Some funny points of view via Twitter on N. Carolina Amend,. 1

[Cugalabanza]

So in other words.."Its Mark Miller's way or the highway...and if you dont agree with me youre irrational and stupid."

 

How "tolerant", "compassionate", "empathetic" and "open minded."

 

Why try to understand the other's POV and try to convince them that change is the right thing to do, when you can just mock them and call them names?

No, that's not it.

 

The "other's POV" is a mess. They insist their position is not bigoted, but they so far have not put forth an argument for their position that is not reducible to bigotry.

[John Adams]

I'm tolerant of people being grossed out. I'm tolerant of people not wanting to have same sex marriage in their churches.

 

I'm not tolerant of people who deny same sex couples the right to marry.

[RkFast]

The SSM set HAS to acknowledge what they seek to do. They seek to alter one of the pillars of society. Thats big time stuff and those reluctant to it arent all a bunch of "close-minded rednecks"....maybe they just have trepidation about such a massive undertaking and need some help understanding why this is the right thing to do. And this is where the SSM set fails.

 

By the way...the abolition of slavery didnt happen in a few years, either. People didnt just "wake up" and say its wrong. Someone TAUGHT THEM that its wrong. They showed the slaveowners the light. And this is what the SSM set has to do now with this issue. The SSM wants the change. So they are the ones that have to do the heavy lifting of showing why this has to happen. And just yelling "BIGOT!!!!" and glitterbombing everyone who is reluctant to move forward on this issue doesnt even come CLOSE to doing that heavy lifting. Its a complete failure on their part to move those against it toward the light.

 

What do you think will cause change? Embarrassing Rick Santorum on TV with glitter? Or seeking him out and talking to him about why your life partner is dying in the hospital without health insurance becuase you cant marry him and have those married benefits like health insurance?

 

No, that's not it.

 

The "other's POV" is a mess. They insist their position is not bigoted, but they so far have not put forth an argument for their position that is not reducible to bigotry.

 

 

The others position is a mess?

 

 

big·ot·ry

   /ˈbɪgətri/ [/url]Show Spelled[big-uh-tree] Show IPA noun, plural big·ot·ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

 

Who is being the bigot?

Edited May 10, 2012 by RkFast

[Cugalabanza]

Who is being the bigot?

There are plenty of opinions different from my own that I can respect. This does not happen to be one of those.

 

I'm waiting for a defense of the position that holds water. Your appeal to tradition does not cut it. You even go so far as to equate it to slavery, which I think is valid. You seem to be making my point for me--it needs to change. The fact that it takes time is of no consequence to the central point: This instance of inequality needs to be remedied.

[RkFast]

There are plenty of opinions different from my own that I can respect. This does not happen to be one of those.

 

I'm waiting for a defense of the position that holds water. Your appeal to tradition does not cut it. You even go so far as to equate it to slavery, which I think is valid. You seem to be making my point for me--it needs to change. The fact that it takes time is of no consequence to the central point: This instance of inequality needs to be remedied.

 

Yes, it needs to be remedied, but you, as one seeking the change, has to understand why those who dont want to feel the way they do. Until you do that, nothing will change.

[Cugalabanza]

Yes, it needs to be remedied, but you, as one seeking the change, has to understand why those who dont want to feel the way they do. Until you do that, nothing will change.

I think I do understand why they feel the way they do. I think it's based on fear, resistance to change and adherence to tradition and a way of life they're used to. I know that these are powerful motivations. Nonetheless, the change is happening.

[John Adams]

The SSM set HAS to acknowledge what they seek to do. They seek to alter one of the pillars of society. Thats big time stuff and those reluctant to it arent all a bunch of "close-minded rednecks"....maybe they just have trepidation about such a massive undertaking and need some help understanding why this is the right thing to do. And this is where the SSM set fails.

