T1B

Posted: **Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:05 pm**

Jsc810 wrote: This is going to be fun to watch.

A sad, pathetic person you are.

Posted: **Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:12 pm**

88 wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Is that some sort of IKYABWAI tactic?

If you don't care and I don't care, then why not let the people who do care have what they want?
We (you and me) don't have any say at all in matters of Washington state law. The people who live there can do whatever they want, and I don't care. Get it?

I only care when people married in Washington come to my state and then attempt to force me to recognize their "marriage" as the same thing people in Ohio regard as "marriage" under the law. Then I have a problem. Unless and until, of course, the poeple from Washington can convince enough people in Ohio to change Ohio's definition of the word "marriage" to coincide with the definition the people of Washington have recently adopted. If that should happen, then I would have no problem with it at all. This isn't really very hard, you know. Tenth Amendment and all.

The word "marriage" now means different things in different states. I believe it is sort of stupid for words to have different meanings depending upon where you are standing at the time. But that is how it is.

Washington won't change Ohio's law....California will.

Posted: **Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:19 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:Logger sharing his health plan with his non-pensioned fishing guide buddy.

Y'know, this does give us dudes a bargaining chip. The OL starts pissing you off, just tell them you'll kick them to the curb and find some dude to take their place.

So, who's your perfect mate in the new world where you can marry whatever the fukk you want? I can see the CL adds now.

Here's mine:

Dude, 49, excellent benefits, fully funded 401K, military reservist will have military retiree benefits in 10 years. looking for dude with landscaping skills, and a bassboat.

Posted: **Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:36 pm**

smackaholic wrote:So, who's your perfect mate in the new world where you can marry whatever the fukk you want? I can see the CL adds now.

Here's mine:

Dude, 49, excellent benefits, fully funded 401K, military reservist will have military retiree benefits in 10 years. looking for dude with landscaping skills, and a bassboat.

You should have no problem landing the right guy, smackaholic.

Posted: **Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:58 pm**

smackaholic wrote: Here's mine:

Dude, 49, excellent benefits, fully funded 401K, military reservist will have military retiree benefits in 10 years. looking for dude with landscaping skills, and a bassboat.

You left out the part about the flat head and the ash tray glued to his ass.

Posted: **Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:13 pm**

smackaholic wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:Logger sharing his health plan with his non-pensioned fishing guide buddy.
Y'know, this does give us dudes a bargaining chip. The OL starts pissing you off, just tell them you'll kick them to the curb and find some dude to take their place.

That's your first option?

I see Sirgulpaload is down.

Posted: **Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:14 pm**

Sirfindafold wrote:
smackaholic wrote: Here's mine:

Dude, 49, excellent benefits, fully funded 401K, military reservist will have military retiree benefits in 10 years. looking for dude with landscaping skills, and a bassboat.
You left out the part about the flat head and the ash tray glued to his ass.

Nah, this will be strictly bidness. Dude tames the backyard, has cool toys I can use, he gets healthcare and various bennies. I see no reason why one must actually take part in buggery to end joy the legal bennies that come with it.

Posted: **Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:10 pm**

Papa Willie wrote:Perhaps Washington should concern itself more on trying to please 98% of the population as compared to 2% of the population.

If the 2% you're referring to represents same-sex couples, should everyone's rights be put to a popular vote?

More importantly, mix in a Google news search before mashing your fried chicken grease-smothered keyboard with ignorant takes like that. Referendum 74 was approved by a majority of the population of Washington.

Why don't you concern yourself more with where your supply of Twinkies will come from when you run out in a few days.

Posted: **Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:46 pm**

Mister Willie, had i been "normal" you would be serving some "masta" a mint julep right now.

And had I been "normal" America would never have enjoyed the Red Scare witch hunts of the 1950's..

I first realized I wasn't nermal when I was a cheerleader at Yale...I was never so fulfilled..

Posted: **Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:32 am**

Hold on, you pencil-dicked offay cracker, if I hand't been on the lowdown, I never would have been so pissed, never outted my cult leader for roosterin' the (15-year-old) barnyard chicks, and Spike Lee wouldn't have no movie......cracker...

And if I had been "normal" all of India would be running around like the Benny Hill Show....you are untouchable..just saying it....

Oysters or snails?....hmmm...SNAILS..all day every day....and if I'm not Americana itself, well fuck my upturned buttocks...

Posted: **Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:32 am**

Dinsdale wrote:
smackaholic wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:Another from Washington.

so that's what U&L faggots looks like?

Logger sharing his health plan with his non-pensioned fishing guide buddy.

The nefarious plot hatched over a beer or twenty no doubt.

~in gravelly, pick up truck commercial voice~ Uh, yes, your Honor...that's right. We are two gay faggots who would like to get married with full spousal benefits and such just like it says on the sign out front. Raise you hand, Derron.

Oh, sorry Trampis....that's right yer Honor. Uh, two faggier faggots there never was. So if we could just uh proceed we would like to get on with our uh nuhpteels while the fish are still bitin.'

Posted: **Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:10 pm**

So basically the argument isnt about two people of the same sex, making a comitment, its about all the considerations that have developed over the past say 40 years or so when it comes to be married. Gone are the days of making a comitment and making sure you didnt have a bastard child. Now its all about pensions, social security benefits and visiting rights at the hospital.

Maybe all these fringe benefits and spousal limitations are what we should be talking about?

I voted to legalize gays getting married and also to legalize pot. I also voted a straight Republican ticket.

Hell, as little sex as Ive been getting this year, Derrons jetboat is starting to look kinda purty. :?

Posted: **Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:12 pm**

Trampis wrote:So basically the argument isnt about two people of the same sex, making a comitment, its about all the considerations that have developed over the past say 40 years or so when it comes to be married. Gone are the days of making a comitment and making sure you didnt have a bastard child. Now its all about pensions, social security benefits and visiting rights at the hospital.

Maybe all these fringe benefits and spousal limitations are what we should be talking about?

I voted to legalize gays getting married and also to legalize pot. I also voted a straight Republican ticket.

Hell, as little sex as Ive been getting this year, Derrons jetboat is starting to look kinda purty. :?

"Derron's jetboat" is outta commission according to my spreadsheet. Got a few other U&Lersaround you might hit up.

Posted: **Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:16 pm**

smackaholic wrote:
Trampis wrote:
Hell, as little sex as Ive been getting this year, Derrons jetboat is starting to look kinda purty. :?
"Derron's jetboat" is outta commission according to my spreadsheet. Got a few other U&Lersaround you might hit up.

Don't get discouraged, Trampis, Derron's "jetboat" could probably be brought back to life with a little Androgel.

Posted: **Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 pm**

But SS, why are you assuming it's a constitutional issue in the first place? I mean..you support their right to basic spousal arrangements--insurance, pensions, hospital visits, etc., but you're hung up on the name? What kind of silly tap-dance is this? "Marriage" is exactly the same commitment regardless of the gender of those making it, and lots of hetero couples who marry cannot or are resolved to not have children. So...what is your point again? Further, if you look at the partial parade of popular closet cases I've provided, and consider that with the exception of J.Edgar all of these guys were married with children, who are you to call anyone "abnormal"? After all, you voted for Mittens. You're a scared puppet of right-wing radio and you're basically huddled in your bomb shelter on the west side of Cleveland. And...you're "normal"?

Posted: **Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:39 pm**

88;
You do realize that you're proposing a "separate but equal" solution?

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:36 am**

Diego in Seattle wrote:88;
You do realize that you're proposing a "separate but equal" solution?

Are you really gonna dig up the rather tired argument that this is the same thing as racism?

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:10 am**

what's your position on affirmative action, chip?

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:15 am**

Mikey wrote:
smackaholic wrote:
Trampis wrote:
Hell, as little sex as Ive been getting this year, Derrons jetboat is starting to look kinda purty. :?
"Derron's jetboat" is outta commission according to my spreadsheet. Got a few other U&Lersaround you might hit up.
Don't get discouraged, Trampis, Derron's "jetboat" could probably be brought back to life with a little Androgel.

Update your spreadsheet there cockaholic. If you mean to the boat in the picture, that would be my buddies boat. My spread sheet says that owing 58K boats makes no financial sense. I help on the gas on the trips, and that covers my boat needs. So that gets you redneck fags off my ass, since I don't own the boat. The guy that owns the boat needs to be worried about you guys and your buggery gets you bennies focus. But in my experience, most guys you find on the river, tend to be straight. At least the dudes I fish with.

However, if you mean this monster of a cock I have in my pants, rest assured you can have a life threatening illness, and yet that hose still works just fine, without any of these take a pill hard on's you guys all seem to be so hung up on finding out which one works the best. " Hold on honey, got to take my pill first"

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:33 am**

Jsc810 wrote:smackaholic, that is not an easy answer, as we briefly discussed on some thread here regarding AA in the context of college admissions.

It's a really fukking easy question to anyone with a shred of intelligence/honesty.

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:36 am**

Derron wrote:However, if you mean this monster of a cock I have in my pants....

You're getting warm. I was referring to something in your pants.

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:50 am**

smackaholic wrote:
Derron wrote:However, if you mean this monster of a cock I have in my pants....
You're getting warm. I was referring to something in your pants.

Spent a lot of time in Durron's pants, have you?

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:10 am**

Diego in Seattle wrote:
smackaholic wrote:
Derron wrote:However, if you mean this monster of a cock I have in my pants....
You're getting warm. I was referring to something in your pants.
Spent a lot of time in Durron's pants, have you?

