Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

US Appeals Court Rules Against DOMAFollow

#1 May 31 2012 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,687 posts
NYTimes article.

It was a unanimous ruling, and 2/3 Justices were Republicans nominated by Bush Sr. or Reagan.

The ruling is only with regards to states that have legalized **** marriage, and says nothing about whether or not it is unconstitutional to ban **** marriage, but says that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to provide rights and benefits to one legally married group and not to another when they use states' definitions for marriage in the first place.

It'll almost certainly be going to the Supreme Court now. Pretty cool.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#2 May 31 2012 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,460 posts
Baby steps.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 May 31 2012 at 11:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
It'll almost certainly be going to the Supreme Court now. Pretty cool.

When people say there's no difference between presidential candidates, keep that in mind.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 May 31 2012 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,683 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
It'll almost certainly be going to the Supreme Court now. Pretty cool.

When people say there's no difference between presidential candidates, keep that in mind.
Romney, in a bid to one-up Barry, will announce shortly that not only does he plan to abolish DOMA when he rules the land, but he'll also reveal that Ann is secretly a man.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#5 May 31 2012 at 1:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
Kick ass.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#6 May 31 2012 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,034 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The ruling ... says that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to provide rights and benefits to one legally married group and not to another when they use states' definitions for marriage in the first place.

I don't see this so much as a "win" for **** marriage, but rather a reaffirmation that the decision is (at the moment) up to the individual states (which Obama has previously stated, I think). The scope of the decision is so narrow that it's hard to argue this as any more than a clarification of basic principles of federalism.

Hence my lack of surprise that the two GOP-appointed justices ruled this way.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#7 May 31 2012 at 1:32 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Demea wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The ruling ... says that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to provide rights and benefits to one legally married group and not to another when they use states' definitions for marriage in the first place.

I don't see this so much as a "win" for **** marriage, but rather a reaffirmation that the decision is (at the moment) up to the individual states (which Obama has previously stated, I think). The scope of the decision is so narrow that it's hard to argue this as any more than a clarification of basic principles of federalism.

Hence my lack of surprise that the two GOP-appointed justices ruled this way.


Unless I'm misunderstanding, the "win" here is that federal benefits should become available to **** / **** couples in states where such marriages are permitted.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#8 May 31 2012 at 1:34 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,034 posts
Yes, that's correct. However, given the recent trend of successful ballot initiatives which codify the traditional definition of marriage into state constitutions, one cannot help but wonder whether or not this will end up working against the **** marriage effort.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#9 May 31 2012 at 1:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I can't see how it'll hurt but maybe you're a more creative thinker than I.

It's not a universal win but it'll definitely be a quality of life improvement for same **** couples who will (assuming this plays through to the end in their favor) be able to share federal pensions, veterans benefits, social security, etc. Hard to see that as a loss even as the slow crawl towards SSM rights moves along.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 May 31 2012 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,034 posts
Jophiel wrote:
(assuming this plays through to the end in their favor)

That's where the worry stems from.

Edit: and by that, I don't mean this case specifically, but rather the fight for **** marriage in general throughout the country, state by state.

Edited, May 31st 2012 2:51pm by Demea
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#11 May 31 2012 at 2:25 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
At the very least, this greatly simplifies taxes: I'd imagine filing as married for state taxes but filing as single for for federal taxes introduces many potential clusterfucks.

Next: recognition. Alabamians, New York is forced to recognize marriages to your cousin Cletus, so give it a rest.
____________________________
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.
#12 May 31 2012 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
(assuming this plays through to the end in their favor)

That's where the worry stems from.

Edit: and by that, I don't mean this case specifically, but rather the fight for **** marriage in general throughout the country, state by state.

I think it will. I showed the aggregate polling over the last 10-15 years in a previous thread and we've just hit parity for support versus opposition whereas you don't have to go far back to find 10 or 20 point spreads against it. It will take time for state legislatures to roll over enough to overturn laws or re-amend their constitutions and some states will of course hold out much longer than others (such as the N. Carolina vote). But the trend certainly seems to be in favor of SSM and I think eventually you'll even have GOP controlled legislatures allowing it.

