T1B

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2008 11:38 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:And I regulate my discharge of bullets just fine, thanks for asking.

Ya think? The only "discharge" you can speak of is that embarrassing bit of information from your physician.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2008 11:47 pm**

BTW Diego, why do you hate peace and low crime?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=15304" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How many times does this experiment have to be repeated over and over and over and over and over again before it sinks in? It's been done to death for hundreds of years, and the results have always been consistent.

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2008 12:32 am**

mvscal wrote:The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is to restrict the government's power to infringe on your right to bear arms, you brainless fucktard.

What?

You mean those two guys who wrote the Constitution, neither of whom were in the military at the time, nor were they part of a "well regulated militia" (in the America haters' definition of the word, anyway), yet wrote extensively how it was the duty of citizens to arm themselves, and even advocated target shooting for sport/relaxation...

they didn't make it perfectly fucking clear what the meaning was?

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2008 12:41 am**

Dinsdale wrote:
mvscal wrote:The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is to restrict the government's power to infringe on your right to bear arms, you brainless fucktard.

What?

You mean those two guys who wrote the Constitution, neither of whom were in the military at the time, nor were they part of a "well regulated militia" (in the America haters' definition of the word, anyway), yet wrote extensively how it was the duty of citizens to arm themselves, and even advocated target shooting for sport/relaxation...

they didn't make it perfectly fucking clear what the meaning was?

Any yet, I had to take you to school(house Rock) in this thread.

Ponder-osa.

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2008 1:09 am**

Martyred wrote: Any yet, I had to take you to school(house Rock) in this thread.

Ponder-osa.

Oh, holy fuck.

You ARE kidding, right?

Maybe you should try reading it again... and again and again if you have to.

The discussion was about what rights THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has, dumbass, not citizens.

The rights/duties of the fed are outlined in the Constitution. Those have been trashed ten ways till sunday, but it certainly is the original idea.

You... have kicked your own ass... badly...

twice now... although I wish I had ignored you this time, like I did last time... which gives me an idea

Buh-bye, MartyFoe.

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2008 1:28 am**

Wow. Throwing your toys out of the crib and across the room...

Quite a tactic. Props, I guess.

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2008 1:35 am**

Martyred wrote:Wow. Throwing your toys out of the crib and across the room...

Quite a tactic. Props, I guess.

C'mon, Comrade. You know that's a legendary Dins tactic from years ago.

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2008 1:38 am**

Martyred wrote:Wow. Throwing your toys out of the crib and across the room...

Quite a tactic. Props, I guess.

Ummm... what part of ignore are you not getting?

I have you on "ignore" for good reason.

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2008 3:19 am**

Radio Fan wrote:Honest question for the conservatives with their panties in a wad over this:

Is it the term "marriage," or the notion that same-sex couples could have some of the same legal rights as married couples?

It's an arrogant abuse of the legal system, RF, as 88 has plainly detailed.
I'm not down with that at ALL.
You shouldn't be either, but ... oh well.

Beyond that, my personal view is that there is NO comparison between queer marriage and black rights, interracial marriage, etc ...
NONE.

Sodomites ought not be granted the same marital status as real M/F couples.
It is, in my estimation, a total disgrace to our society.
It is harmful to our society and the arrogant way a FEW folks in high legal positions are trashing the legal system weakens our country even further.
What these "few" are doing can cut a LOT of different ways, and you'd be wise to take a wide view and recognize that danger.

That is just MY personal view on it.

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2008 3:56 am**

As one who practices a bit of family here in Cali, this is soooo good for business...

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2008 4:20 am**

Shut the fuck up, idiot.

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2008 5:24 am**

poptart wrote:It's an arrogant abuse of the legal system, RF, as 88 has plainly detailed.
I'm not down with that at ALL.
You shouldn't be either, but ... oh well.

Nope, I'm not down with abuse of the legal system, and 88 has a valid point -- never said he didn't.

But it is fucking California, after all. The term "legal system" is an oxymoron there.

poptart wrote:It is, in my estimation, a total disgrace to our society.
It is harmful to our society and the arrogant way a FEW folks in high legal positions are trashing the legal system weakens our country even further.
What these "few" are doing can cut a LOT of different ways, and you'd be wise to take a wide view and recognize that danger.

That is just MY personal view on it.

Respect your view, but completely disagree when it comes to this. Lots of other problems -- violence, crime and widespread dumbfuckery in general, for starters -- are a hell of a lot more harmful to society than this issue, imo.

