Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

CA State Senator DUI (with bonus *** nightclub hijinks)Follow

#152 Mar 10 2010 at 4:30 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Samira wrote:
Sure you can. That thread was in the OOT.
I'll admit that I didn't read much farther than, "Jophiel stop using bad language!!!!"

The thread itself is pretty funny.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#153 Mar 10 2010 at 4:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
There is no law requiring a state marriage license for you to be married. Zip. Zero. Nada. The laws go the other direction. You must be married (and a specific subset of marriages) to qualify for the state license.


BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ok. Find me the law that requires one must have a valid state marriage license in order to enter into any marriage contract (not just the state default marriage contract). You can't, because there is no such law.

We covered this last time. A couple guys hired some attorneys to write a marriage contract for them which included everything one expects to have in a marriage contract. They didn't need a marriage license from the state to do this. If there was a law against it, they couldn't have done it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#154 Mar 10 2010 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Find me the law that requires one must have a valid state marriage license in order to enter into any marriage contract (not just the state default marriage contract). You can't, because there is no such law.

We covered this last time. A couple guys hired some attorneys to write a marriage contract for them which included everything one expects to have in a marriage contract. They didn't need a marriage license from the state to do this. If there was a law against it, they couldn't have done it.


First, it didn't "cover everything." There's no way it could have.

Second, I say again, it's pathetic that you think that a couple paying ten thousand dollars for a contract that is the same as signing a book and getting a $90 piece of paper is perfectly ok, simply because one couple is homosexual. In my opinion, that's discrimination.
#155gbaji, Posted: Mar 10 2010 at 4:48 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If a tiny fraction of the legal costs already spent on this issue were spent on writing up said contract and creating a standard boilerplate legal contract available to anyone, it would cost the same (or less) money.
#156 Mar 10 2010 at 4:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Find me the law that requires one must have a valid state marriage license in order to enter into any marriage contract (not just the state default marriage contract). You can't, because there is no such law.

We covered this last time. A couple guys hired some attorneys to write a marriage contract for them which included everything one expects to have in a marriage contract. They didn't need a marriage license from the state to do this. If there was a law against it, they couldn't have done it.


First, it didn't "cover everything." There's no way it could have.


It covers everything except those things which are granted via government benefit. Um... But most of the things *** couples say they want is in the contract, not the benefits.

The contract you enter into when you sign a marriage license isn't some magical thing. It's a contract, just like any other. Contract law doesn't change because the government wrote the contract. Every single thing in our existing marriage contract(s) must be something that can be legally allowed in any contract.

Quote:
Second, I say again, it's pathetic that you think that a couple paying ten thousand dollars for a contract that is the same as signing a book and getting a $90 piece of paper is perfectly ok, simply because one couple is homosexual. In my opinion, that's discrimination.


So instead, you'll spend hundreds of millions of dollars on litigation and political campaigns? In what universe does this make a lick of sense? Spend 10k once. Write a contract. Make it available to anyone who wants it. What could be easier?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Mar 10 2010 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Of course, except when they can't visit dying partners despite having drafted contracts.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#158 Mar 10 2010 at 4:54 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're the one who obsessed about the ceremony itself. I was simply pointing out that you can, in fact, hold a marriage ceremony without having a marriage license.


I did...? I don't recall obsessing about a ceremony.

gbaji wrote:
This doesn't have anything to do with the ceremony either. But it does require some set of legal contracts. Um... How on earth do roommates manage this? Lol...

Do you honestly think that the cable company wont come to fix your cable if your name isn't the same as that on the contract? Really? If you are at the home, and you pay them. They don't really care. Same deal with the washing machine repair guy, the plumber, the electrician, and any of a hundred other potential businesses you may deal with. This isn't a problem.


I actually used the cable company as an example because, just today, we had a client living with her boyfriend, who's name is on the account but not "primary," who needs a note from her and a copy of her driver's license in order to go to ComCast and pick up a new digital cable box. He's over 50 years old, but he needs a @#%^ing note from his girlfriend before he can take care of this.

If they were married, it wouldn't be an issue.

gbaji wrote:
No, it doesn't. It defines a set of marriages which the state rewards by providing benefits to those who enter into them. Period. No one checks for your marriage license when you order a **** pizza. No one checks it at the gas station. No one checks it at a restaurant.

The only time anyone cares about a marriage license is if you are attempting to use any of a set of government legislated benefits. So, if you apply for a loan, they'll care. Random person on the street? Doesn't care at all. Has no reason to know either way.


Ah, so maybe these homosexual couples should't be allowed to enter into a loan...? Smiley: rolleyes

gbaji wrote:
No. I'm talking about a legally binding contract with all the conditions we associate with marriage. You don't need a license to enter into that contract. You need the contract to get the license. As I stated earlier. The law goes in the other direction.

The first contract requires "gobs of money". The next hundred thousand can be copied free for anyone who wants one. How many times more "gobs of money" have been spent on this issue already?

Power of attorney is not a rare or mystical thing. If that's all you want, then it's pretty cheap to obtain. If you want a more complete contract, you have to get one drawn up that's more complete (obviously). Again. Why hasn't the *** rights movement done this? If they care so much about *** people being able to live the lives they want to live?

That's a vastly simpler solution than going through the massive expense of trying to force legal changes in 50 states across the country. Don't you agree?


Because it's unfair to subject one group to this while the other group can simply get married? It's a matter of not being made to feel like a second class citizen. I can tell you're fine with them being labeled as such, but I'm not, and I can't imagine most of them are very happy with it, either.

gbaji wrote:
If a tiny fraction of the legal costs already spent on this issue were spent on writing up said contract and creating a standard boilerplate legal contract available to anyone, it would cost the same (or less) money.

We both know why the movement hasn't done this. If they did, most *** couples would be happy and they would lose political power. It's that simple. It's not about doing what is best for the people they represent, nor is it about doing what is "right". It's about doing what empowers them politically. And that's what's so sad about this whole issue. It does not have to be this way. There is a solution in which everyone is happy and gets what they want, but it's not being allowed to happen because it's more politically advantageous to create conflict than to resolve it.


They shouldn't have to. Nor should they have to defend their rights to idiots like you.

ETA:

Quote:
So instead, you'll spend hundreds of millions of dollars on litigation and political campaigns? In what universe does this make a lick of sense? Spend 10k once. Write a contract. Make it available to anyone who wants it. What could be easier?


Civil rights and stopping discrimination is rarely easy, but it's always worth it.

Edited, Mar 10th 2010 4:57pm by Belkira
#159 Mar 10 2010 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Also, you're delusional if you think insurance companies don't want a valid marriage license.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#160 Mar 10 2010 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
A couple guys hired some attorneys to write a marriage contract for them which included everything one expects to have in a marriage contract.

No they didn't.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#161 Mar 10 2010 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,250 posts


Also, and this is one that no one wants to talk about be cause "if you're innocent why would you care?": marital confidentiality.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#162 Mar 10 2010 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Well, guys, I'm off. Gonna see if I can draft a driving contract (rather than get a driver's license) for my little brother.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#163 Mar 10 2010 at 5:14 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts


AFTRA accepts same-*** partners. But, you know, you'd have to qualify...
#164 Mar 10 2010 at 5:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I did...? I don't recall obsessing about a ceremony.


Yup:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Why wouldn't you couple the ceremony with the marriage benefits? It is part and parcel to what a marriage is.


That in response to a part of my post that didn't even mention the marriage ceremony itself. You specifically said that the marriage ceremony should be "coupled" to the marriage benefits. I interpreted that as you saying that you can't have a ceremony without having a marriage license. If you meant something else, by all means clarify your position.

gbaji wrote:
I actually used the cable company as an example because, just today, we had a client living with her boyfriend, who's name is on the account but not "primary," who needs a note from her and a copy of her driver's license in order to go to ComCast and pick up a new digital cable box. He's over 50 years old, but he needs a @#%^ing note from his girlfriend before he can take care of this.

If they were married, it wouldn't be an issue.


Neither would it be if she held a contract which granted each other power to make financial decisions. Which is *exactly* why a marriage grants that power. Your example would work if and only if the couple in question had such a contract and the cable company refused to acknowledge it. In which case, they'd have grounds to sue the cable company, just as a married couple could.

Do you have any clue how many things married couples have to go through to make sure that the businesses they have existing contracts with include their spouses? Its no different. They don't just let you claim you are married to someone and pick up their property you know...

gbaji wrote:
Ah, so maybe these homosexual couples should't be allowed to enter into a loan...?


Where did I say that? I said that they care about it. You know why? Because the government has special loan programs which people with marriage licenses can qualify for. That's one of the benefits I was talking about.

gbaji wrote:
Because it's unfair to subject one group to this while the other group can simply get married? It's a matter of not being made to feel like a second class citizen. I can tell you're fine with them being labeled as such, but I'm not, and I can't imagine most of them are very happy with it, either.


You're kidding. Once the contract is written up, *** couples (and anyone else for that matter) can just "get married" too. You're being silly and stubborn on this point.

Quote:
They shouldn't have to. Nor should they have to defend their rights to idiots like you.


Except that there's no denial of rights going on here. I started out this discussion talking about how the problem with this issue is one side that insists on framing the issue incorrectly. That's what you are doing, btw.

It is because you insist on equating a marriage contract with a marriage license that you can't imagine another better way of resolving this issue. IMO, that's a false assumption. There is no law saying you must have a marriage license to enter into a marriage contract. None. As was pointed out in a previous thread. A *** couple did exactly that. They wrote their own contract which included everything in the existing contract you must agree to when obtaining a marriage license. It is just as valid and just as legal.


There is nothing standing in the way of every single *** couple in this country getting married tomorrow, except their own unwillingness to solve this problem using the legal tools already available to them. For a fraction of the amount of time and money already spent on this issue, their problems could have been solved. You yourself have been a victim of this, but instead of realizing it and acting to change it, you've continuing to blindly move forward supporting the very "cause" which has screwed you over.

*** couples are not special unique snowflakes. The laws of this country apply to them the same as it applies to anyone else. If they wish as a group to define a set of contracts to define their relationships, there is nothing except themselves standing in their way. There are no laws preventing them from getting what they want.

You sit there and insist that *** people should not have to go through the hoops of writing a standard marriage contract and then using it (just like everyone else who needs a legal contract btw), yet choose instead to go through massively more hoops to pursue a different course. Why should *** couples have to go through decades of fighting to change state and federal laws in order to obtain something they could get without changing a single law and for a fraction of the price and time?

If someone told me that instead of just going to the store and buying a cake, I instead had to spend decades supporting a political cause in order to force the government to bake one for me, I'd tell them to **** off. I would at a minimum realize that they were just using me for their own purposes. Why more people can't see this, I don't understand...

Quote:
Civil rights and stopping discrimination is rarely easy, but it's always worth it.


There is no civil rights violation here though. That's the problem. Just because someone tells you you must support their cause to get what you want, doesn't mean that it's true. Think for yourself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#165 Mar 10 2010 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
What I mean is that neither of your responses before was worded as what will actually happen.

Yes. I understand that. Do you understand that I don't know what will happen? Maybe you're unaware of this, but I provided you with more information (and more useful information) than you asked for. I suppose I could have just blindly stated a prediction, but that would have as much value as the pixels you're reading it on. Instead, I provided you with a pair of possibilities, with an explanation of what events might cause those possibilities to come to be.

Hey, I can be petty too. I didn't ask you to foresee the future, I asked you what what you believe the most likely outcome to be. You didn't provide me with more useful information. I already know what you want to happen, I already know you have some flawed conditional statement of "if liberals win the world explodes." None of this is new, useful, or interesting to me.

Look if you don't like my question then that's cool, but don't not answer it and then pretend you're doing me a favor.
gbaji wrote:
What you asked for was a dumb thing to ask for. To follow your rain analogy. If someone asks if you think it will rain, which is more useful: Someone simply saying "Yes. I think it will rain". Or someone saying "Well. If the temperature and wind direction stay the same, it will rain. But if we're lucky, and that high pressure zone moves south, and we'll have clear skies".

"If the conditions are right for rain, it will rain." Well duh. Thanks moron, I could have figured that out. The first is infinitely more useful.

Edited, Mar 10th 2010 5:51pm by Allegory
#166 Mar 10 2010 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,848 posts
Quote:
Found it. Enjoy that, now.


Holy 10 pages Batman. I can only assume she remains this retarded the whole time?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#167 Mar 10 2010 at 5:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,250 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Found it. Enjoy that, now.


Holy 10 pages Batman. I can only assume she remains this retarded the whole time?