One thing I didn't expect is that you're seeing a lot more acceptance of SSM since Obama came out openly in favor of it. Assuming these new numbers are legitimate, that can have a real impact going forward as African-Americans were one of the bastions of support anti-SSM advocates depended on (again, see N. Carolina and California).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 May 31 2012 at 3:01 PM Rating: Good
***
2,796 posts
I would wager that a lot of people who vote Republican don't personally have an issue with SSM, and would answer either in favor of or not opposed to SSM when asked for a poll. The people they elect aren't going to pass any proposals putting an SSM initiative on the ballot, though.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#14 May 31 2012 at 4:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's because the people they elect go through a primary process that favors those who are against SSM because most Republicans (at least Republican primary voters) DO care. The fewer who care, the less often it'll matter in the primary process and the more people favorably inclined will take office.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 May 31 2012 at 4:41 PM Rating: Good
***
2,796 posts
The vocal minority that is strongly against SSM isn't shrinking in numbers, it's just shrinking in percentage. I would argue that the vocal minority that is strongly in favor of SSM is experiencing the same thing. (In other words, the number of people who are basically apathetic about it is growing) However, the Republicans looking to win primaries are going to have to come out against SSM if they want the vocal minority against SSM to vote for them. Otherwise the vocal minority against SSM will just find another candidate with the same fiscal views but who is against SSM and prop him up to win.

Edit: Damnit, I wrote that and even I'm mildly confused by it now.

Edited, May 31st 2012 5:43pm by Bigdaddyjug
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#16 May 31 2012 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
The vocal minority that is strongly against SSM isn't shrinking in numbers, it's just shrinking in percentage

You're aware of how we determine who wins an election, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 May 31 2012 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,460 posts
Rock, paper, scissors.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 May 31 2012 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
The vocal minority that is strongly against SSM isn't shrinking in numbers, it's just shrinking in percentage

You're aware of how we determine who wins an election, right?

Duh. It's in the Bible.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#19 May 31 2012 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Heh... I actually "get" what he's trying to say but he's missing the point. The more marginalized the strident anti-SSM vote is, the less it'll matter. Eventually you'll have politicians who are pro-SSM or just don't care but who are better qualified than whatever homophobe is running on the anti-SSM ticket and they will win. Won't happen today or tomorrow but I'm sure that's the direction we're headed. How long it takes will depend on how it takes for some people to stop living in terror of teh gheyz.

Edited, May 31st 2012 6:43pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 May 31 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,566 posts
Jophiel wrote:
How long it takes will depend on how it takes for some people to stop living in terror of teh gheyz.

Inversely related to the number of words used to promote SSM. That's why it should be called equal marriage, can we really afford to wait 50% longer?
#21 Jun 01 2012 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts
Jophiel wrote:
How long it takes will depend on how it takes for some people to stop living in terror of teh gheyz.
If they weren't always lurking in the shadows, staring at my junk in the shower because it's so awesome, I wouldn't have a problem with them.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#22 Jun 01 2012 at 9:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
can we really afford to wait 50% longer?

I can. 'Cause I'm a married straight guy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Jun 01 2012 at 9:21 AM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,034 posts
Allegory wrote:
can we really afford to wait 50% longer?

How much is this costing us, exactly? Would allowing **** to get hitched close the deficit?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#24 Jun 01 2012 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
At $20 a pop for marriage licenses, we'll be closing local budget holes in no time!

Edited, Jun 1st 2012 10:34am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Jun 01 2012 at 9:52 AM Rating: Good
***
2,796 posts
Jophiel wrote:
At $20 a pop for marriage licenses, we'll be closing local budget holes in no time!

Edited, Jun 1st 2012 10:34am by Jophiel


Pfft, I wish my marriage license had only cost $20. IIRC, it was either $50 or $55.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#26 Jun 01 2012 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts
Mine was $35.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#27 Jun 01 2012 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You have to understand that the state was very interested in me procreating some naturally occurring children within the bounds of holy matrimony. They probably cut me a break as an incentive to marry.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Jun 01 2012 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
***
2,796 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You have to understand that the state was very interested in me procreating some naturally occurring children within the bounds of holy matrimony. They probably cut me a break as an incentive to marry.


Pfft, the civil servant who helped you was probably a man, thought Flea was hot, and decided he definitely wanted some of her female offspring populating the state aproximately 20 years later. You have 2 boys, though, don't you? So I guess the joke's on him!
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#29 Jun 01 2012 at 11:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Unless...
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#30 Jun 01 2012 at 11:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Unless...
I would be the most kickass LGBT mother EVER.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#31 Jun 01 2012 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,231 posts
I think my marriage license was $35 as well. And another $20 for the second copy, since we temporarily misplaced the first one when we moved into the house. (We found it again a few months later.)
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#32 Jun 01 2012 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,034 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You have to understand that the state was very interested in me procreating some naturally occurring children within the bounds of holy matrimony. They probably cut me a break as an incentive to marry.

All according to the Illinois Democrat Machine political playbook. Smiley: nod
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#33 Jun 01 2012 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,284 posts
Man, y'all had it cheap. We payed $95 for our marriage license.
#34 Jun 01 2012 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,639 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Man, y'all had it cheap. We payed $95 for our marriage license.


We had to do pre-marriage counseling with the preacher who married us, so that took the cost down from $95 to $35.
#35 Jun 01 2012 at 8:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,284 posts
Belkira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Man, y'all had it cheap. We payed $95 for our marriage license.


We had to do pre-marriage counseling with the preacher who married us, so that took the cost down from $95 to $35.

We thought about doing that, but obviously decided to skip it. We're not big on counseling Smiley: lol
#36 Jun 01 2012 at 11:35 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,639 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Man, y'all had it cheap. We payed $95 for our marriage license.


We had to do pre-marriage counseling with the preacher who married us, so that took the cost down from $95 to $35.

We thought about doing that, but obviously decided to skip it. We're not big on counseling Smiley: lol


Well, the guy we wanted to marry us insisted, he makes all couples he marries do it. It's not counseling, really. Not a "tell me your problems" type thing. More like marriage training, where he gave us a workbook to help us learn to communicate, make a budget, that type of thing. It was honestly sort of a joke, but it saved us $60 so we were happy. Smiley: grin
#37 Jun 01 2012 at 11:36 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,566 posts
Wait, are you all including import fees in the cost of the license? Because I don't see how you can get those kind of deals even in Malaysia. It's fairly irritating because I only need the kidneys, but it's somehow cheaper to get the combo.
#38 Jun 02 2012 at 5:45 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,231 posts
I think we got a deal because we were both residents of the county.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#39 Jun 02 2012 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
I think we paid $20 or $30. The cost must be so low because the gays are subsidizing straight marriage in Iowa.
#40 Jun 03 2012 at 2:14 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Allegory wrote:
Wait, are you all including import fees in the cost of the license? Because I don't see how you can get those kind of deals even in Malaysia. It's fairly irritating because I only need the kidneys, but it's somehow cheaper to get the combo.


Perhaps you need counselling.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#41 Jun 03 2012 at 4:58 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,683 posts
Allegory wrote:
Wait, are you all including import fees in the cost of the license? Because I don't see how you can get those kind of deals even in Malaysia. It's fairly irritating because I only need the kidneys, but it's somehow cheaper to get the combo.
Sure you're still young. Wait a few years. I'd get the whole thing. With a bit of prep you should be able to preserve it for later use. Use a vacuum packer before freezing.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#42 Jun 04 2012 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Heh... I actually "get" what he's trying to say but he's missing the point. The more marginalized the strident anti-SSM vote is, the less it'll matter. Eventually you'll have politicians who are pro-SSM or just don't care but who are better qualified than whatever homophobe is running on the anti-SSM ticket and they will win. Won't happen today or tomorrow but I'm sure that's the direction we're headed. How long it takes will depend on how it takes for some people to stop living in terror of teh gheyz.


