RkFast Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Given you're an expert on the subject. Still smarting from the beat down I laid on you the other day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) How so? Just struck me as an odd tangent to the main issue and it was delivered with such rage. I mean, I get your point about frivolous lawsuits--99.9% of Americans are annoyed by this, across racial, economic and sexual preference categories--but that has no bearing that I can see on the issue of whether or not gay people can get married. I have some gay friends--I can ask them, but I'm pretty sure they're not interested in starting a legal war with boyscouts. Edited May 10, 2012 by gringo starr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Just struck me as an odd tangent to the main issue and it was delivered with such rage. I mean, I get your point about frivolous lawsuits--99.9% of Americans are annoyed by this, across racial, economic and sexual preference categories--but that has no bearing that I can see on the issue of whether or not gay people can get married. I have some gay friends--I can ask them, but I'm pretty sure they're not interested in starting a legal war with boyscouts. Another reading comprehension FAIL, or are you just not paying attention? The reason my very real concern about the very real chance that very real lawyers will sue very real churches because they are paid by very real psychotics who are looking to punish church people, rather than compromising/working something out with them... ...is because they have already demonstrated that exact behavior WRT Scouting. The war is over, and the Scouts won. This already happened, but cost Scouting a schitload of money that I am certain could have gone to infinitely better use than paying lawyers. =============================================== Now, aside from that, I don't see you here much, so let me explain: I troll, hard. See that "Bills drafted 2 Eagle Scouts" story? LOlololololo-lolo-lah!. See the fun part is, stuff like that story just happens, it just comes to me....and I get to use it to bash fools. This has been happening for years....because their foolishness makes it inevitable. Right when I was about to bring up the Boy Scout thing anyway....boom, this story seemingly magically appears. Thank you Chris Brown. lol-lol-lol-lah-lah (If you have no idea why I am doing that, Edited May 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Another reading comprehension FAIL, or are you just not paying attention? The reason my very real concern about the very real chance that very real lawyers will sue very real churches because they are paid by very real psychotics who are looking to punish church people, rather than compromising/working something out with them... ...is because they have already demonstrated that exact behavior WRT Scouting. This already happened, and cost Scouting a schitload of money that I am certain could have gone to infinitely better use than paying lawyers. =============================================== Now, aside from that, I don't see you here much, so let me explain: I troll, hard. See that "Bills drafted 2 Eagle Scouts" story? LOlololololo-lolo-lah!. See the fun part is, stuff like that story just happens, it just comes to me....and I get to use it to bash fools. This has been happening for years....because their foolishness makes it inevitable. Right when I was about to bring up the Boy Scout thing anyway....boom, this story seemingly magically appears. Thank you Chris Brown. lol-lol-lol-lah-lah (If you have no idea why I am doing that, I see you're enjoying yourself. That's very nice for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 It's just one more instance of it always being about him. The more I see from him the more it appears he thinks this is a "top down" country. It's like we as citizens, exist to serve the government and Obama, not the other way around. What ever do you mean? Isn't that how it's supposed to be set up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Still smarting from the beat down I laid on you the other day. In your dreams, drone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I see you're enjoying yourself. That's very nice for you. WTF do you think we do here? Do you think reading through all this pedantic tripe...would be fun, for anyone....if we couldn't make fun of obvious idiots? Most of the classic threads and lingo here come from that. Well, I bet if you rolled a die one day, and got a 3.5, you'd understand. Now, want me to be serious? Tell me how the history of the militant, well-funded LGBT community, proves they won't repeat it....WRT to suing people, churches, companies, Holy God( well, I tried), etc.? Or, would that be less than enjoyable for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 The headline to this article is misleading, but here you have it: Are Democrats ready to move their convention out of NC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 The headline to this article is misleading, but here you have it: Are Democrats ready to move their convention out of NC? So their in evolving mode right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Wow, that was odd, even for this forum. OC doesn't exactly play with a full deck. Good news: Romney will actively push for a constitutional amendment to take away the right of states to voluntarily extend marriage equality to same-sex couples according to his spokesman, Ed Gillespe. Tell me how the history of the militant, well-funded LGBT community, proves they won't repeat it....WRT to suing people, churches, companies, Holy God( well, I tried), etc.? Who said they wouldn't? There may be lawsuits. When they happen, the churches should win and life will go on. Of all the things to worry about, this is a small one, but I know it's your favorite, so by all means, keep bringing it up and make me out to be part of the problem. You are an odd duck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 OC doesn't exactly play with a full deck. Good news: Romney will actively push for a constitutional amendment to take away the right of states to voluntarily extend marriage equality to same-sex couples according to his spokesman, Ed Gillespe. That's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 The headline to this article is misleading, but here you have it: Are Democrats ready to move their convention out of NC? Well I don't think that there is any chance that the dems would really move the convention at this point. It would just make them look foolish (More foolish?) They and the media will do the necessary "cluck-clucking" about the NC marriage vote for appearances sake, but thats all. Mr Obama won NC (and its 15 electorals) in 2008 by less than 1%, thats why it was picked..........they're stuck with their choice now. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 The headline to this article is misleading, but here you have it: Are Democrats ready to move their convention out of NC? Democratic leaders need to stop with the charade they care one bit about middle America and just move it to LA, SF, NYC or Chicago. You know, where the "intelligent" people who know best live...LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Sorry--here's the link to the story about Romney campaigning on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. http://thinkprogress...al-marriage-ba/ What a tool. His first take: "This is my private view and I'll leave it to the states" was at least the old Obama line. Now he wants a constitutional amendment? Really? Like we don't have better things to do? FFS. If he truly makes a fugging Constiutional Amendment to ban gay marriage a priority, it will be another year throwing my vote away to Libertarians. Edited May 10, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Sorry--here's the link to the story about Romney campaigning on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. http://thinkprogress...al-marriage-ba/ What a tool. His first take: "This is my private view and I'll leave it to the states" was at least the old Obama line. Now he wants a constitutional amendment? Really? Like we don't have better things to do? FFS. If he truly makes a fugging Constiutional Amendment to ban gay marriage a priority, it will be another year throwing my vote away to Libertarians. Hey Mr. A. Before I get myself in an uproar.........lol I wonder, is this story anywhere else besides Think Progress ? The first 5 pages of google are the TP story and then multiple liberal sites re-gurgitating it. No major outlets. I then went to the MSNBC site, since thats where Mr Gillespie appeared, and I can't find anything there either. Now, I have little doubt that he did promote a Marriage Defense amendment, but thats not really new, its been around for multiple election cycles. Its just the snarky way that TP wrote his appearance up, assuming more than Mr. Gillespie really said, that has me doubting the way this is presented. Thanks. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Hey Mr. A. Before I get myself in an uproar.........lol I wonder, is this story anywhere else besides Think Progress ? The first 5 pages of google are the TP story and then multiple liberal sites re-gurgitating it. No major outlets. I then went to the MSNBC site, since thats where Mr Gillespie appeared, and I can't find anything there either. Now, I have little doubt that he did promote a Marriage Defense amendment, but thats not really new, its been around for multiple election cycles. Its just the snarky way that TP wrote his appearance up, assuming more than Mr. Gillespie really said, that has me doubting the way this is presented. Thanks. . It's at about 2:00 in this video. He starts out saying it's a state's issue but then he says that Mitt wants a Constitutional amendment. Edited May 10, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Hey Mr. A. Before I get myself in an uproar.........lol I wonder, is this story anywhere else besides Think Progress ? Did you try DailyKos? That's the other place where independents get their news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Google news picked it up in multiple places. And it's right unless Romney says he spoke out of turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) OC doesn't exactly play with a full deck. Good news: Romney will actively push for a constitutional amendment to take away the right of states to voluntarily extend marriage equality to same-sex couples according to his spokesman, Ed Gillespe. Who said they wouldn't? There may be lawsuits. When they happen, the churches should win and life will go on. Of all the things to worry about, this is a small one, but I know it's your favorite, so by all means, keep bringing it up and make me out to be part of the problem. You are an odd duck. Yeah...I'm the one running around crusading...but also saying this is no big deal....at the same time. Yeah...you're the one looking rational and measured. Delusion. Well, then why don't you volunteer to work for free and defend those lawsuits? What? It's no big deal, right? It's just somebody else's problem...that doesn't matter....to you. Because it's all about you, isn't it? Why the F can't you come out and admit that you are: 1. Butt hurt because you lost, again. 2. Having the wrong perspective on this. Just lay it down already. Jesus...you thought you were going to get away with being smug, and jumped at the chance to "prove" that you are morally superior to the rest of us....but you got called on it. Think about this in terms of working the problem. 3. Far and away the poster who cares the most about this issue....because you wanted #2 so badly, didn't you? Sorry, you don't get it. Not as long as I am around. Phony moral superiority clowns have been target #1 since I got here. Why do I have be the one that demands that we do this COMPETENTLY? Why do I have to tell a F'ing lawyer, of all people, that the law is law, and not morality, and that it is nuanced? That's what I hear from my lawyers all the friggin time? So why the F am I having to repeat that to you? Would you care to pay their bills for me? I mean, since I am just the middle man here? Edited May 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Yeah...I'm the one running around crusading...but also saying this is no big deal....at the same time. Yeah...you're the one looking rational and measured. Delusion. Well, then why don't you volunteer to work for free and defend those lawsuits? What? It's no big deal, right? It's just somebody else's problem...that doesn't matter....to you. Because it's all about you, isn't it? Why the F can't you come out and admit that you are: 1. Butt hurt because you lost, again. 2. Having the wrong perspective on this. Just lay it down already. Jesus...you thought you were going to get away with being smug, and jumped at the chance to "prove" that you are morally superior to the rest of us....but you got called on it. Think about this in terms of working the problem. 3. Far and away the poster who cares the most about this issue....because you wanted #2 so badly, didn't you? Sorry, you don't get it. Not as long as I am around. Phony moral superiority clowns have been target #1 since I got here. Why do I have be the one that demands that we do this COMPETENTLY? Why do I have to tell a F'ing lawyer, of all people, that the law is law, and not morality, and that it is nuanced? That's what I hear from my lawyers all the friggin time? So why the F am I having to repeat that to you? Would you care to pay their bills for me? I mean, since I am just the middle man here? I may have to get that insurance company on the phone- the one that talks about eliminating the middle man. Wait till you find out how they go about doing that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts