goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: steve dave on February 19, 2012, 09:34:46 AM
-
holy eff. have not really listened to a lot of him talking but he is currently on Face the Nation absolutely shitting his pants :sdeek:
-
worth getting out of bed?
-
omg. definitely worth getting out of bed.
-
summary? missed it, video not yet up.
-
LOL He absolutely buried Bob Schieffer. The only one stammering in that interview was Schieffer.
-
LOL He absolutely buried Bob Schieffer. The only one stammering in that interview was Schieffer.
watched the video. Bob comes off looking old, Rick comes off looking weird.
-
LOL He absolutely buried Bob Schieffer. The only one stammering in that interview was Schieffer.
watched the video. Bob comes off looking old, Rick comes off looking weird.
He is weird.
-
Rick Santorum is a Warmonger. Guy is a lunatic.
-
Rick Santorum is a Warmonger. Guy is a lunatic.
He HATES brown people. Absolutely despises them
-
i cannot believe santorum is leading the polls, let alone considered a legitimate rough ridin' candidate. good lord.
-
$1000 says the guy is a closet case, most militant homophobes are.
-
Seems to hate straight sex almost as much as gay sex.
-
Alan Colmes was way out of line by bringing up Santorum's dead baby story, but it definitely is a very strange story. If we actually elect this guy, the country has hit a new low.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5iY5Sll72k&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5iY5Sll72k&feature=related)
eff this guy.
-
Santorum epitomizes everything wrong with the GOP
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsqi89hSh54 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsqi89hSh54)
LOL at the poor kid whose parents made him sit in the front row.
-
obligatory:
www.spreadingsantorum.com
-
obligatory:
www.spreadingsantorum.com
I never knew that about his name, but it's very fitting. :lol:
-
Obama wants to run against Santorum, too, as evidenced by his recent ad buy in Michigan against Romney. How any "conservative" could be so non pragmatic as to vote for this guy is beyond me.
-
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/dutch-outraged-over-santorums-euthanasia-clai (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/dutch-outraged-over-santorums-euthanasia-clai)
Don't let grandma go to the Netherlands, they will kill her.
:lol:
-
Obama wants to run against Santorum
of course he does
-
Barry wants to run against anyone but Ron Paul. He knows he'll take a dump on the rest of those goons.
-
Barry wants to run against anyone but Ron Paul. He knows he'll take a dump on the rest of those goons.
i have a better chance of becoming goEMAW.com poster of the year than ron paul has of becoming president, tard.
-
Barry wants to run against anyone but Ron Paul. He knows he'll take a dump on the rest of those goons.
i have a better chance of becoming goEMAW.com poster of the year than ron paul has of becoming president, tard.
Thanks for your input, foxnews_Cat
-
:facepalm:
-
Romney will end up with the nomination unless somebody unknown pops out of the woodwork in the next few weeks.
-
Romney will end up with the nomination unless somebody unknown pops out of the woodwork in the next few weeks.
Short of a brokered convention, I don't think that is possible. A new entrant probably couldn't even get on the ballet in most states.
I think Michigan and Ohio will both break late for Romney, just like Florida. Now that spotlight is shining on Santorum, he is imploding almost as fast as Gingrich did.
-
:facepalm:
LAUGH OUT LOUD
-
Hilarious:
http://gawker.com/5887087/rick-santorum-made-entirely-of-gay-porn
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages1.dailykos.com%2Fi%2Fuser%2F2722%2FTMW2012-02-22colorlowre1.jpg&hash=285a345b8f2c39bc03f0335d0796a8f6a8636aac)
-
It's funny how liberals prioritize certain issues. Kinda meh about the national debt, jobs, and foreign policy, but criticize premarital sex or homosexuality and its a call to action!!
-
It's funny how liberals prioritize certain issues. Kinda meh about the national debt, jobs, and foreign policy, but criticize premarital sex or homosexuality and its a call to action!!
neocon parody post?
-
It's funny how liberals prioritize certain issues. Kinda meh about the national debt, jobs, and foreign policy, but criticize premarital sex or homosexuality and its a call to action!!
every republican speech for the last 10 years: abortion is evil, gays are evil, don't take our guns, don't let colored people in the country, god bless america (in that order)
-
It's funny how liberals prioritize certain issues. Kinda meh about the national debt, jobs, and foreign policy, but criticize premarital sex or homosexuality and its a call to action!!
This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.
That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
It's funny how republicans supposedly want the government to leave them alone.
-
It's funny how liberals prioritize certain issues. Kinda meh about the national debt, jobs, and foreign policy, but criticize premarital sex or homosexuality and its a call to action!!
This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.
That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
It's funny how republicans supposedly want the government to leave them alone.
Right. I'm not denying the inconsistency between advocating for small government and for more federal intervention on social issues. I just think its funny that these are the issues liberals really get bent out of shape over. These, and pot legalization. I've actually got a liberal friend who says's he's "fiscally conservative" but still supports Obama because of the gay marriage issue. He's not even gay, just a liberal with some seriously messed up priorities.
And while there are certainly "social conservatives" who put these types of issues first and foremost, Santorum being one of them, they have largely taken a back seat in the GOP recently. Most GOP politicians are focusing on the debt and jobs, as they should be. The Tea Party has refused to even touch social issues, for good reason.
Liberals are funny people.
-
I've actually got a liberal friend who says's he's "fiscally conservative" but still supports Obama because of the gay marriage issue. He's not even gay, just a liberal with some seriously messed up priorities.
ok, you went to far here. you had a great run but you have to know how far is to far to not blow cover. confirmed conservative parody sock fellas.
-
It's funny how liberals and conservatives prioritize certain issues. Kinda meh about the national debt, jobs, and foreign policy, but criticize premarital sex or homosexuality and its a call to action!!
fix'd
-
It's funny how liberals and conservatives prioritize certain issues. Kinda meh about the national debt, jobs, and foreign policy, but criticize premarital sex or homosexuality and its a call to action!!
fix'd
Well, yeah, but again, how could any rational person think that pot legalization, premarital sex, or gay marriage is more important than 15% real unemployment or a $15 trillion debt growing by $1.5 trillion per year? The stuff that causes libs to go crazy is just comical.
Reminds me of that question Stephanopolous asked a few debates ago about whether the states have the right to prohibit contraception. The audience just kind of laughed. These are the serious issues of the day for liberals.
-
It's funny how liberals and conservatives prioritize certain issues. Kinda meh about the national debt, jobs, and foreign policy, but criticize premarital sex or homosexuality and its a call to action!!
fix'd
Well, yeah, but again, how could any rational person think that pot legalization, premarital sex, or gay marriage is more important than 15% real unemployment or a $15 trillion debt growing by $1.5 trillion per year? The stuff that causes libs to go crazy is just comical.
I don't see how any rational person could think that Obama's economic policy has been significantly different from what a Republican president would have done.
Really, his stance on gay marriage isn't any different from most republicans, either.
-
It's funny how liberals and conservatives prioritize certain issues. Kinda meh about the national debt, jobs, and foreign policy, but criticize premarital sex or homosexuality and its a call to action!!
fix'd
Well, yeah, but again, how could any rational person think that pot legalization, premarital sex, or gay marriage is more important than 15% real unemployment or a $15 trillion debt growing by $1.5 trillion per year? The stuff that causes libs to go crazy is just comical.
Reminds me of that question Stephanopolous asked a few debates ago about whether the states have the right to prohibit contraception. The audience just kind of laughed. These are the serious issues of the day for liberals.
isn't Santorum gaining ground because he is a social conservative. i.e. the issues that have nothing to do with what you just mentioned as impotant.
-
It's funny how liberals and conservatives prioritize certain issues. Kinda meh about the national debt, jobs, and foreign policy, but criticize premarital sex or homosexuality and its a call to action!!
fix'd
Well, yeah, but again, how could any rational person think that pot legalization, premarital sex, or gay marriage is more important than 15% real unemployment or a $15 trillion debt growing by $1.5 trillion per year? The stuff that causes libs to go crazy is just comical.
I don't see how any rational person could think that Obama's economic policy has been significantly different from what a Republican president would have done.
Really, his stance on gay marriage isn't any different from most republicans, either.
I don't understand Obama's stance on gay marriage. If he were a republican, he would be a well known bigoted homophobe.
-
It's funny how liberals and conservatives prioritize certain issues. Kinda meh about the national debt, jobs, and foreign policy, but criticize premarital sex or homosexuality and its a call to action!!
fix'd
Well, yeah, but again, how could any rational person think that pot legalization, premarital sex, or gay marriage is more important than 15% real unemployment or a $15 trillion debt growing by $1.5 trillion per year? The stuff that causes libs to go crazy is just comical.
I don't see how any rational person could think that Obama's economic policy has been significantly different from what a Republican president would have done.
Really, his stance on gay marriage isn't any different from most republicans, either.
Yeah, reducing corp tax rate from 34% to 28%(latest proposal) doesn't seem overly lib.
-
Yeah, reducing corp tax rate from 34% to 28%(latest proposal) doesn't seem overly lib.
It also eliminates loopholes that a lot of small businesses benefit from, so republicans are against it.
-
Yeah, reducing corp tax rate from 34% to 28%(latest proposal) doesn't seem overly lib.
It also eliminates loopholes that a lot of small businesses benefit from, so republicans are against it.
Yup, it actually turns the cut into an increase unless you get it to about 25%.
-
Yeah, reducing corp tax rate from 34% to 28%(latest proposal) doesn't seem overly lib.
It also eliminates loopholes that a lot of small businesses benefit from, so republicans are against it.
Yup, it actually turns the cut into an increase unless you get it to about 25%.
If you want more revenue, you've got to do three things: (1) simplify the tax code, (2) broaden the base (meaning a less progressive code where the bottom 50% actually pay something in income tax), (3) improve the economy (in part by fixing the tax code, but also by setting a more pro-business agenda).
-
Right. I'm not denying the inconsistency between advocating for small government and for more federal intervention on social issues. I just think its funny that these are the issues liberals really get bent out of shape over. These, and pot legalization. I've actually got a liberal friend who says's he's "fiscally conservative" but still supports Obama because of the gay marriage issue. He's not even gay, just a liberal with some seriously messed up priorities.
Yeah it's super weird that someone could find issues relating to equality and human rights to be as/more important than money. Hmm.
-
Yeah, reducing corp tax rate from 34% to 28%(latest proposal) doesn't seem overly lib.
It also eliminates loopholes that a lot of small businesses benefit from, so republicans are against it.
Yup, it actually turns the cut into an increase unless you get it to about 25%.
The plan gets rid of "dozens" of tax breaks when there are over 130 on the books. Most corporations would still pay far less than the 28% tax rate that is proposed. This is a simplification of the tax code, and if it were proposed by a republican president, you would be all for it.
-
Yeah, reducing corp tax rate from 34% to 28%(latest proposal) doesn't seem overly lib.
It also eliminates loopholes that a lot of small businesses benefit from, so republicans are against it.
Yup, it actually turns the cut into an increase unless you get it to about 25%.
The plan gets rid of "dozens" of tax breaks when there are over 130 on the books. Most corporations would still pay far less than the 28% tax rate that is proposed. This is a simplification of the tax code, and if it were proposed by a republican president, you would be all for it.
If it were proposed by republicans, I would guess it would be about 16%, and liberals would scream TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!!11!!!1!!! even though there is proof that lower corporate taxes equate to higher tax revenues.
-
Right. I'm not denying the inconsistency between advocating for small government and for more federal intervention on social issues. I just think its funny that these are the issues liberals really get bent out of shape over. These, and pot legalization. I've actually got a liberal friend who says's he's "fiscally conservative" but still supports Obama because of the gay marriage issue. He's not even gay, just a liberal with some seriously messed up priorities.
Yeah it's super weird that someone could find issues relating to equality and human rights to be as/more important than money. Hmm.
:lol: and then they get all preachy, calling it "human rights" and stuff to make it sound more serious. Classic.
-
Yeah, reducing corp tax rate from 34% to 28%(latest proposal) doesn't seem overly lib.
It also eliminates loopholes that a lot of small businesses benefit from, so republicans are against it.
Yup, it actually turns the cut into an increase unless you get it to about 25%.
If you want more revenue, you've got to do three things: (1) simplify the tax code, (2) broaden the base (meaning a less progressive code where the bottom 50% actually pay something in income tax), (3) improve the economy (in part by fixing the tax code, but also by setting a more pro-business agenda).
Couldn't have said it better myself.
-
Yeah, reducing corp tax rate from 34% to 28%(latest proposal) doesn't seem overly lib.
It also eliminates loopholes that a lot of small businesses benefit from, so republicans are against it.
Yup, it actually turns the cut into an increase unless you get it to about 25%.
The plan gets rid of "dozens" of tax breaks when there are over 130 on the books. Most corporations would still pay far less than the 28% tax rate that is proposed. This is a simplification of the tax code, and if it were proposed by a republican president, you would be all for it.
If it were proposed by republicans, I would hazard to it would be about 16%, and liberals would scream TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!!11!!!1!!! even though there is proof that lower corporate taxes equate to higher tax revenues.
Lower taxes can produce higher revenues, but a 54% tax break is a little bit too extreme, imo. I'm for smaller incremental cuts.
-
Right. I'm not denying the inconsistency between advocating for small government and for more federal intervention on social issues. I just think its funny that these are the issues liberals really get bent out of shape over. These, and pot legalization. I've actually got a liberal friend who says's he's "fiscally conservative" but still supports Obama because of the gay marriage issue. He's not even gay, just a liberal with some seriously messed up priorities.
Yeah it's super weird that someone could find issues relating to equality and human rights to be as/more important than money. Hmm.
:lol: and then they get all preachy, calling it "human rights" and stuff to make it sound more serious. Classic.
:cool:
-
btw pushing for the legalization of pot has EVERYTHING to do with money and the economy.
Imagine the revenues it would produce. :love:
-
Yeah, reducing corp tax rate from 34% to 28%(latest proposal) doesn't seem overly lib.
It also eliminates loopholes that a lot of small businesses benefit from, so republicans are against it.
Yup, it actually turns the cut into an increase unless you get it to about 25%.
The plan gets rid of "dozens" of tax breaks when there are over 130 on the books. Most corporations would still pay far less than the 28% tax rate that is proposed. This is a simplification of the tax code, and if it were proposed by a republican president, you would be all for it.
If it were proposed by republicans, I would hazard to it would be about 16%, and liberals would scream TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!!11!!!1!!! even though there is proof that lower corporate taxes equate to higher tax revenues.
Lower taxes can produce higher revenues, but a 54% tax break is a little bit too extreme, imo. I'm for smaller incremental cuts.
Getting rid of the majority of loopholes would make it a much smaller cut, but at least it would be a cut, overall. Companies like GE would actually see a 12% increase in their tax rate, but most others would see huge benefits. Buffett would scream like a little school girl. Would be hilarious.
-
Is a 12 percent increase of zero dollars still zero dollars? Im not sure, I haven't taken math in a while.
-
And it says something about a person when they dont think eqaulity is the most important and basic issue, let alone that they dont even think its important at all.
:nono:
-
Is a 12 percent increase of zero dollars still zero dollars? Im not sure, I haven't taken math in a while.
OH nice catch seven. 12 percentage points. Whew, glad that's cleared up. GE actually paid 3.9%.
-
Didn't they pay nothing like a year or two ago? It was mostly clean energy rebates or something, but that's what I was refering to.
-
Didn't they pay nothing like a year or two ago? It was mostly clean energy rebates or something, but that's what I was refering to.
Yeah, that was the rumor going around. I pulled the number from a recent article about 2011 corporate taxes, so maybe in 2010 they didn't pay.
-
Most of you probably aren't even gay! Why do you care about this? Probably just liberals with some seriously messed up priorities.
-
seriously :lol:
-
And it says something about a person when they dont think eqaulity is the most important and basic issue, let alone that they dont even think its important at all.
:nono:
SO much good stuff here. We've got the "equality" buzz word, right up there with "human rights." You'd think we're talking about something akin to slavery. Next, equality is misspelled. And then, to cap it off, the finger wag. Liberalism perfectly encapsulated in one brilliant post.
-
I enjoy gays. :party:
-
Someone cliff notes for me about the gay thing did santorum show up at the airport with a couple bag boys in tow for a weekend in greece?
-
btw pushing for the legalization of pot has EVERYTHING to do with money and the economy.
Imagine the revenues it would produce. :love:
not to mention big pharma would have some competition for once. Lower prescription drug prices reduces medicare part D costs, which of course wouldn't be an issue if neo conservative George Bush hadn't done this in the first place.
but yeah pot solves lots of issues, man
-
It's funny how liberals and conservatives prioritize certain issues. Kinda meh about the national debt, jobs, and foreign policy, but criticize premarital sex or homosexuality and its a call to action!!
fix'd
Well, yeah, but again, how could any rational person think that pot legalization, premarital sex, or gay marriage is more important than 15% real unemployment or a $15 trillion debt growing by $1.5 trillion per year? The stuff that causes libs to go crazy is just comical.
I don't see how any rational person could think that Obama's economic policy has been significantly different from what a Republican president would have done.
Really, his stance on gay marriage isn't any different from most republicans, either.
I dont like Obama as much as the next guy, but i believe this to be true. No effing way McCain/Palin or any (R) would have done any better than Obama. After all, it was a Republican who crap all over the free market as his second term winded down.
-
I don't see how any rational person could think that Obama's economic policy has been significantly different from what a Republican president would have done.
Really, his stance on gay marriage isn't any different from most republicans, either.
I dont like Obama as much as the next guy, but i believe this to be true. No effing way McCain/Palin or any (R) would have done any better than Obama. After all, it was a Republican who crap all over the free market as his second term winded down.
You know, and I'm just spit-balling here, I would think McCain would not have spent his first two years ramming through a massive new entitlement program we can't afford and trying to pass a massive new energy tax. He might have even realized the urgency of ballooning deficits and pursued budgets that actually cut spending, instead of increasing it. Maybe he would have pursued some needed tax reform right out of the gate instead of, say waiting until he was running for reelection. But, it's hard to say how much he would have accomplished since, without Obama's actions above, Republicans probably would not have retaken the House in 2010.
-
By the way, Chris Christie (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/02/23/chris-christie-smacks-down-wapos-capehart-i-m-not-going-be-cross-exam) recently weighed in on Obama's non-existent position on gay marriage.
-
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).
so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???
-
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).
so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???
Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.
-
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).
so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???
Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.
What do you equate to "human rights"?
-
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).
so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???
Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.
What do you equate to "human rights"?
I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.
-
Let me just take a timeout for a second here to tell you how incredible your screen name is.
-
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).
so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???
Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.
What do you equate to "human rights"?
I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.
If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?
-
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).
so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???
Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.
What do you equate to "human rights"?
I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.
If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?
BECAUSE THE BABY JESUS SAID SO
-
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).
so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???
Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.
What do you equate to "human rights"?
I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.
If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?
Because a lot of very religious people find it significant, and marriage is a religious institution ? Let them have their word. Its one freaking word.
-
Let me just take a timeout for a second here to tell you how incredible your screen name is.
Aww, thanks! :blush: Took me a long time to come up. It's no SkinnyBenny, but what is, you know?
-
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).
so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???
Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.
What do you equate to "human rights"?
I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.
If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?
Because a lot of very religious people find it significant, and marriage is a religious institution ? Let them have their word. Its one freaking word.
So people didn't get married before Christianity existed?
-
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).
so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???
Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.
What do you equate to "human rights"?
I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.
If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?
Because a lot of very religious people find it significant, and marriage is a religious institution ? Let them have their word. Its one freaking word.
So people didn't get married before Christianity existed?
Seriously Clark?
-
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).
so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???
Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.
What do you equate to "human rights"?
I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.
If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?
Because a lot of very religious people find it significant, and marriage is a religious institution ? Let them have their word. Its one freaking word.
A lot of gay people are religious, FYI. Sorry it's not your type of religious.
-
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).
so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???
Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.
What do you equate to "human rights"?
I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.
If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?
Because a lot of very religious people find it significant, and marriage is a religious institution ? Let them have their word. Its one freaking word.
A lot of gay people are religious, FYI. Sorry it's not your type of religious.
I think you're assuming I am offended by gay marriage. I couldn't care less about such a trivial issue. I just enjoy stirring up the libs.
-
You clearly care.
-
One of the preeminent conference armageddon experts recently stepped out of his comfort zone to opine that any gays who want to get married should just move to a place where it's legal. Of course, that sort of wholesale population shift could drastically alter some of the future revenue numbers being tossed around when it comes to upcoming conference tv deals.
-
You clearly care.
Awesome handle, and a mind reader. Wow. Just wow.
-
You clearly care.
Awesome handle, and a mind reader. Wow. Just wow.
:cool:
-
you two should get married. errr civil unioned
-
you two should get married.
wish we could :cry:
Now let's get back to how hilariously weird and easy-to-make-fun-of Rick Santorum is.
-
Look at all you idiots argue about whether the government should allow certain people to get married.
If any of you were anything other than partisan wonks, incapable of independent thought, you would be asking why anyone has to ask permission of the government, and pay a fee, to get married in the first place. The fact that you need government permission to pledge your undying devotion to another person is a violation of civil liberty and human rights. For some reason only the Paulites seem to grasp this simple concept.
Idiots
-
I don't think many people care if it is called marriage. I think the care is re: the diff in rights that a married couple has vs a couple in a civil union. Inheritance, insurance coverage, etc.
Call it whatevs, just make all the rights the same.
-
The fact that you need government permission to pledge your undying devotion to another person is a violation of civil liberty and human rights. For some reason only the Paulites seem to grasp this simple concept.
Idiots
I pretty much agree. Only problem is your solution is pretty wacky and won't ever happen, even though it's probably the solution I would prefer. Arguing against the current system for a system that is better, even if it isn't perfect doesn't make someone an idiot.
-
Side note: I absolutely love it when someone asks where it all stops, and what if someone wanted to marry their dog or cat. Love it.
-
I don't think many people care if it is called marriage. I think the care is re: the diff in rights that a married couple has vs a couple in a civil union. Inheritance, insurance coverage, etc.
Call it whatevs, just make all the rights the same.
This is exactly the opposite. Most of those that oppose gay marriage have no problem with them having the exact same rights, they oppose calling it "marriage". Seems pretty ridiculous either way.
-
I cant take Santorum seriously. The guy is a fake. Literally.
-
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).
so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???
Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.
What do you equate to "human rights"?
I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.
Glad to see separate but equal has moved into the 21st century.
-
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).
so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???
Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.
What do you equate to "human rights"?
I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.
Glad to see separate but equal has moved into the 21st century.
Yup, a difference over a word is akin to separate water fountains and bus seating. Keep 'em coming!
-
Do you really think, as long as douchebag idiot politicians like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are alive, that the terminology will be the only difference between the two?
-
I don't think many people care if it is called marriage. I think the care is re: the diff in rights that a married couple has vs a couple in a civil union. Inheritance, insurance coverage, etc.
Call it whatevs, just make all the rights the same.
This is exactly the opposite. Most of those that oppose gay marriage have no problem with them having the exact same rights, they oppose calling it "marriage". Seems pretty ridiculous either way.
Get rid of all marriages, call everything civil unions.... bigger shitstorm?
-
:drink:
The fact that you need government permission to pledge your undying devotion to another person is a violation of civil liberty and human rights. For some reason only the Paulites seem to grasp this simple concept.
Idiots
I pretty much agree. Only problem is your solution is pretty wacky and won't ever happen, even though it's probably the solution I would prefer. Arguing against the current system for a system that is better, even if it isn't perfect doesn't make someone an idiot.
I bet you would have been a big proponent of "seperate but equal"
Like I said, partisan wonks incapable of independent thought.
-
Do you really think, as long as douchebag idiot politicians like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are alive, that the terminology will be the only difference between the two?
#Butthurt dem without a brain post
-
I don't think many people care if it is called marriage. I think the care is re: the diff in rights that a married couple has vs a couple in a civil union. Inheritance, insurance coverage, etc.
Call it whatevs, just make all the rights the same.
This is exactly the opposite. Most of those that oppose gay marriage have no problem with them having the exact same rights, they oppose calling it "marriage". Seems pretty ridiculous either way.
Get rid of all marriages, call everything civil unions.... bigger shitstorm?
This is by far the best solution. "Marriage" is a religious idea and the government doesn't have any business making those decisions. As far as the "perks" of marriage (joint tax returns, inheritance, and all other rights afforded to spouses) those should be extended to civil unions and any two human beings should be allowed to form a "civil union" for those purposes. If two people can find a church that will "marry" them, good for them.
-
Curious what the difference (in price) is between marriage licenses and whatever you get for a civil union. Also, do they still do common-law marriages? Do you have to pay for a license then or do they just give you that tag? And none of this is meant (in any way) to condemn gay marriages, just curious of the particulars.
-
Rick Santorum says women are too emotionally weak for combat, but emotionally strong enough to raise the child of their rapist.
-
Rick Santorum says women are too emotionally weak for combat, but emotionally strong enough to raise the child of their rapist.
Rick Santorum speaks in the third person?
-
Rick Santorum says women are too emotionally weak for combat, but emotionally strong enough to raise the child of their rapist.
Rick Santorum speaks in the third person?
I found it on twitter. Didn't care to cite my source , it was just an interesting statement in my opinion.
-
Rick Santorum says women are too emotionally weak for combat, but emotionally strong enough to raise the child of their rapist.
Rick Santorum speaks in the third person?
I found it on twitter. Didn't care to cite my source , it was just an interesting statement in my opinion.
"Obama is a Muslim" is an interesting statement, too. Doesn't mean its factually correct.
-
sdk = Brain dead idiot, incapable of independent thought
-
The only reason people are against the abortion rights of rape victims is because Jesus' mother was one.
-
The only reason people are against the abortion rights of rape victims is because Jesus' mother was one.
So you are saying Jesus would be aborted in today's liberal world. :flush:
-
The only reason people are against the abortion rights of rape victims is because Jesus' mother was one.
So you are saying Jesus would be aborted in today's liberal world. :flush:
I've always been confused about incest/rape being exceptions, abortion is abortion. That's like stealing isn't legal except food to survive.
-
The only reason people are against the abortion rights of rape victims is because Jesus' mother was one.
So you are saying Jesus would be aborted in today's liberal world. :flush:
I don't think we live in a "liberal world."
-
The only reason people are against the abortion rights of rape victims is because Jesus' mother was one.
So you are saying Jesus would be aborted in today's liberal world. :flush:
I've always been confused about incest/rape being exceptions, abortion is abortion. That's like stealing isn't legal except food to survive.
Abortion is abortion. You are right. Becoming pregnant by your own choice and aborting is different than be forcibly impregnated and aborting.
One of my professor's husband is a Philosophy professor. I guess he asked her a question about if you woke up and you were in a hospital bed connected via a tube to a very important person (genius, world renowned artist, etc.) and they were in a coma and you had to stay connected to them for 9 months via that tube or whatever, they would come to life. Would you do it? The wording was better, but it was a very interesting way of putting it.
-
To be clear, I dont care about abortion at all, even late term is fine to me, but santorum being against the exceptions seems consistent to me.
-
The only reason people are against the abortion rights of rape victims is because Jesus' mother was one.
How delightfully demonstrative of the low life ignoramous typical obamabot.
How embarrassing for the resident libs, your own special little opcat
-
delightfully demonstrative ignoramous typical obamabot resident libs little opcat
:thumbs:
-
One of my professor's husband is a Philosophy professor. I guess he asked her a question about if you woke up and you were in a hospital bed connected via a tube to a very important person (genius, world renowned artist, etc.) and they were in a coma and you had to stay connected to them for 9 months via that tube or whatever, they would come to life. Would you do it? The wording was better, but it was a very interesting way of putting it.
what if it wasn't an important person, but just an ordinary person just like the 7 billion others just like it? and what if you also had to drag it around for like two years wiping it's ass because it just crap whenever it wanted and expected you to clean it up? and what if you also had to support it for a min. of 18 years and economists estimate that that'd run you like 300k or something like that?
-
Wow this thread has taken a frighteningly disturbing and disgusting twist for the resident libs
True colors really showing through. Scary how these sub-humans think. Like little Hitler minions.
Also, the new lib sox on this board are really really dull.
-
The only reason people are against the abortion rights of rape victims is because Jesus' mother was one.
So you are saying Jesus would be aborted in today's liberal world. :flush:
:thumbs:
I've always been confused about incest/rape being exceptions, abortion is abortion. That's like stealing isn't legal except food to survive.
Murder is murder, even if the person murdered was trying to rape and murder you
-
this threads last few pages are a pretty good example of why santorum is a lost cause nomination
-
:lol:
-
Wow this thread has taken a frighteningly disturbing and disgusting twist for the resident libs
True colors really showing through. Scary how these sub-humans think. Like little Hitler minions.
Also, the new lib sox on this board are really really dull.
FSD, while often getting real weird with it, is at least consistent. Nice consistency, FSD. :cheers: to not being mealy-mouthed.
-
FSD, you clearly have your talking points more together and better researched. I'm not here to try and match wits and political knowledge. If that is what you are here to do, by all means have at it.
I'm not here representing Libs, Dems, or really anyone. The only I ever said to hint at my political feelings is that I voted for Obama. You hated my reasoning, and that's about it.
In short, I'm just here to play devil's advocate. Not to be taken seriously, or engage in a serious debate about the issues. I am admittedly not well versed on them, and don't intend to enter into talks where I am outmatched.
No matter who you support, I'll show up and say something against them. This is how I formulate my thoughts, by attacking other peoples thoughts and listening to their responses.
I'm sure you will now have some negative things to say about this post, and have other names to call me, and accusations to make. In the interest of full disclosure, I thought I'd fill you in, so you can save your anger for those that ardently oppose the things you say.
-
FSD, you clearly have your talking points more together and better researched. I'm not here to try and match wits and political knowledge. If that is what you are here to do, by all means have at it.
I'm not here representing Libs, Dems, or really anyone. The only I ever said to hint at my political feelings is that I voted for Obama. You hated my reasoning, and that's about it.
In short, I'm just here to play devil's advocate. Not to be taken seriously, or engage in a serious debate about the issues. I am admittedly not well versed on them, and don't intend to enter into talks where I am outmatched.
No matter who you support, I'll show up and say something against them. This is how I formulate my thoughts, by attacking other peoples thoughts and listening to their responses.
I'm sure you will now have some negative things to say about this post, and have other names to call me, and accusations to make. In the interest of full disclosure, I thought I'd fill you in, so you can save your anger for those that ardently oppose the things you say.
Don't talk at me. You are beneath me. You aren't the devil's advocate. You are an ignorant sad little person, without purpose, thought or mind. You should not post, you are making a mockery of the libs on this board and are doing a great disservice to even their own stupidity. Do them a favor and stop. Or, do me a favor and keep at it.
Like B.O. you've lowered the overall discourse in this country.
-
Murder
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
So yes, murder is murder, but your example isn't murder since it would likely be lawful self defense.
Again, I dont care about abortion, but if you are against it but for exceptions for rape/incest victims then you probably arent as against it as you think.
-
Murder
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
So yes, murder is murder, but your example isn't murder since it would likely be lawful self defense.
Again, I dont care about abortion, but if you are against it but for exceptions for rape/incest victims then you probably arent as against it as you think.
You are, at best, incoherent
-
Aww, someone made a bad point and isn't taking it very well.
-
Aww, someone made a bad point and isn't taking it very well.
Like I said, really really dull sox.
The gibber jabber of a drunk whino
-
Wow this thread has taken a frighteningly disturbing and disgusting twist for the resident libs
True colors really showing through. Scary how these sub-humans think. Like little Hitler minions.
Also, the new lib sox on this board are really really dull.
The liberal thought process with respect to abortion is pretty revolting. It's really not good for anyone to engage in a "debate" on the subject.
-
this threads last few pages are a pretty good example of why santorum is a lost cause nomination
Yeah. He was on Meet the Press this morning. If he's on TV every week, he may get the lowest popular vote percentage in history.
That guy will turn off at least eighty percent of independents. Minimum.
-
One of my professor's husband is a Philosophy professor. I guess he asked her a question about if you woke up and you were in a hospital bed connected via a tube to a very important person (genius, world renowned artist, etc.) and they were in a coma and you had to stay connected to them for 9 months via that tube or whatever, they would come to life. Would you do it? The wording was better, but it was a very interesting way of putting it.
what if it wasn't an important person, but just an ordinary person just like the 7 billion others just like it? and what if you also had to drag it around for like two years wiping it's ass because it just crap whenever it wanted and expected you to clean it up? and what if you also had to support it for a min. of 18 years and economists estimate that that'd run you like 300k or something like that?
Or what if people laid eggs? Could either parent just crush the egg if they decided they didn't want it. I picture sys volunteering on weekends as an egg-crusher as a way to help the planet and relieve stress.
-
Im glad Ron Paul exposed that stupid insider on national television. He truly is a fake. He is not conservative. And i think the voting record speaks for itself. Anybody see that study put out that looked at each candidate's economic plans and who was going to cut the debt the most.... Turns out that Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all raise the debt.... hmmm........... Only 1 candidate truly lowered the debt total. The debt should be the NUMBER ONE issue on everybodys mind. How can it not be?
-
The debt should be the NUMBER ONE issue on everybodys mind. How can it not be?
Some people think arguing about what a 2000 year old zombie would want us to do.
-
The debt should be the NUMBER ONE issue on everybodys mind. How can it not be?
Some people think arguing about what a 2000 year old zombie would want us to do.
We must stop the queers fisrt, then focus on the debt. Queers are basically murderers since they are both "sin" and stuff.
-
We must stop them so there won't be anymore santorum made
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fjoshua_green%2Fsantorum_richard.jpg&hash=059af3fe3d44ebcbbad3f92a676cdf2bb5806f6e)
I hope this guy get's the nomination. And despite the fact that my gay friends (with very advanced gaydar) think that he's a raging closet case, I like him best because of his wholesome values.
-
He is definitely a closet case. Anyone who publicly bashes gays is insecure about something.....
-
Obama is a snob because he wants people to go to college.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GSn3YL1hZOU
:sdeek:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fw2Mkp.jpg&hash=28af8a0ac4195ff1e64226f7b1e1a07f1da2cc8b)
-
see.
see!
-
see.
see!
:peek:
-
http://www.tshirthell.com
(http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/you-suck-dick-santorum/)
-
The debt should be the NUMBER ONE issue on everybodys mind. How can it not be?
Some people think arguing about what a 2000 year old zombie would want us to do.
Is the debt not a concern to you?
-
The debt should be the NUMBER ONE issue on everybodys mind. How can it not be?
Some people think arguing about what a 2000 year old zombie would want us to do.
Is the debt not a concern to you?
Of course it is. It's a concern to everyone. But Ron Paul supporters act like he has some sort of magic "Get out of debt" wand. He doesn't.
-
The debt should be the NUMBER ONE issue on everybodys mind. How can it not be?
Some people think arguing about what a 2000 year old zombie would want us to do.
Is the debt not a concern to you?
Of course it is. It's a concern to everyone. But Ron Paul supporters act like he has some sort of magic "Get out of debt" wand. He doesn't.
http://rt.com/usa/news/debt-paul-santorum-budget-053/
-
The debt should be the NUMBER ONE issue on everybodys mind. How can it not be?
Some people think arguing about what a 2000 year old zombie would want us to do.
Is the debt not a concern to you?
Of course it is. It's a concern to everyone. But Ron Paul supporters act like he has some sort of magic "Get out of debt" wand. He doesn't.
Maybe not, but he's the only one that doesnt work for the bankers and the military industrial complex. None of the others (including Obama) give a crap about "us".
-
Obama, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum are all puppets to the bankers. And I cant belive people actually vote for these guys lol. Santorum is flat lying when he says he is a conservative...look at his voting record! I mean they all basically are the same. More government, more spending, more policing the world, I dont rough ridin' get it.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vXmbAUgzYM
Hilarious Tom Woods!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js3BYcHmBhE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js3BYcHmBhE)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js3BYcHmBhE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js3BYcHmBhE)
omg, that was fantastic :lol:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js3BYcHmBhE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js3BYcHmBhE)
I love those things.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js3BYcHmBhE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js3BYcHmBhE)
good god. Im crying right now that was so funny.
-
Or what if people laid eggs? Could either parent just crush the egg if they decided they didn't want it.
i think so. fussy people don't get as upset about omelets as about veal.
-
LOL He absolutely buried Bob Schieffer. The only one stammering in that interview was Schieffer.
when he sends our boys to war with Iran be sure to sign up.
Dont' worry though, he is making a nice run by stirring up the evangelicals who quit thinking shortly before high school and he won't get nominated. I would love to see a thorough tromp of Santorum in the general election. We could see the flames from space.
-
LOL He absolutely buried Bob Schieffer. The only one stammering in that interview was Schieffer.
when he sends our boys to war with Iran be sure to sign up.
Dont' worry though, he is making a nice run by stirring up the evangelicals who quit thinking shortly before high school and he won't get nominated. I would love to see a thorough tromp of Santorum in the general election. We could see the flames from space.
I'm not a Satorum supporter unless he some how ends up the nominee. Then it will be hold the nose and vote just like with Bush.
-
LOL He absolutely buried Bob Schieffer. The only one stammering in that interview was Schieffer.
when he sends our boys to war with Iran be sure to sign up.
Dont' worry though, he is making a nice run by stirring up the evangelicals who quit thinking shortly before high school and he won't get nominated. I would love to see a thorough tromp of Santorum in the general election. We could see the flames from space.
I'm not a Satorum supporter unless he some how ends up the nominee. Then it will be hold the nose and vote just like with Bush.
I'm of the belief that anyone that would be fit enough to lead our country doesn't dare get into the reality side show it has become.
Chris Christie would be, by far, the toughest competitor Obama who ever have to go up against. Worse than Gingrich because the personal attacks on him are just too easy for any negative ad campaign. (See Romney's Super PAC)
-
Or what if people laid eggs? Could either parent just crush the egg if they decided they didn't want it.
i think so. fussy people don't get as upset about omelets as about veal.
This is a remarkably good point. No face, no crime.
-
If Santorum is the Republican nominee, he is up by one point over the president, 46% to 45%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
:lol:
-
Apparently every stupid f*cking christian kansas wants the debt and spending to continue. Along with the wars..
Good job idiots.
-
Been a while since I've read this thread. I'll start by Wow. Santorum... Really. Wow. I now agree that Ron Paul is completely un-electable. Any one dumb enough to vote for Santorum couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag - and Kansas alone is full of these morons - not to mention the rest of the nation. To whoever said they voted for Obama - then promptly admitted they knew nothing about politics. You are the rough ridin' problem. Stop Voting. YOU ARE THE REASON DUMB SHITS LIKE SANTORUM ARE STILL ALIVE IN THIS RACE. rough ridin' educate yourself.
If anyone cares still, I'd like to add to the great abortion / gay marriage debate. Civil Liberties is all it really comes down to. Abortion is difficult because no definition of when sperm becomes life can be agreed upon. Obviously, A baby should have right to life; yet, a woman should have the right to not be pregnant. I want someone to legally define when it is life before I can chose a side. We've all heard the "an acorn is not a tree, an embryo is not a baby" etc. etc. Is it life after conception? Is the Morning after pill murder? Whatever. Answer those questions to legally define when life is life WITHOUT bringing religion in. You want religion to make a ruling on abortion? Simple, excommunicate anyone that has an abortion based off their definition of life. Stop trying to impose your crazy ass definitions of life on everyone. Or, you know, act like what a rough ridin' religion should act like and rough ridin' help the people when they are in need. You know, times like when they're thinking of murdering a baby growing inside them? Yeah. Maybe most people wouldn't hate you religion if you weren't so rough ridin' hypocritical.
But anyway, religious perspectives have no part in government, which brings me to marriage. Allowing the government to define what is and what isn't a civil liberty is very dangerous. Claiming that two men rough ridin' each other in the ass while they call each other husband hurts no one. If your marriage is so shallow and empty that you rely on how other people celebrate their marriage to define what your marriage is - then no wonder you're so worried about what other people do - because YOU HAVE NO LIFE. Maybe become secure enough in your marriage that you won't care if some dude from north dakota decides to marry his dog lassie and spend the rest of his life rough ridin' a Labrador retriever. Does that really define who you are? What, you're less of a person because you're "Allowing" someone to act inappropriately? Listen up dip crap. If it really is that inappropriate, the dudes dick will fall off from some horrible disease. At worst case, you'll be able to laugh at the dumb crap rough ridin' a dog. Oh, I'm sorry. You're afraid that your kids might think it's okay to eff a dog? Because Billy in North Dakota can? If you need a law telling your kids to not eff dogs, then you are a shitty parent and no amount of laws will stop your little Braden from rough ridin' dogs.
Why do I care? As a straight married with two kids 30 something man? I don't believe you should ever allow an elected official to be granted power over something that I wouldn't want my worst enemy to have. Chances are, down the road, my elected official may be my worst enemy. I don't want anyone, including my government, to dictate who with, when & how I have sex or enter a relationship with. And no one else should either. You're not gay for caring about these issues, It just means you care about what you are FREE to do with your life.
-
What was the dogs name?
It's safe here you can tell us.
-
a vote for romney is a vote for romney. a vote for santorum might be a vote for santorum, or it might be a vote for an open convention.
-
a vote for romney is a vote for romney. a vote for santorum might be a vote for santorum, or it might be a vote for an open convention.
I'd call in sick from work for the duration of the convention and would watch every second of it. It would be amazing.
-
I'd call in sick from work for the duration of the convention and would watch every second of it. It would be amazing.
it'd be a lot of fun, i'm hopeful.
-
What was the dogs name?
It's safe here you can tell us.
Why LN? Looking for a date?
See how easy it is to act like a child and accuse people of being dog fuckers when you don't agree with them? Grow up.
-
"The percentage of a state that could be cast in 'Deliverance' or 'The Hills Have Eyes' directly corresponds to every Santorum victory. Mississippi? Santorum. Oklahoma? Santorum."
made me laugh a little :)
-
frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex
-
Dog rough ridin' jokes aside I agreed with everything you said here.
Also the growing up thing seems unlikely. Sorry.
Been a while since I've read this thread. I'll start by Wow. Santorum... Really. Wow. I now agree that Ron Paul is completely un-electable. Any one dumb enough to vote for Santorum couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag - and Kansas alone is full of these morons - not to mention the rest of the nation. To whoever said they voted for Obama - then promptly admitted they knew nothing about politics. You are the rough ridin' problem. Stop Voting. YOU ARE THE REASON DUMB SHITS LIKE SANTORUM ARE STILL ALIVE IN THIS RACE. rough ridin' educate yourself.
If anyone cares still, I'd like to add to the great abortion / gay marriage debate. Civil Liberties is all it really comes down to. Abortion is difficult because no definition of when sperm becomes life can be agreed upon. Obviously, A baby should have right to life; yet, a woman should have the right to not be pregnant. I want someone to legally define when it is life before I can chose a side. We've all heard the "an acorn is not a tree, an embryo is not a baby" etc. etc. Is it life after conception? Is the Morning after pill murder? Whatever. Answer those questions to legally define when life is life WITHOUT bringing religion in. You want religion to make a ruling on abortion? Simple, excommunicate anyone that has an abortion based off their definition of life. Stop trying to impose your crazy ass definitions of life on everyone. Or, you know, act like what a rough ridin' religion should act like and rough ridin' help the people when they are in need. You know, times like when they're thinking of murdering a baby growing inside them? Yeah. Maybe most people wouldn't hate you religion if you weren't so rough ridin' hypocritical.
But anyway, religious perspectives have no part in government, which brings me to marriage. Allowing the government to define what is and what isn't a civil liberty is very dangerous. Claiming that two men rough ridin' each other in the ass while they call each other husband hurts no one. If your marriage is so shallow and empty that you rely on how other people celebrate their marriage to define what your marriage is - then no wonder you're so worried about what other people do - because YOU HAVE NO LIFE. Maybe become secure enough in your marriage that you won't care if some dude from north dakota decides to marry his dog lassie and spend the rest of his life rough ridin' a Labrador retriever. Does that really define who you are? What, you're less of a person because you're "Allowing" someone to act inappropriately? Listen up dip crap. If it really is that inappropriate, the dudes dick will fall off from some horrible disease. At worst case, you'll be able to laugh at the dumb crap rough ridin' a dog. Oh, I'm sorry. You're afraid that your kids might think it's okay to eff a dog? Because Billy in North Dakota can? If you need a law telling your kids to not eff dogs, then you are a shitty parent and no amount of laws will stop your little Braden from rough ridin' dogs.
Why do I care? As a straight married with two kids 30 something man? I don't believe you should ever allow an elected official to be granted power over something that I wouldn't want my worst enemy to have. Chances are, down the road, my elected official may be my worst enemy. I don't want anyone, including my government, to dictate who with, when & how I have sex or enter a relationship with. And no one else should either. You're not gay for caring about these issues, It just means you care about what you are FREE to do with your life.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fjoshua_green%2Fsantorum_richard.jpg&hash=059af3fe3d44ebcbbad3f92a676cdf2bb5806f6e)
I hope this guy get's the nomination. And despite the fact that my gay friends (with very advanced gaydar) think that he's a raging closet case, I like him best because of his wholesome values.
young Santorum looks kinda like Stevesie. Sorry, stevsie.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fjoshua_green%2Fsantorum_richard.jpg&hash=059af3fe3d44ebcbbad3f92a676cdf2bb5806f6e)
I hope this guy get's the nomination. And despite the fact that my gay friends (with very advanced gaydar) think that he's a raging closet case, I like him best because of his wholesome values.
young Santorum looks kinda like Stevesie. Sorry, stevsie.
I agree, actually.