 

By the way...the abolition of slavery didnt happen in a few years, either. People didnt just "wake up" and say its wrong. Someone TAUGHT THEM that its wrong. They showed the slaveowners the light. And this is what the SSM set has to do now with this issue. The SSM wants the change. So they are the ones that have to do the heavy lifting of showing why this has to happen. And just yelling "BIGOT!!!!" and glitterbombing everyone who is reluctant to move forward on this issue doesnt even come CLOSE to doing that heavy lifting. Its a complete failure on their part to move those against it toward the light.

 

 

Wait, what? Slavery was abolished through chalkboards and power points that got slaveholders to "see the light?"

 

Pretty sure there might have been some name calling and worse that got this country to end slavery. Sometimes the only reasonable way to break through stupidity is to force it. See slavery. See segregation. See interracial marriage. Sometimes the majority is just wrong. The legal recourses against all of these will run their course and if they are not successful, the next round of repealing these laws will be a great victory. One way or another, we'll put this shameful chapter behind us.

Edited May 10, 2012 by John Adams

[Ramius]

Yes, it needs to be remedied, but you, as one seeking the change, has to understand why those who dont want to feel the way they do. Until you do that, nothing will change.

 

They're easy to understand. They simply want to restrict the freedoms of others because they think its icky. Last time i checked, freedom of beliefs went all ways. Too many people, including those against gay marriage, think that freedom of beliefs means only their own beliefs.

 

Alogn with waiting for other answers, i'm waiting to hear a valid argument as to just how a gay couple getting married affects some other random straight couple.

[Shoutbox]

Yes, it needs to be remedied, but you, as one seeking the change, has to understand why those who dont want to feel the way they do. Until you do that, nothing will change.

 

We already know why the anti-gay marriage people feel the way they do. I've spelled it out several times already: unexamined religiosity, homophobia, fear of change, and (in the case of many people here at PPP) hatred of anything that the Democrats tend to support.

 

What else is there to understand? How can you ever have an intelligent, rational discussion with these types?

 

I'm still waiting for someone - ANYONE - to explain to me how society will collapse when we allow gays to marry. I'll stop being a great big meanie to all of the anti-gay marriage people as soon as I get this explanation.

[Alaska Darin]

That's naive.

 

Given you're an expert on the subject.

[3rdnlng]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/my-behalf_644310.html

 

"But Mr. Obama actually did bare his soul unintentionally today (perhaps the Biden disease is catching) with his astonishing characterization of American fighting men and women, whom he referred to as “those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf.” Really?

 

Most Americans thought they were fighting for the country, not on Barack Obama’s behalf. Slip of the tongue, to be sure, but can one think of another president who’d have made it? They are fighting under his command, under his orders, to be sure, but this particular locution is offensive and solipsistic. Mr. Obama has switched his position on the sanctity of marriage back and forth and has a new one, again, today, revealed when politics made that advisable to him and to his campaign. Whether this is the end or he will “evolve” some more is anyone’s guess.

 

But let’s leave our soldiers out of this. They aren’t fighting for Mr. Obama and his campaign, and no one sent them out to risk their lives to win same sex “marriage.”

[John Adams]

http://www.weeklysta...alf_644310.html

 

"But Mr. Obama actually did bare his soul unintentionally today (perhaps the Biden disease is catching) with his astonishing characterization of American fighting men and women, whom he referred to as "those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf." Really?

 

Most Americans thought they were fighting for the country, not on Barack Obama's behalf. Slip of the tongue, to be sure, but can one think of another president who'd have made it? They are fighting under his command, under his orders, to be sure, but this particular locution is offensive and solipsistic. Mr. Obama has switched his position on the sanctity of marriage back and forth and has a new one, again, today, revealed when politics made that advisable to him and to his campaign. Whether this is the end or he will "evolve" some more is anyone's guess.

 

But let's leave our soldiers out of this. They aren't fighting for Mr. Obama and his campaign, and no one sent them out to risk their lives to win same sex "marriage."

 

Do you know how many times we've heard "The military is fighting for YOU." I don't see why this turn of phrase is any different. Except that a Democrat said it so therefore, it must be wrong.

[OCinBuffalo]

The difference is that when Jim and Joe marry, it doesn't take away from Steve and Sally the church goers rights.

Except for your favorite bogeyman, the church suers.

Yeah....who sued the Boy Scouts? Boogeymen? Or scumbag lawyers working for scumbags forcing their LGBT agenda on 12-18 year-olds?

 

HEY PPP! Look: a lawyer is trying to tell us that lawyers won't sue somebody unless they have a legit case. Anyone wanna take a bet that is predicated on "lawyers won't sue"? :lol:

 

Look, I get it, gay people just want to get married and go home. What you don't get it is: Boy Scouts just want to go camping, and church people just want to go to church, without assclown lawyers harassing them.

 

Perhaps you should be more focused on cleaning up the mess your profession causes on a daily basis, and dares to call a "cost of doing business", and less focused on this stuff? Seems like a better use of your time, and ours.

[Adam]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/my-behalf_644310.html

 

"But Mr. Obama actually did bare his soul unintentionally today (perhaps the Biden disease is catching) with his astonishing characterization of American fighting men and women, whom he referred to as “those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf.” Really?

 

Most Americans thought they were fighting for the country, not on Barack Obama’s behalf. Slip of the tongue, to be sure, but can one think of another president who’d have made it? They are fighting under his command, under his orders, to be sure, but this particular locution is offensive and solipsistic. Mr. Obama has switched his position on the sanctity of marriage back and forth and has a new one, again, today, revealed when politics made that advisable to him and to his campaign. Whether this is the end or he will “evolve” some more is anyone’s guess.

 

But let’s leave our soldiers out of this. They aren’t fighting for Mr. Obama and his campaign, and no one sent them out to risk their lives to win same sex “marriage.”

The troops are out there fighting for all of us (and nobody in particular) and the right to have our freedoms. Without them, they are nothing. The only way they should be implicated in this at all, is the fact that if somebody can serve, they should be able to get married if they want. Any other use of them is political and rhetoric.

[B-Man]

We already know why the anti-gay marriage people feel the way they do. I've spelled it out several times already: unexamined religiosity, homophobia, fear of change, and (in the case of many people here at PPP) hatred of anything that the Democrats tend to support.

 

What else is there to understand? How can you ever have an intelligent, rational discussion with these types?

 

I'm still waiting for someone - ANYONE - to explain to me how society will collapse when we allow gays to marry. I'll stop being a great big meanie to all of the anti-gay marriage people as soon as I get this explanation.

 

 

 

I try to avoid the gratuitous name-calling present on the board, but you sir are a buffoon.

 

 

After reading for the fourth or fifth time how "No One will answer me" childishness, when throughout the several pages there have been reasoned responses and links to other articles that you either chose to ignore, read - but did not agree with or read --but did not comprehend (sadly, I suspect the latter)

 

Lets look at your last response again;

We already know why the anti-gay marriage people feel the way they do. I've spelled it out several times already: unexamined religiosity, homophobia, fear of change, and (in the case of many people here at PPP) hatred of anything that the Democrats tend to support.

 

What else is there to understand? How can you ever have an intelligent, rational discussion with these types?

 

You state that this is your belief and then whine that no one will try and change your mind.

 

Well its obviously closed, so naturally you wouldn't accept any discussion anyway. THATS why you're not getting a response.

 

I repeat myself, you sir, are a buffoon.

 

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

Do you know how many times we've heard "The military is fighting for YOU." I don't see why this turn of phrase is any different. Except that a Democrat said it so therefore, it must be wrong.

 

 

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.

[Cugalabanza]

Yeah....who sued the Boy Scouts? Boogeymen? Or scumbag lawyers working for scumbags forcing their LGBT agenda on 12-18 year-olds?

 

HEY PPP! Look: a lawyer is trying to tell us that lawyers won't sue somebody unless they have a legit case. Anyone wanna take a bet that is predicated on "lawyers won't sue"? :lol:

 

Look, I get it, gay people just want to get married and go home. What you don't get it is: Boy Scouts just want to go camping, and church people just want to go to church, without assclown lawyers harassing them.

