gbaji wrote:
Things gbaji thinks about SSM.
No one cares! WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! *dance dance* Hooray for 'merica!
Nexa
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obergefell v. Hodges: Get your bets in
Obergefell v. Hodges: Get your bets inFollow
No one cares! WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! *dance dance* Hooray for 'merica!
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Jophiel wrote:
I'd also say that we should totally form a protest and boycott of ZAM until it lifts the filter on "gay" but I doubt anyone would notice.
Just report them to Gay Rights and Free Speech Advocates and let them do the work.
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
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
Scalia cares 
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Scalia cares
He's 79...what he cares about isn't going to relevant for much longer.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
He's 79...what he cares about isn't going to relevant for much longer.
I'm pretty sure Vader has to through him into some sort of reactor core while lightning trails from his dying hands, so being how that's fairly unlikely he'll probably be around for a while.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
Metaphor. Revelation was almost certainly written as a coded message of hope to Jewish-Christians following the fall of Jerusalem and about the desired fall of the Roman Empire.
How do you reconcile the desire of such a prominent Biblical writer to see Rome fall with the fact that Rome was tops?
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
Shit, you're right.
Well, I'm an atheist now.
Well, I'm an atheist now.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
So I'm curious, @gbaji, did you actually think the court would vote no to A and B, or was that just how you thought they should vote?
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
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
gbaji wrote:
Of course, Kennedy may certainly look at it differently. He's a bit of a wild card.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
How do you reconcile the desire of such a prominent Biblical writer to see Rome fall with the fact that Rome was tops?
Well, he'd be lion if he told you there were no issues between Rome and the Jesus crew prior to Constantine.
Well, he'd be lion if he told you there were no issues between Rome and the Jesus crew prior to Constantine.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
So I'm curious, @gbaji, did you actually think the court would vote no to A and B, or was that just how you thought they should vote?
Last couple days haven't been good for his side. I'm sure he has a really big project at work that'll keep him from posting for a while.
Edited, Jun 26th 2015 5:19pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Last couple days haven't been good for his side. I'm sure he has a really big project at work that'll keep him from posting for a while.
Hmm, honestly this is a pretty great outcome politically for the GOP. They don't really give a flying one about either of these issues, any actual 'win' on them would have harmed them politically. Running in states where people had no subsidies would have been a disaster, but they've been rescued from that. Running nationally as the candidate who had to continue to hem and haw and "it's up to the states" about SSM would have been toxic as well. Now they can just peddle the old 'activist judges' chestnut and pretend they'll 'repeal' ACA.
Hmm, honestly this is a pretty great outcome politically for the GOP. They don't really give a flying one about either of these issues, any actual 'win' on them would have harmed them politically. Running in states where people had no subsidies would have been a disaster, but they've been rescued from that. Running nationally as the candidate who had to continue to hem and haw and "it's up to the states" about SSM would have been toxic as well. Now they can just peddle the old 'activist judges' chestnut and pretend they'll 'repeal' ACA.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Nexa wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Things gbaji thinks about SSM.
No one cares! WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! *dance dance* Hooray for 'merica!
Nexa
Today it's something like SSM. You cheer as judicial precedents are set which will almost certainly trample something you care about in the future. So congratulations. Short sighted as hell, but congratulations.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Sigh...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Sir Xsarus wrote:
So I'm curious, @gbaji, did you actually think the court would vote no to A and B, or was that just how you thought they should vote?
How they should, obviously. It's become increasingly clear that the Supreme Court no longer actually rules on the law anymore, but how they think the public will view the results. What they're doing is making it very clear that this third branch of our government serves no purpose anymore. By just rubber stamping social policy for the Left, they're just writing themselves out of the equation. These two rulings have only solidified this opinion on the right. Sadly, there's only three ways to fix the problem, and two of them are pretty extreme.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
So I'm curious, @gbaji, did you actually think the court would vote no to A and B, or was that just how you thought they should vote?
Last couple days haven't been good for his side. I'm sure he has a really big project at work that'll keep him from posting for a while.
Um... Actually, I was out all day yesterday at a big group work thingie and was busy today until just now. So yeah.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Hah! I will say this, it looks like Alito has been reading my posts or something:
I practically copyrighted the phrase "potentially procreative". But hey. It's all about hating gays, right?
Again, I can't help but see the bigger issue. It's not really about gay rights, or whether you like this group or that group. It's about the change in how we determine constitutionality that is the problem. This ruling is the court basically saying "it's (un)constitutional if we want it to be". In their haste to be on the "right side of the issue" they've done irreparable harm to our judicial process IMO.
Justice Alito wrote:
For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate. Adherents to different schools of philosophy use different terms to explain why society should formalize marriage and attach special benefits and obligations to persons who marry. Their basic argument is that States formalize and promote marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to provide the best atmosphere for raising children.
I practically copyrighted the phrase "potentially procreative". But hey. It's all about hating gays, right?
Again, I can't help but see the bigger issue. It's not really about gay rights, or whether you like this group or that group. It's about the change in how we determine constitutionality that is the problem. This ruling is the court basically saying "it's (un)constitutional if we want it to be". In their haste to be on the "right side of the issue" they've done irreparable harm to our judicial process IMO.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
So much harm was done...
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
gbaji wrote:
I can't help but see the bigger issue.
Oh, and just in case you really need to continue, just keep in mind:
Nexa wrote:
No one cares!
Edited, Jun 26th 2015 8:54pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
Hah! I will say this, it looks like Alito has been reading my posts or something:
I practically copyrighted the phrase "potentially procreative". But hey. It's all about hating gays, right?
Justice Alito wrote:
For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-*** couple can do: procreate. Adherents to different schools of philosophy use different terms to explain why society should formalize marriage and attach special benefits and obligations to persons who marry. Their basic argument is that States formalize and promote marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to provide the best atmosphere for raising children.
I practically copyrighted the phrase "potentially procreative". But hey. It's all about hating gays, right?
Every person on the planet that's not sterile is "potentially procreative." But hey, let's twist ourselves into legitimizing our dislike of gays, right?
gbaji wrote:
Today it's something like SSM. You cheer as judicial precedents are set which will almost certainly trample something you care about in the future. So congratulations. Short sighted as ****, but congratulations.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Sigh...
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Sigh...
SCOTUS tramples something someone cares about every day, based on the justices' partisan whims. Nothing has changed.
gbaji wrote:
Sadly, there's only three ways to fix the problem, and two of them are pretty extreme.
So, wait... is "Stop being whiny bitches" one of the two extreme solutions or is it the easy one?
Rhetoric about "Five people in black robes!!!" aside, this ruling came on the shoulders of circuit court decisions in favor in the Forth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth districts. And numerous rulings at the district and state level. It was only a 2-1 decision in the Sixth that over turned four additional pro-SSM rulings which finally bumped this to the Supreme Court (and because the ACLU decided to get it over with rather than seek an en banc ruling). It took years for it to hit the Supreme Court because they wouldn't grant certiorari until there was finally a split at the appellate level. The total number of Circuit Court of Appeals justices ruling on the cases was eleven finding a constitutional protection versus four dissenting. I won't even bother trying to count all the lower level judges ruling in favor. This wasn't "OMG Kennedy decided to make history" but a decision made agreeing with the great majority of other judges ruling on this, appointed by both parties and previously thought of as being just fine until they make a decision you don't agree with and then everyone flips their shit and starts hooting.
If you want to refuse to admit that you were wrong and would rather nurse your wounds with petulant mutterings about "extreme solutions", knock yourself out. Or you could always, you know, grow up -- but I can see the attractiveness of your current solution.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
You cheer as judicial precedents are set which will almost certainly trample something you care about in the future. So congratulations. Short sighted as ****, but congratulations.
Corporations are people!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Gay corporations can finally get married!
Edited, Jun 26th 2015 8:22pm by trickybeck
Smasharoo wrote:
Running nationally as the candidate who had to continue to hem and haw and "it's up to the states" about SSM would have been toxic as well.
Don't underestimate the GOP's ability to look like complete asses.
Houston Chronicle wrote:
Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage across the country on Friday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott told his department directors to not take action against any state officials who act or refuse to act on account of their "sincere religious belief."
"This order applies to any agency decision, including but not limited to granting or denying benefits, managing agency employees, entering or enforcing agency contracts, licensing and permitting decisions, or enforcing state laws and regulations," Abbott wrote
"This order applies to any agency decision, including but not limited to granting or denying benefits, managing agency employees, entering or enforcing agency contracts, licensing and permitting decisions, or enforcing state laws and regulations," Abbott wrote
Texas can deny married couples their state benefits because... Jesus!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
For all the talk about tradition, none of these people are leaving the country on wooden boats filled with bibles, plague blankets, and little else.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Recent Visitors: 264
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (264)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obergefell v. Hodges: Get your bets in
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC