't always colored green. Everyone has a vested interest and everyone is going to vote for the candidate they think will help make their life better. Denying that right based on this fact disqualifies all voters.

Catholic Priest: a board member with a direct financial interest in a contract has to recuse themselves from a vote. A judge has to recuse himself from a case. You are comparing apples and oranges. Welfare recipients need to recuse themselves from elections, since they have a DIRECT financial interest

Atheist Friend: What about Medicare recipients?

Catholic Priest: The only reason we don't enforce best practices is that it would shut down the Democratic Party

Catholic Priest: A little less direct because everyone over (5 gets it because the whole system is configured that way. It needs to change, but the individuals involved are really trapped at the moment

Atheist Friend: Taxpayers then. Tax incentives are money directly given by the government.

Catholic Priest: [Atheist Friend] - a taxpayer does not depend upon a monthly check - you are talking apples and oranges

Atheist Friend: The military.

Atheist Friend: Or, to be more specific, those serving in the military.

Catholic Priest: Ok [Atheist Friend] - let's deny all government workers a vote, including congressmen. It's still not the same

Atheist Friend: Yes it is. They all get a check directly from the government, upon which they depend to pay bills, feed their families, etc.

Atheist Friend: At least it is, according to your argument.

Catholic Priest: [Atheist Friend] - military, etc are working for the government - welfare recipients are doing nothing in exchange for their checks

Atheist Friend: You're not up to speed on how welfare works these days, are you?

Catholic Priest: Yes I am - Obama ended the work requirement, but even with that requirement, the work is not something we need, but rather something we want. We need the military and some other gov jobs ie FBI etc

Atheist Friend: http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4565271_welfare-work_.html read the second paragraph of this article.

Atheist Friend: False. Obama did not end the work requirement. He allows the states to determine what their work requirement is. Try again.

Atheist Friend: Read: smaller government. Republican ideal.

Catholic Priest: So Obama represents smaller government? Nice try [Atheist Friend] - but like I said in the beginning, I knew you are really an Obama voter

Atheist Friend: Who said Obama represents smaller government? I said that his policy of having the states chose their own work requirement for welfare does. One policy. Nice try though.

Catholic Priest: Scroll up and read your comment

Atheist Friend: You do the same.

Catholic Priest: I just did

Atheist Friend: I was referring to one policy. You misread my statement. I probably wasn't clear enough.

Catholic Priest: So one policy represents smaller government - actually, when the fed pays welfare, they set the policy - that why we need to end fed welfare and turn the whole thing over to the states

Atheist Friend: Maybe but now you're changing the argument. Stay on point.

Catholic Priest: End of the day, Obama is a major advocate of big government and you are supporting him

Catholic Priest: No I'm not changing the argument. Welfare recipients depend on a government check for doing nothing - they should not vote

Atheist Friend: I neither support nor oppose him. I was arguing against a picture of an ignorant bumper sticker you posted.

Catholic Priest: But you and the other Obama supporters know that he can't win without their votes and so you want them to vote, along with illegal aliens

Atheist Friend: And you did change the argument before I called you out on it. Your initial argument was that welfare recipients shouldn't vote. You then (not 5 comments ago) chanted it to "we need to end welfare and turn the whole thing over to the state's."

Catholic Priest: Nothing ignorant about it a investigate each part of it and you will see it is objectively true, with the possible exception of idiots

Catholic Priest: No change in the argument - you argued that welfare was modified by Obama to be a smaller government program (lol) and in fact only eliminating it on the federal level would fulfill that claim

Atheist Friend: http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/

Atheist Friend: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?_r=0

Catholic Priest: [Atheist Friend] - my Internet is slow - just summarize your point

Atheist Friend: Two articles which indicate that voter fraud (aka illegal immigrants voting) is nearly non-existent and definitely has no chance to swing an election. So, illegals voting really isn't even an issue to begin with. It's paranoia.

Catholic Priest: Just hot to see first article - ridiculous - obviously you need ID - I witnessed voter fraud right here on [HOMETOWN]

Atheist Friend: Wonderful. Because [HOMETOWN] is such a clear representation of the entire nation. Your sample size is too small for a valid statistical analysis.