 

Perhaps you should be more focused on cleaning up the mess your profession causes on a daily basis, and dares to call a "cost of doing business", and less focused on this stuff? Seems like a better use of your time, and ours.

Wow, that was odd, even for this forum.

[OCinBuffalo]

Awesome. So in your opinion, gay marriage should be kept illegal because:

Awesome. In that one sentence you've demonstrated the reading comprehension skills of a 2nd grader. How many more times do I have to say "let's do this right, for once, and not leave the door open for the scumbags, on either side"?

1. A small selection of gays will be overly litigious.

2. You don't like the political tactics and all the other policies of the political side that tends to support gay marriage (the Democrats).

 

How persuasive....

 

Still waiting for the anti-gay marriage crowd to deliver a cogent argument here. Maybe one of you guys can find some time between watching NASCAR races, pulling out your periodontal diseased teeth, and praying to your Invisible Friend in the Sky to do so.

So you will be contributing to the legal defense? After all, it's no big deal, right? Be sure to show your work and give us dates and the amounts you will be sending in. While you're at it, I'm sure the Boy Scouts will be happy to have your regular donations, and you'll have to comfort of knowing that your are contributing to perhaps the single best thing we have to teach kids how to live.

 

And, what do you know? Almost like it was made to order...a Bills story about scouting. It's almost like I brought up Scouting on purpose.

 

But yeah, we haven't already seen the craven behavior of the LGBT psychotics when they cost Scouting millions of dollars in legal fees. We should just let them run wild. After all they have the right (to F with strangers). They won't do anything stupid....these are the people who are so smart and measured....they succeeded in getting 30 anti-gay marriage laws passed.

 

Dude....enough already. This is ridiculous. They lost. (You lost?) Own it. They lost because they were the bigots here, by strict definition of the word. They were just as intolerant as any zealot out there. They were unreasonable, and decided to make this a political issue instead of a fairness issue. Dumb move.

 

IF you are still butt hurt about it. Fine. You should be. That's what you get when you go looking to F with people, instead of looking to solve problems. Own it and learn from it.

 

If you are still having trouble with reading(remember, it is fundamental), note that I am also saying that the NC amendment is ALSO an example of looking to F with people, rather than solving problems.

[3rdnlng]

I try to avoid the gratuitous name-calling present on the board, but you sir are a buffoon.

 

 

After reading for the fourth or fifth time how "No One will answer me" childishness, when throughout the several pages there have been reasoned responses and links to other articles that you either chose to ignore, read - but did not agree with or read --but did not comprehend (sadly, I suspect the latter)

 

Lets look at your last response again;

 

 

You state that this is your belief and then whine that no one will try and change your mind.

 

Well its obviously closed, so naturally you wouldn't accept any discussion anyway. THATS why you're not getting a response.

 

I repeat myself, you sir, are a buffoon.

 

 

 

.

 

 

Well said. This thread sure is attracting a lot of people that don't normally venture over here.

[OCinBuffalo]

Wow, that was odd, even for this forum.

 

How so?

[RkFast]

 

Given you're an expert on the subject.

 

Still smarting from the beat down I laid on you the other day.

[Cugalabanza]

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

[OCinBuffalo]

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

[Cugalabanza]

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.

[Adam]

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?

[Alaska Darin]

Still smarting from the beat down I laid on you the other day.

In your dreams, drone.

[OCinBuffalo]

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?

[IDBillzFan]

The headline to this article is misleading, but here you have it: Are Democrats ready to move their convention out of NC?

[erynthered]

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.

[John Adams]

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.

[Cugalabanza]

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.

[B-Man]

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.

 

.

[1billsfan]

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

[John Adams]

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

[B-Man]

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.

 

.

[John Adams]

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

[IDBillzFan]

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.

[John Adams]

Google news picked it up in multiple places. And it's right unless Romney says he spoke out of turn.

[OCinBuffalo]

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

[Adam]

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