Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#402 Sep 06 2012 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,589 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
@Alma Same **** marriage is not legal (recognized by the government if you will) so no one has ever made the argument "they have it so we should to" when talking about same **** marriage. Therefore, no one has ever gotten upset by the scenario you presented.


Are you saying that there are no places in the United States where SSM is recognized by the government?


Pretty sure she was referring to the federal government; not the state or local level.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#403 Sep 06 2012 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
@Alma Same **** marriage is not legal (recognized by the government if you will) so no one has ever made the argument "they have it so we should to" when talking about same **** marriage. Therefore, no one has ever gotten upset by the scenario you presented.


Are you saying that there are no places in the United States where SSM is recognized by the government?


Pretty sure she was referring to the federal government; not the state or local level.

#404 Sep 06 2012 at 1:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Belkira wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
@Alma Same **** marriage is not legal (recognized by the government if you will) so no one has ever made the argument "they have it so we should to" when talking about same **** marriage. Therefore, no one has ever gotten upset by the scenario you presented.


Are you saying that there are no places in the United States where SSM is recognized by the government?


Pretty sure she was referring to the federal government; not the state or local level.



Pretty sure that's what the other groups were saying also.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#405 Sep 06 2012 at 1:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
By the federal government? No, there's not. DOMA and all that.

Edited, Sep 6th 2012 2:59pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#406 Sep 06 2012 at 2:30 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
@Alma Same **** marriage is not legal (recognized by the government if you will) so no one has ever made the argument "they have it so we should to" when talking about same **** marriage. Therefore, no one has ever gotten upset by the scenario you presented.


Are you saying that there are no places in the United States where SSM is recognized by the government?


Pretty sure she was referring to the federal government; not the state or local level.



Pretty sure that's what the other groups were saying also.


Sure. But same **** marriage is not legal. So no groups are holding them up as examples.

So your question is moot. Because the scenario you presented has never happened.

With me?
#407Almalieque, Posted: Sep 06 2012 at 4:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's not moot, you're just in denial. I never specified Federal legalization. I said that the other groups are wanting the same privileges as SSM. There exist places in the US where SSM is recognized and supporters for child love, bestiality, polygamy, toaster-love, etc. want the same privileges.
#408 Sep 06 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Smiley: laugh

Well, if their other arguments hold up, perhaps they'll get the rights they are seeking.

Edited, Sep 6th 2012 9:26pm by Belkira
#409 Sep 07 2012 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
******
43,406 posts
Belkira wrote:
With me?
You know the answer to that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#410 Sep 07 2012 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Quote:
Sure. But same **** marriage is not legal. So no groups are holding them up as examples.

So your question is moot. Because the scenario you presented has never happened.

With me?


It's not moot, you're just in denial. I never specified Federal legalization. I said that the other groups are wanting the same privileges as SSM. There exist places in the US where SSM is recognized and supporters for child love, bestiality, polygamy, toaster-love, etc. want the same privileges.

So?

If the toaster-lovers want to push to allow for toaster-marriage they can do that. In fact, if they think it will help their cause they can point to a married couple, one of which has metal pins holding a a knee together and use them as an example of why it's ok to marry something made of metal.

It has no relevance in the issue of same-sex marriage. It is the proverbial red herring. I suppose you could even say it's moot. But you already said it wasn't. So let it be moot but meaningless.

(Personally if I were to marry an appliance it would be my coffee pot)
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#411Almalieque, Posted: Sep 07 2012 at 1:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) None of what you said has any relevance to my question. SSM supporters admit to the "they got it, so we should get it too" argument with other groups completely irrelevant to them in a total different type of discrimination. At the same time, SSM supporters get upset when the SAME EXACT argument/comparison is done with toaster lovers, etc., attempting to point out all of the differences and flaws. Why is it ok for one group but not the other?
#412 Sep 07 2012 at 3:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I think it's relevant when discussing a set of couples who can't procreate (as a couple) to observe that perhaps the same arguments no longer apply.
We should set a age limit to marriage, and necessitate the need for complete medical screening. Probably best if we strap a device on them that requires they procreate in a certain amount of time to keep them from getting married and deciding not to procreate. While we're at it, let's make it a crime for couples to get married and divorcing before they can pop out a spawn.


Or we could just include every couple which might possibly be able to procreate and avoid all the tests and expense. Of course, that leaves us with "one adult male and one adult female". Hmmm... It's almost like that's precisely *why* that criteria was adopted.

I'll also point out (for the zillionth time) that while your argument makes a case for restricting marriage further among heterosexual couples, it's not even remotely making the case for expanding it to same **** couples.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#413 Sep 07 2012 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
gbaji wrote:
Or we could just include every couple which might possibly be able to procreate and avoid all the tests and expense.
Good, then we can let the gays marry because there are medical procedures to allow them to procreate as well! Glad you agree.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#414 Sep 07 2012 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Why are you arguing so much to get toaster lovers equal rights?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#415 Sep 07 2012 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
Stock in butter. That shit is gonna skyrocket.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#416 Sep 07 2012 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Or we could just include every couple which might possibly be able to procreate and avoid all the tests and expense.
Good, then we can let the gays marry because there are medical procedures to allow them to procreate as well! Glad you agree.

Those kids don't count in the eyes of Gbaji.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#417 Sep 07 2012 at 5:31 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
@Alma - I've not seen anyone get upset about that. Again, I have NEVER seen any group make the argument that you are insisting on. All I've ever seen is people suggesting that either same **** marriage shouldn't be legal because othe groups will use the precedent to argue for their rights, or that same **** supporters need to argue for legalization of all of these other scenarios. Not one time have I heard someone say, "Same **** marriage is legal in New York. Polygamy should be as well."

I have heard people make the argument that homosexuality and ped[b][/b]ophilia are the same thing. And I think it's easy to see why that might upset some people.
#418 Sep 07 2012 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Alma is countering the arguments he wished everyone made rather than the ones being made.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#419 Sep 07 2012 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
I'm just going to leave this here.

“They Won’t Magically Turn You Into A Lustful Cockmonster”: Chris Kluwe Explains **** Marriage To The Politician Who Is Offended By An NFL Player Supporting It

Deadspin wrote:
Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize **** marriage. Yahoo has published a letter that Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote last week to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to "inhibit such expressions from your employee." This is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe's response to Burns.

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person's right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does **** marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If **** marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh shItalic Textit. **** marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn **** and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since **** people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that **** people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I've also been vocal as **** about the issue of **** marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#420 Sep 08 2012 at 10:02 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
I am totally going to use the expression "shitalic textit" from now on.

Edited, Sep 8th 2012 12:04pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#421 Sep 08 2012 at 11:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,182 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I am totally going to use the expression "shitalic textit" from now on.

Edited, Sep 8th 2012 12:04pm by Eske



For what? A badly done boob tattoo?

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

#422 Sep 08 2012 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Samira wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I am totally going to use the expression "shitalic textit" from now on.

Edited, Sep 8th 2012 12:04pm by Eske



For what? A badly done boob tattoo?


Smiley: lol
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#423 Sep 08 2012 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,852 posts
Maybe its a scientific name for a bird that likes to **** alot in texas??

Edited, Sep 8th 2012 12:32pm by 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
#424Almalieque, Posted: Sep 09 2012 at 3:34 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's not the toaster lovers making the arguments. It's opponents of SSM who either rightfully or wrongfully interject toaster lovers, child lovers, bestiality, etc. in the argument. It happens in EVERY SINGLE THREAD HERE, to include this one. Proponents either say "It's a slippery slope" or something along the lines of those groups having to fight their own battles.
#425 Sep 09 2012 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Proponents either say "It's a slippery slope" or something along the lines of those groups having to fight their own battles.

It is and they do. Did blacks gain their rights quickly, painlessly or effortlessly on the backs of women's rights or vice versa? Did ending the era of "No Irish Need Apply" suddenly mean equal job opportunities for African-Americans? Wasn't there a fifty year gap between allowing black men the right to vote and allowing women the right to vote? Can you name a couple groups where one just slid right in sharing equal rights without any work or struggle just by saying "Well, they did it"?

If you can't, it's time to admit that each group will need to make their own independent case, struggle against status quo, fight to establish a majority in favor of giving them their rights and then go on to fight a government system pretty much designed around keeping things stable. All the previous evidence is against the "slippery slope!" argument.