Catholic Priest: [SHUTTLE] pulls up - 12 people get out and walk into voting booth with a social worker - each has their hand on the shoulder of the person in front of them (blind) - they went into the booth with the social worker and there was NO talking ie the social worker voted 12 times

Atheist Friend: So the social worker was an illegal immigrant?

Catholic Priest: No that was voter fraud.

Atheist Friend: Or he/she showed you the ballots and they were all identical?

Catholic Priest: Why would we oppose an ID requirement unless we want illegals to vote?

Catholic Priest: Or dead people

Atheist Friend: Or the people who showed up in the van stated that they weren't accurately represented by the social worker?

Catholic Priest: One measure can't stop all voter fraud - fact of the Matter is that no eligible voter should have problems with ID - so only those who depend upon votes from illegitimate voters oppose the use of ID

Atheist Friend: I never argued that voter fraud was non-existent. I argued that it is not significant. The justice department study (over five years) is my basis for this argument. Your argument is based on anecdotal evidence that you claim you witnessed but didn't investigate to verify if what you saw was actual fraud or just a snap judgement.

Unkowledgeable Twit: Do you pay taxes?

Atheist Friend: Your argument in favor of voter ID laws is based on a false assumption that law abiding citizens have no problem with ID.

Atheist Friend: Therefore its conclusion is invalid. Next argument, please.

Catholic Priest: I'm not making any sweeping statement on voter fraud - you posted that article. I am simply arguing that requiring ID is reasonable and would prevent some voter fraud. The violent opposition to that position simply underscores my original point: the democrats need every marginal vote

Atheist Friend: Because the voice of every citizen [Atheist Friend]ers. Republicans should favor that opinion as well.

Catholic Priest: Yes [Unknowledgeable Twit] - I actually pay double taxes, because I am self employed for social security but an employee for the purpose of income taxes -

Catholic Priest: Yes [Atheist Friend] - and no one has to prove they are a citizen to vote - makes sense if you are an Obama supporter

Unknowledgeable Twit: So you receive no tax break for being a priest?

Atheist Friend: You keep labeling me an Obama supporter.

Catholic Priest: So [Unknowledgeable Twit] - I pay both parts of the FICA (double what everyone else pays) and I get none of the deductions that self employed get because I am an employee for income taxes

Catholic Priest: If the shoe fits [Atheist Friend]

Catholic Priest: So [Unknowledgeable Twit] I actually pay more - not that I make much, but I pay more than others who make what I make

Atheist Friend: You like to touch little boys. See? Just because I say it doesn't make it true.

Catholic Priest: [Atheist Friend] - that is uncalled for

Catholic Priest: That is not appropriate and frankly quite insulting

Atheist Friend: As I said, just saying something doesn't make it true.

Catholic Priest: No [Atheist Friend] - you just crossed the line

Catholic Priest: You really need to back of that statement

Atheist Friend: We both know what I wrote isn't true.

Atheist Friend: Everyone who knows you knows that it isn't true.

Catholic Priest: You've known me for quite some time and you have no basis for what you said

Catholic Priest: I really find that offensive

Catholic Priest: And I do not deserve that slanderous remark

Atheist Friend: My point is, your "if the shoe fits" statement can backfire sometimes. I'm sorry if my clear lie offended you.

Catholic Priest: I break my ass every day for those kids and that school and for to you to say that is really over the top and hurtful to me

Atheist Friend: I don't know how many times I can repeat that what I wrote there was a clear untruth.

Catholic Priest: You should have never said that

Catholic Priest: I will speak with you some other time - I really need to end this conversation at this point

Atheist Friend: Ok. I apologize for the offense. I immediately stated it was a lie, to prove the point that saying something doesn't make it true. I know you are a good man.

Friend Of Priest: Who the fuck is [Atheist Friend]. Fuck you you douche bag. While [Catholic Priest] politics are strong. There is no room in this world for your fucking banter. It's a life ruiner. Look over your shoulder. There might be a priest in waiting you fucking asshole. Sorry Padre.

Atheist Friend: Relax [Friend Of Priest]. And work on your reading comprehension skills.

Friend Of Priest: Fuck you. My reading skills are just fine. How would the press interpret you one liner.

Atheist Friend: Exactly as it was written, and in its context. As an example of how saying a thing doesn't automatically make it true.

Atheist Friend: Or did you not read the ENTIRE comment?