As a sidenote, when I was living in Lawrence, Kan. (college town, obviously), a group there wanted the city to include sexual orientation along with race, disability, etc. in the city's ordinance addressing landlords and tenants. In other words, proponents wanted the city ordinance to prohibit landlords from not renting to folks based on their sexual orientation or kicking them out of properties for the same. There were literally almost fistfights among the city council members over this issue, but it eventually passed 3-2. Opponents argued that the city would be flooded with complaints and that it was an undue "burdon" on landlords. Five years later and not ONE FUCKING COMPLAINT had been filed, and a shitload of new apartments went up.

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2008 6:14 am**

First, Gavin is a total homo. Surprised? Hmmm...he did allegedly fuck his campaign mananger's wife...was married to a social barracuda (divorced after she immediately moved to New York and joked about his, uh)...and is now "engaged" to a lingere model....

Okay, so once again the scion of Getty (and the whole Bohemian Grove gang) trots out the salt in the American wound of "Gay Marriage." Hmmm...the voters of California seemed to haven spoken rather clearly...election's coming..lot's of scared sheep-voters...

Second, Hillary has serious chits in California, and being the Queen Weasal of all-time, we can expect Q problems.

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2008 3:55 pm**

It is harmful to our society and the arrogant way a FEW folks in high legal positions are trashing the legal system weakens our country even further.
What these "few" are doing can cut a LOT of different ways, and you'd be wise to take a wide view and recognize that danger.

Aha! I recognize this - the Refrain of the Defeated. Last I heard it was from the Gore camp after the 2000 election. What was the response from the Bushies then? "Get over it..."

Posted: **Sun May 18, 2008 12:22 am**

[tinfoil hat]So what's your take -- was the 2000 election stolen?[/tinfoil hat]

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 6:20 pm**

poptart wrote:[tinfoil hat]So what's your take -- was the 2000 election stolen?[/tinfoil hat]

The correct take is that nobody will ever be able to conclusively prove who won more votes in Florida in 2000. Shutting down the recount guaranteed that.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 6:45 pm**

poptart wrote: Sodomites ought not be granted the same marital status as real M/F couples.
It is, in my estimation, a total disgrace to our society.

Why? Outside of the fact that religion wants to keep the term "Marriage" limited only to M-F couples, what possible harm or disgrace could it cause to let a handful of non-procreators into the fold? In every other way they are existing as a Married couple. What difference does a label make?

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 6:49 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:The correct take is that nobody will ever be able to conclusively prove who won more votes in Florida in 2000. Shutting down the recount guaranteed that.
Another lie.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florid ... /main.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A swing and a miss buddy. In fact, you backed up my original assertion very nicely with that link. What are there like 20 different possible scenarios listed depending on how the votes are counted and what definitions you use? Yea, REAL fucking clear.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 7:00 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
poptart wrote:[tinfoil hat]So what's your take -- was the 2000 election stolen?[/tinfoil hat]
The correct take is that nobody will ever be able to conclusively prove who won more votes in Florida in 2000. Shutting down the recount guaranteed that.
Another lie.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florid ... /main.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The butterfly and caterpillar ballots

One of the most controversial aspects of the Florida election was the so-called butterfly ballot used in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County. Many voters came out of the polls saying they were confused by the ballot design.

According to the study, 5,277 voters made a clean punch for Gore and a clean punch for Reform Party nominee Pat Buchanan, candidates whose political philosophies are poles apart. An additional 1,650 voters made clean punches for Bush and Buchanan. If many of the Buchanan votes were in error brought on by a badly designed ballot, a CNN analysis found that Gore could have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush.

Eighteen other counties used another confusing ballot design known as the "caterpillar" or "broken" ballot, where six or seven presidential candidates are listed in one column and the names of the remaining minor party candidates appeared at the top of a second one. According to the study, more than 15,000 people who voted for either Gore or Bush also selected one candidate in the second column, apparently thinking the second column represented a new race.

Had many of these voters not marked a minor candidate in the second column, Gore would have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush.

However, the double votes on both butterfly and caterpillar ballots were clearly invalid under any interpretation of the law.

So IOW, the democratic voters are not only stupid, they potentially cost Gore the election.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 7:08 pm**

the democratic voters are not only stupid, they potentially cost Gore the election.

No one lost Gore anything that he didn't lose himself. It's impossible to say what sort of POTUS he'd have been, but judging by his campaign skills, I doubt we missed anything except the lack of Bush.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 7:09 pm**

mvscal wrote:You say that like another recount wouldn't have been faced with the exact same ambiguities, human error and conflicting scenarios. Who the fuck told you that a(nother) "recount" is some exact procedure where every single vote cast is tallied with 100% accuracy?

If "an army of trained investigators" can't come up with a definitive answer after SIX FUCKING MONTHS of exhaustive research, just what in the fuck do you expect from a bunch of bingo winged church ladies with magnifying glasses?

I didn't say that a recount was a panacea. What I said was that stopping the recount GUARANTEED we would never know who won Florida. Sorry if that little bit of logic is too much for your pea sized brain to handle.

BTW: Did those "trained investigators" get to look at every ballot?

What? No they did not?

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 7:11 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:
the democratic voters are not only stupid, they potentially cost Gore the election.
No one lost Gore anything that he didn't lose himself. It's impossible to say what sort of POTUS he'd have been, but judging by his campaign skills, I doubt we missed anything except the lack of Bush.

I bet you're one of those guys who hates Gore because he didn't pimp slap Tipper for starting the PMRC.

That's OK, I've held that grudge against him for over 20 years.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 7:16 pm**

BSmack wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:
the democratic voters are not only stupid, they potentially cost Gore the election.
No one lost Gore anything that he didn't lose himself. It's impossible to say what sort of POTUS he'd have been, but judging by his campaign skills, I doubt we missed anything except the lack of Bush.
I bet you're one of those guys who hates Gore because he didn't pimp slap Tipper for starting the PMRC.

That's OK, I've held that grudge against him for over 20 years.

...personally I hate Algore for inventing the freeking internet....I spend far too much time in cyberworld.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 7:24 pm**

Papa Willie wrote:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... i_n9460105

This story has always been carefully hidden.

Yea, it was so carefully hidden that even a retard like yourself was able to find it.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 7:25 pm**

ChargerMike wrote:
...personally I hate Algore for inventing the freeking internet....I spend far too much time in cyberworld.

What the hell else do you have to do all day?

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 7:40 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:What I said was that stopping the recount GUARANTEED we would never know who won Florida.
The votes were recounted...several times. So let's not try to rewrite history here and pretend like "the" recount was stopped.

Machine recounts don't count.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 7:51 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Papa Willie wrote:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... i_n9460105

This story has always been carefully hidden.
Yea, it was so carefully hidden that even a retard like yourself was able to find it.

Yet you were unable to do the same.

Nice job kicking your own ass, B-Gimp.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 7:56 pm**

Funny how the Dems couldn't wait to have Florida election law overturned and rewritten on the fly back in 2000 but NOW ....

They sit quietly hoping Florida remains unheard and uncounted. :D

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 8:10 pm**

FYI,

The current situation has nothing to do with election law, but with Democratic Party procedures.

And...there are a lot of Dems who would like to see the Florida primary results used exactly as they came out.

Tell me you actually knew that.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 8:19 pm**

Mikey wrote:
ChargerMike wrote:
...personally I hate Algore for inventing the freeking internet....I spend far too much time in cyberworld.
What the hell else do you have to do all day?

...touche'

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 8:26 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:And...there are a lot of Dems who would like to see the Florida primary results used exactly as they came out.
Two different camps of Dems, though. The Whiny Pantloads back Onogga and The Awkward Apologists back Shillary but the Whiny Pantloads tend to make more noise.

Why should any Republifarts GARA about it?

Bu...errr...McCain will kick either of their asssssses in November anyway, right?

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 8:27 pm**

Cuda wrote:Yet you were unable to do the same.

I've also managed to avoid scat porn.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 8:40 pm**

Mikey wrote:FYI,

The current situation has nothing to do with election law, but with Democratic Party procedures.

And...there are a lot of Dems who would like to see the Florida primary results used exactly as they came out.

Tell me you actually knew that.

I knew it wasn't election law. What I find funny is that Dems in FL. that ran the debacle in 2000 are still running debacles. :)

Furthermore the every vote must count thing. FL and MI are being punished for ignoring directives. I guess their votes don't count.

It's not a knee slapper. just funny within the context of bringing up FL again. Once again, FL, is a debacle.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 8:45 pm**

Well, yes it is a debacle. But it really was of their (Florida's Dem Party) doing.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 8:46 pm**

A McLoon victory would make fiscal conservatives irrelevant within the Republican Party.

...or more exactly, continue along W's well-beaten path.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 8:47 pm**

Mikey wrote:Well, yes it is a debacle. But it really was of their (Florida's Dem Party) doing.

'Zactly, both times.

Posted: **Mon May 19, 2008 9:00 pm**

I dunno. The hilarity wears after 0.3 seconds.

T1B

Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok

Re: Calif Supreme Court: gay marriages ok