Now, if you want to make the mature, fact based and less hysterical argument that [boogeyman group] may one day make the same arduous journey towards acceptance with all the struggle, strife and effort that goes with it, with unsure results and countless legal challenges (not only to stop them but issues with **** their desired arrangement into the existing legal code), then go ahead. And you'll be making the same argument that you're currently throwing a fit about.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#426Almalieque, Posted: Sep 09 2012 at 8:54 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not at all. This goes back to what I said before, it's the EFFECT of the LAW, not the intent of the law. If you make immigration laws with the intent of making it easier or harder for Mexican immigrants to live in and/or exit the U.S., then that applies TO ALL IMMIGRANTS unless you specifically annotate Mexican immigrants.
#427 Sep 09 2012 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I have no issue with this, just stop referring to the Civil Rights then if you're making your own independent case.

No. Because equal rights cases DO build upon each other and use one another for legal precedent.

Quote:
Since you believe that everyone should make their own case

I don't. I take a sane middle ground between "These are 100% different and you can never talk about anything else" and "These MUST 100% lead to each other because Slippery Slope!!"

Quote:
So, I ask yet again, why is it ok to compare the homosexual movement to Civil Rights, but not to the movement of other groups, i.e. toaster love, when all groups are different in the first place?

Comparing SSM struggles to civil rights makes sense because the decisions made during the civil rights movements will directly influence how this matter gets settled. Comparing toaster-love to SSM makes less sense because SSM isn't settled yet. Now if you want to start defending pedophilia by comparing it to miscegenation laws, that would make a lot more sense than comparing it to SSM. At least then you'd be using an established precedent to base your pro-pedophilia movement off of. I doubt it'd be a strong argument but it'd at least be grounded in some sort of fact. But the reality is that people waving their arms and hooting about these things aren't interested in advacing the cause, they just want to tie SSM to it because they have an easier time trying to scare people with pedophilia than they do scaring people with two adult males spending their lives together in legal matrimony.

It's not an insulting argument because of pedophilia or toaster-love or whatever. It's an insulting argument because it implies I'm too stupid to understand why you're suddenly running for different ground.

Quote:
Not at all. This goes back to what I said before, it's the EFFECT of the LAW, not the intent of the law.

The effect of SSM legalization will be to allow same **** couples to legally marry. Full stop.

Quote:
You can't make arguments that "Consenting adults should be able to marry" and somehow believe that doesn't include polygamy and incest

Sure you can. The basis I use is the same as given in Perez. Marriage is a fundamental right that can't be taken away except for significant social reasons. I have no issue saying "We're denying [X] their right to marriage" (unless people like Gbaji who contort themselves seven way to avoid admitting it). I believe there are significant differences between SSM and the various boogeymen arrangements used in the slippery slope arguments just as there's significant reasons to serve rabbit at my restaurant and not panda, even if both taste delicious.

Line added because of forum duplicate post detection. Seriously... NOW it works? Where is it when I double-post all the **** time on my tablet?

Edited, Sep 9th 2012 10:43am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#428 Sep 09 2012 at 9:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Edit: Oops!

Edited, Sep 9th 2012 10:42am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#429 Sep 09 2012 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,205 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Edit: Oops!

Edited, Sep 9th 2012 10:42am by Jophiel
So that's the secret to getting to 58k+ posts. Just "accidentally" make an extra post once in a while. I'm onto you!
____________________________
Banh
#430Almalieque, Posted: Sep 09 2012 at 11:07 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Can you not see that your social reasoning for accepting SSM and not child love is no different than opponents of SSM accepting current marriage laws and not SSM? You're simply moving the "line of acceptance" to include SSM because you don't see anything "wrong" with SSM. In reality, your reason against those other groups are identical to the reasons against SSM.
#431 Sep 09 2012 at 1:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
*Shrug* If you think so. I think you're very wrong but I don't see the value in going in circles with you about it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#432 Sep 09 2012 at 1:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
I was just thinking "He's not one to skip over posts, this will be a very long reply". Oh well.. I honestly don't see how you think I'm wrong. At least your responses have more substance than Omega's. I would much rather "go in circles" with you rather than literally go in circles with him..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#433 Sep 09 2012 at 1:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Aww, Joph, at least give the boy a reach-around!
#434Almalieque, Posted: Sep 09 2012 at 2:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I think I have to pass... Thanks for your concern.
#435 Sep 09 2012 at 5:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Well, SSM arguments tend to rest on the legal precedent set by Loving v Virginia. So, Alma, let's hear what Mrs. Loving thinks about her case & SSM:

Mildred Loving wrote:
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, **** or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.


So much for your assertion that miscegenation laws don't apply to SSM & no one thinks they should, eh?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#436 Sep 09 2012 at 6:28 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
I just read an article from Hugh Hefner labeled "sexual freedom" (IIRC) and it is the perfect reference to SSM. It not only labels heterosexuality and homosexuality under the sexuality umbrella,but it states that SSM is not recognized because of our history to not to accept sexual activities that produce children.

He brings up a case where PlayBoy helped free a man from jail for having consensual **** sex with his wife and how at one point of time oral **** was banned in all states. He made the correct comparison. He realizes that **** sex is a whole lot more similar to **** sex than the ability to vote and or marrying someone of a different skin color.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#437 Sep 09 2012 at 6:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
And marriage is a whole lot more similar to marriage than it is to **** sex.

We've already knocked the anti-sodomy laws off the books. Now it's time to tackle marriage Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#438 Sep 09 2012 at 7:57 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
but it states that SSM is not recognized because of our history to not to accept sexual activities that produce children.


We have a history "to not to accept sexual activities that produce children"?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#439 Sep 09 2012 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He meant "not to accept sexual activities with produce children." You know, like baby ears of corn and those little cherry tomatoes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#440 Sep 09 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Good
While it's true they can't consent, I'd like to go on record that I'm ok with fruit fuckers as I don't see any harm in it. The fruit has already been picked, as it were.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#441 Sep 09 2012 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Don't pop that cherry without consent!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#442 Sep 09 2012 at 8:10 PM Rating: Excellent
That's what pea said.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#443 Sep 09 2012 at 8:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,180 posts
Jophiel wrote:
He meant "not to accept sexual activities with produce children." You know, like baby ears of corn and those little cherry tomatoes.


This is obviously a plot to keep the Cabbage Patch Kids from breeding with the lachanophiliacs.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#444 Sep 09 2012 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,887 posts
I think we just need to do away with any references to breeding or producing children because, hey, it's not like we have a population shortage or anything. Quite the opposite.
____________________________
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.
#445 Sep 09 2012 at 10:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,180 posts
Debalic wrote:
I think we just need to do away with any references to breeding or producing children because, hey, it's not like we have a population shortage or anything. Quite the opposite.


On that note I invite you all to join us at the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#446Almalieque, Posted: Sep 10 2012 at 1:36 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I was referring to comparisons not actions. The ban of SSM falls under the same attack as banning consensual **** and oral **** with your spouse. The attack is against sexual acts and sexualities that do not support the traditional man and woman having vaginal intercourse after marriage.
#447 Sep 10 2012 at 4:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not that I agree, but you're supporting SSM with that comparison as anyway so I'm glad to see you come around in favor of my position.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#448 Sep 10 2012 at 5:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
[quote=Jophiel]*Shrug* If you think so. I think you're very wrong but I don't see the value in going in circles with you about it. **** You keep responding to him and I know you're smart enough to know that any reply to him leads to going around in circles.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#449 Sep 10 2012 at 6:35 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
*Shrug* If you think so. I think you're very wrong but I don't see the value in going in circles with you about it.
Bullsh*t. You keep responding to him and I know you're smart enough to know that any reply to him leads to going around in circles.

Pointless arguments with dimwitted conservatives are Joph's cup o' tea, doncha know.
____________________________
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.


#450 Sep 10 2012 at 6:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
*Shrug* If you think so. I think you're very wrong but I don't see the value in going in circles with you about it.
Bullsh*t. You keep responding to him and I know you're smart enough to know that any reply to him leads to going around in circles.

The value in which is directly related to how much amusement I'm getting from it at a given time.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#451 Sep 10 2012 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
*Shrug* If you think so. I think you're very wrong but I don't see the value in going in circles with you about it.
Bullsh*t. You keep responding to him and I know you're smart enough to know that any reply to him leads to going around in circles.

The value in which is directly related to how much amusement I'm getting from it at a given time.
There's also some slight amusement value watching Ugly try and direct peeps off the exitless round-about of Alma's arguments.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 31 All times are in CDT
CoalHeart, Debalic, klausneck, Nadenu, Samira, Anonymous Guests (26)