Atheist Friend: Also, there's no need for profanity, [Friend Of Priest]. We're all adults here. Use your big boy words.

Atheist Friend: Getting back to your instruction that I look over my shoulder...are you implying that a priest would be waiting behind me to do something un-Christian?

Friend Of Priest: You just don't get the fact that people interpret things that are said 1 time. He's a priest and a good one. I hope I never run into a piece of shit narcissistic slanderous ladened mouth.

Atheist Friend: I agree that he's a good priest. In print it's libel. And I immediately and repeatedly stated that the offending statement was a falsehood. What part of that indicates your reading comprehension skills are up to snuff?

Friend Of Priest: Just say sorry asshole.

Atheist Friend: Remember that reading comprehension thing I keep going back to? Try it sometime. Read the entire exchange. Not just parts.

Friend Of Priest: All I read was the first thing you said. If you don't understand the ramifications of that blurb . Then who's the fool. Fuck you

Atheist Friend: And please come up with an original insult.

Friend Of Priest: Fuck you

Friend Of Priest: Be a man and meet me. You cock sucker

Atheist Friend: The fool is the one who doesn't understand the meaning of "See? Just because I say it doesn't make it true."

Atheist Friend: You're a true Christian, [Friend Of Priest]. Interpret that any way you want to.

Friend Of Priest: I got that you dick head. But the fool is the one that posted on Social Media. Fuck you

Catholic Priest: [Friend Of Priest] - thank you for your points - I appreciate what you said - l have ended my participation in it

Atheist Friend: So...[Catholic Priest] is the fool?

Atheist Friend: Stick to one side of the argument, [Friend Of Priest].

Friend Of Priest: Sorry padre. I hope this asshole is not a friend

Atheist Friend: Me too, padre. I would be embarrassed to associate with a man who resorts to violence over perceived insults.

Catholic Priest: Thanks [Friend Of Priest] - I am surprised at the direction of this conversation

Friend Of Priest: [Atheist Friend] you said something so disbarring and don't see why there is not a retraction.

Friend Of Priest: Then be careful what you write

Atheist Friend: [Friend Of Priest] likes penis. Again, a falsehood that proves my point that saying words doesn't make them true.

Catholic Priest: [Friend Of Priest] - like I said I've abandoned this conversation - lets talk via message and not buy into this

Unkowledgeable Twit: [Atheist Friend] is a potato who can type into a computer. He lives on the moon.

Atheist Friend: Also, non-libelous

Atheist Friend: [Unknowledgeable Twit] kills kittens in the microwave.

Friend Of Priest: [Atheist Friend] should be in a cell with Sandusky

Atheist Friend: See? NOW you get it. Although you asserted an opinion, and I falsely stated what I claim to be a fact. But still we made progress tonight. I bid you good night, sir.

Friend Of Priest: Due in your sleep. Fuck head

Friend Of Priest: Chock on your vomit

Atheist Friend: Spell words correctly.

Friend Of Priest: Please

Atheist Friend: I hope you find something that makes you happy. You seem like you need it. Be well.

Second Friend Of Priest: [Atheist Friend] I don't know who you are or what you are but you so crossed the line. Out of the utmost respect for [Catholic Priest], I will pray for you as you have some serious issues. I also suggest you get down on your knees and ask our Father in heaven to forgive you for your insensitive remark.

Friend Of Priest: Agreed

Atheist Friend: You mean the remark I used as an example of how saying something doesn't automatically make it true?

Friend Of Priest: What planet do you hail from

Atheist Friend: Earth, and you?

Friend Of Priest: Heaven and Earth. Say hello to the devil

Second Friend Of Priest: Go pray [Atheist Friend]. You are not worth any more of my time. [Friend Of Priest], please ignore him out of respect for Father. Remember what Jesus said Father forgive them for they or in this case he knows not what he does. God Bless

Atheist Friend: Last time I checked, Heaven wasn't a planet. It's more like a parallel universe.

Friend Of Priest: Drop down and feel the wrath of my conviction. Stand by your foolish words.

Atheist Friend: I do stand by them. They are a perfect example of a statement which, when spoken, is not rendered true.

Friend Of Priest: Grow up and repent for a blurb.

Atheist Friend: Repent for saying that an untrue statement is untrue? Your logic fails me.