Yeah, she pretty much paints herself into a corner and throws a fit. But hey, that was a long time ago and she ultimately became a pretty good sport.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#168 Mar 10 2010 at 7:16 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,288 posts
I'm just taking this time to point out that yes, gbaji has lured us into another *** marriage discussion. And after skimming (come on, no one reads all his crap) his posts, I'm still positive that his only reason for not wanting gays to get married is because it's icky.
#169 Mar 10 2010 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Assassin Nadenu wrote:
I'm just taking this time to point out that yes, gbaji has lured us into another *** marriage discussion. And after skimming (come on, no one reads all his crap) his posts, I'm still positive that his only reason for not wanting gays to get married is because it's icky.
I think it's due to how he sees almost everything else: the status quo is just ******** and he's got his, **** it.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#170 Mar 10 2010 at 7:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,461 posts
The infamous rape thread.

gbaji wrote:
Not really surprising though. We headed down this "slipperly slope" when we started putting weight in the idea of date rape.

I'm sorry, but if there's no signs of struggle, you weren't raped. You just made a bad choice. Deal with it...
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#171 Mar 10 2010 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,848 posts
gbaji wrote:
You are in charge of your own body. Always. You can *always* choose to leave if you want. You can always physically resist something. Always. If you actually physicaly cannot resist *then* a crime has been commited. Until that point, you haven't been "force" to do something. To me, that's kind of obvious. I also think it's incredibly demeaning to imply that women can't make up their own minds and take responsiblity for their choices. And that's far more often what date rape ends out being. An easy out for women who don't want to take that responsibility.


Who else thinks gbaji was raped by daddy as a child and is dealing with it by lashing out against gays and pretending like it wasn't actually rape, since he liked it?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#172 Mar 10 2010 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
The infamous rape thread.

gbaji wrote:
Not really surprising though. We headed down this "slipperly slope" when we started putting weight in the idea of date rape.

I'm sorry, but if there's no signs of struggle, you weren't raped. You just made a bad choice. Deal with it...
I can taste my bile.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#173 Mar 10 2010 at 8:21 PM Rating: Good
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,461 posts
I have a hard time getting worked up about it, since it was almost four years ago now.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#174 Mar 10 2010 at 8:24 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
I have a hard time getting worked up about it, since it was almost four years ago now.
You know how often he changes his opinions.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#175 Mar 10 2010 at 8:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,250 posts
I had forgotten that Taco and Patrician were the original frenemies.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#176 Mar 10 2010 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
*****
14,174 posts
Samira wrote:
I had forgotten that Taco and Patrician were the original frenemies.


They're so cute together.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#177 Mar 10 2010 at 10:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Ah the ever so predictable turn to personal attacks. Gotta love consistency!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#178 Mar 10 2010 at 11:01 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ah the ever so predictable turn to personal attacks. Gotta love consistency!

If your arguments were even worth attacking, they'd be doing that instead.


____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#179 Mar 10 2010 at 11:09 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
It's certainly less redundant.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#180 Mar 10 2010 at 11:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ah the ever so predictable turn to personal attacks. Gotta love consistency!

If your arguments were even worth attacking, they'd be doing that instead.


They did do that, and then failed and turned to personal attacks. Which is how this thread usually goes...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#181 Mar 10 2010 at 11:21 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,727 posts
I got married two weeks ago, and I don't have a marriage contract.




Did I get *** married?
#182 Mar 10 2010 at 11:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Ah the ever so predictable turn to personal attacks. Gotta love consistency!

Yeah, let's spend 15 pages watching you torture the definition of marriage instead. That'd be fun.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#183 Mar 10 2010 at 11:44 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ah the ever so predictable turn to personal attacks. Gotta love consistency!

If your arguments were even worth attacking, they'd be doing that instead.


They did do that, and then failed and turned to personal attacks. Which is how this thread usually goes...


Gbaji: Presents absurd argument with lackluster logic

Poster A: Your argument is invalid for the following reasons: List.

Gbaji: No it isn't, you have no evidence that I'm not right

Poster A: Here's what experts say about it from a study they did

Gbaji: The experts are wrong and are interpreting their data in a skewed, biased way

Poster A: Well, what evidence do you have that you are right?

Gbaji: I have a friend and he totally proves this because of his situation/being.

Poster B: That isn't evidence, you're stupid

Gbaji: FALLACY!!!1 YOU'RE ATTACKING THE PERSON!!! I WIN!!!