I think you're both overestimating the degree to which this is really about the "strident anti-SSM" vote in the first place. Every time the actual public has voted on granting the same legal status of marriage to same **** couples, they have rejected the idea, usually with a decent majority. Unless you truly believe that over 50% of the public is in the "strident anti-SSM" group, then you really ought to re-evaluate what is going on. The issue just isn't as simple as people "living in terror of teh gheyz" and it does the issue a disservice to continue to paint it that way.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Jun 04 2012 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I think you're both...

Yeah, I know what you think. I've also discussed your arguments before.

Edited, Jun 4th 2012 6:06pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Jun 04 2012 at 5:06 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
The issue just isn't as simple as people "living in terror of teh gheyz"


False.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#45 Jun 04 2012 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,460 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The issue just isn't as simple as people "living in terror of teh gheyz"
False.
It isn't about "teh gheyz," though. It's really about "teh dudez hasing icky buttseckses."

Because no one is against lesbians.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Jun 04 2012 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,566 posts
gbaji wrote:
Every time the actual public has voted on granting the same legal status of marriage to same **** couples, they have rejected the idea, usually with a decent majority.

Except in the eight states where they didn't, the capital of the country, and your home state where they didn't before they did. But yes, other than the exceptions your statement is true.
gbaji wrote:
The issue just isn't as simple as people "living in terror of teh gheyz" and it does the issue a disservice to continue to paint it that way.

Well, a disservice to those who find a layer of clear coat unflattering. I think you'll find it to be the minority those who like to consider themselves as bigoted or full of antipathy.
#48 Jun 04 2012 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good
It shouldn't even be up for a vote. Aside from gbaji's argument about the cost of marriage benefits, SSM doesn't affect anyone who doesn't get a same **** marriage. It affects others the same as interracial marriage, which is another civil rights issue that had to go before the supreme court to be legalized because the country as a whole was too bigoted to accept that people should be able to marry who they want.

I forget who said it, but someone smart once said that civil rights should never be put up to a vote, because the majority will never rule in favor of the minority. I think that's very accurate.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#49 Jun 04 2012 at 9:34 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The issue just isn't as simple as people "living in terror of teh gheyz"
False.
It isn't about "teh gheyz," though. It's really about "teh dudez hasing icky buttseckses."

Because no one is against lesbians.


If the LGBT folks can make the distinction, so can I.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#50 Jun 08 2012 at 12:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Every time the actual public has voted on granting the same legal status of marriage to same **** couples, they have rejected the idea, usually with a decent majority.

Except in the eight states where they didn't...


Vote? Yes. That was sorta my point. Amazing what you can accomplish when you don't let people vote on things.

Quote:
... the capital of the country...


The people voted in that case? You're still proving my point.

Quote:
...and your home state where they didn't before they did.


In my state the people voted against granting that legal status to **** couples. Then a judge overruled them. Then the people voted a second time to amend the state constitution. In both votes the majority of the population (of California, not exactly a bastion of intolerance) voted against granting the legal status of marriage and the attendant benefits to same **** couples. At some point, you really do have to abandon the assumption that this issue is just about people who like gays fighting against those who don't. That's just a stupid/silly way of looking at this.

Quote:
But yes, other than the exceptions your statement is true.


What exceptions? Can you name a single state in the US where the actual people voted to extend the legal status of marriage to same **** couples? Not the legislature, not the courts. A vote of the people. Last time I checked, every single time this has come to a vote of the people, the people have opposed it.

Why does this matter? Because someone up the thread made it sound like the majority wants these legal changes, and it's just some bigoted minority using money and influence to prevent what everyone wants. But that's simply not true. While there are a small number of bigoted people who just don't like gays, they are *not* the reason why things like Prop 8 in California exist. They are *not* the reason why DOMA exists. And if you only focus on that group, you are missing like 90% of the actual issue.


Again, does anyone actually think that over 50% of the voters in California just hate **** people? Really? That's pretty darn absurd. So then why do some people keep arguing this as though it's true?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Jun 08 2012 at 12:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Again, does anyone actually think that over 50% of the voters in California just hate **** people?

To be fair, I'm sure a healthy percentage of them don't so much hate **** people as much as they just do whatever the GOP tells them to do and rationalize to themselves later Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 40 All times are in CDT
stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (39)