Edited, Mar 10th 2010 11:45pm by Bardalicious
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#184 Mar 11 2010 at 12:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's kind of funny that quoting comments Gbaji made in the past in all seriousness is a "personal attack". I mean, I get that they're not on topic but no one really gives a shit about the topic. I'm just amused that Gbaji would be upset about his statements getting reposted.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#185 Mar 11 2010 at 12:19 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,245 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
I got married two weeks ago, and I don't have a marriage contract.




Did I get *** married?

No, you roofied a chick and moved her jaw up and down while pulling your ventriloquist act to fool the judge.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#186 Mar 11 2010 at 12:45 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Quote:
Ah the ever so predictable turn to personal attacks. Gotta love consistency!


Of course people are going to start picking fun of other posts you made before in this thread. All you have done is try to discuss whether same *** couples should or should not get married. Your argument has been shown to be either wrong or completely without reason. And throughout all that you refuse to admit that you might be wrong, even slightly. You sit there spitting out the same banter post after post like if we are going to look at it and say "My God! Gbaji was correct this entire time!". It isn't going to happen because it isn't true. Then after people get bored of constantly pointing out the flaws in your argument, they bring up old discussions that showed how much "logic" you used back then. Think about it for a minute.

If someone like Catwho, Belkira, Allegory, or Jophiel (sorry for the rest I didn't name :() kept kicking out the same statement with their fingers in their ears refusing to listen to the opposite side and everyone was trying to convince them otherwise including you, the old posts they would have made would provide you with good entertainment. ****, I bet that you would even link some of those posts to share with the rest of us. But if someone does it to you it is "...turned to personal attacks. Which is how this thread usually goes...". Seriously Gbaji, I know this is hard to understand but acting like a little kid every time someone beats you in a discussion is old. And I am relatively new here so I would hate to imagine how it must be like for the 10k posters. :l
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#187 Mar 11 2010 at 5:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,461 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
I got married two weeks ago, and I don't have a marriage contract.




Did I get *** married?
I can only assume the reason you're asking this is because your *** hurts.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#188 Mar 11 2010 at 5:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,461 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's kind of funny that quoting comments Gbaji made in the past in all seriousness is a "personal attack". I mean, I get that they're not on topic but no one really gives a shit about the topic. I'm just amused that Gbaji would be upset about his statements getting reposted.
Don't flatter yourself, gbaji. It wasn't so much about you as epic posts. We were doing you a mercy and derailing, but there you go. Way to be an ingrate.

Edited, Mar 11th 2010 5:55am by Atomicflea
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#189 Sep 07 2012 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,371 posts
Samira wrote:
I had forgotten that Taco and Patrician were the original frenemies.



Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Samira wrote:
I had forgotten that Taco and Patrician were the original frenemies.


They're so cute together.


I would happily rip his very soul from the depths of his something or other and feed it to my child. WTF happened to my nemesis anyway? Did he get too old to teach karate? It happens to all of us.
____________________________
Crosscontinuum Copulation Diety of The Great Enigma
#190 Sep 07 2012 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Didn't he live in one of the Carolinas? I bet he tried to judo-chop the president and got taken out by a rooftop sniper.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#191 Sep 08 2012 at 1:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
Yeah, we officially don't give a fUCk about the swear filter in the asylum, and only the asylum. Everywhere else requires smitings though.

Administrator Kaolian
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#192 Sep 08 2012 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
.... aaaand that was a necropost. nevermind then. Oh well. +1 post count
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#193 Sep 08 2012 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
+2 AMIRITE Smiley: sly
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#194 Sep 08 2012 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
.... Maybe?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#195 Sep 08 2012 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
Why the fuck am I reading a two and a half year old thread?

Pat, you left and nobody really cares. Digging up all these references to yourself is just embarrassing.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#196 Sep 08 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Debalic wrote:
Why the fuck am I reading a two and a half year old thread?

Pat, you left and nobody really cares. Digging up all these references to yourself is just embarrassing.

Smiley: nod
#197 Sep 09 2012 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
I can't wait to see this post dragged back in two years and think "WTF did I post this?"
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#198 Sep 10 2012 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
.... aaaand that was a necropost. nevermind then. Oh well. +1 post count
If you insist.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 49 All times are in CDT
Allegory, Debalic, Jophiel, klausneck, Poldaran, Szabo, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (42)