Nope.

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:40 am**

smackaholic wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:88;
You do realize that you're proposing a "separate but equal" solution?
Are you really gonna dig up the rather tired argument that this is the same thing as racism?

C'mon, are you kidding? What's obvious is the glaring unconstitutional basis of the laws discriminating against same-sex couples. Or what?

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:26 pm**

smackaholic wrote:I see no reason why one must actually take part in buggery to end joy the legal bennies that come with it.

What a fucking moron.

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:47 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
smackaholic wrote:I see no reason why one must actually take part in buggery to end joy the legal bennies that come with it.
What a fucking moron.

I would like to say that was a clever/not so clever play on words, but it wasn't. :doh:

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:25 pm**

SS, your "polygamy" argument is as specious as the standard slippery slope observation that soon people will demand the right to marry animals. Face it, the constitution completely defends the basis of same-sex marriage on all sorts or grounds--as the ruling will presently indicate. In fact the ONLY proscription against it goes back to Deuteronomy as far as Western laws and traditions have held their bigoted sway. And what...you're a big supporter of Deuteronomy? Really?

Posted: **Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:21 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:SS, your "polygamy" argument is as specious as the standard slippery slope observation that soon people will demand the right to marry animals. Face it, the constitution completely defends the basis of same-sex marriage on all sorts or grounds--as the ruling will presently indicate. In fact the ONLY proscription against it goes back to Deuteronomy as far as Western laws and traditions have held their bigoted sway. And what...you're a big supporter of Deuteronomy? Really?

Nice KYOA display. Ancient religious texts pretty much the world over say guys fukking one another isn't a good idea. And most of them have no issue at all with polygamy.

So, are you for it or against it? If you are for polygamy, should there be restrictions at all? Why not let a guy marry 37 broads, with full bennies right down the line?

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:49 am**

88;
So you're saying that same-sex marriage shouldn't be legally recognized because it's a relatively new thing, and that the Constitution doesn't specifically allow for it.

Fine.

Care to hook us up with a link to where the Constitution outlines the right to have assault weapons?

Oh, that's right, it's not in there. Assault rifles are relatively new compared to the Constitution.....

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:22 am**

Diego in Seattle wrote:Care to hook us up with a link to where the Constitution outlines the right to have assault weapons?

Oh, that's right, it's not in there.

Wrong again, you kiddy-diddling fucktard. It's right here.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

88's point which you are clearly too stupid to comprehend is that marriage of any kind is not mentioned by the Constitution which means that the issue is left to the authority of the individual states per the 10th amendment.

Now hop back in your pedo-van and fuck off.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:39 am**

[img]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSyDPCZbiD7EZldcgJSTcrgWYvXV1NE2AZkcFTPtBUeFsWKY1DI[/img] wrote:First, you destroy the family unit and make the education system absolutely disfunctional so that you can produce millions and millions of low information idiots. That takes about five decades, but we're there now. Next, you spend a couple of decades ensuring that most of your low information idiots are completely dependent upon government benefits and are otherwise helpless. You make it such that elections are conducted over six week time periods, so you can drive your helpless low information idiots to the polls to make sure the bad guys don't turn of the cash spigot. You destroy all privately funded healthcare programs so that in a decade or so, you have enough of a crisis to nationalize the healthcare system. Once that has been accomplished, you start taking over entire industries (automobile, energy, etc.) until you control everything and everyone. The plan is being carried out with flawless perfection. Who needs liberty and freedom anymore? Just give me a fucking check and something interesting to watch on TV.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:54 am**

unfortunately the SCOTUS has a rather long history of sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. they wiped their arse with the 10th a long while ago.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:31 am**

88 wrote: What is your position on cannibalism, which has existed since before recorded history and also occurs throughout the animal kingdom? Should we now call that normal too?

I'm not sure I'd equate homosexuality with the violation of a corpse :?

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:34 am**

Phibes, have you seen some of those people?

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:35 am**

mvscal wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:Care to hook us up with a link to where the Constitution outlines the right to have assault weapons?

Oh, that's right, it's not in there.
Wrong again, you kiddy-diddling fucktard. It's right here.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
88's point which you are clearly too stupid to comprehend is that marriage of any kind is not mentioned by the Constitution which means that the issue is left to the authority of the individual states per the 10th amendment.

Now hop back in your pedo-van and fuck off.

Nice try, bootlicker....

I didn't see assault weapons listed there. By 88's & your argument there's no right to anything not specifically outlined in the Constitution.

You may now report back to your wife for your continued beatings.

88;
I thought the slippery-slope argument of being married to an animal was the most stupid you bigots could get. By virtue of your cannibalism argument you have proven that theory wrong.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:38 am**

Phibes, have you seen some of those people?

I'm surrounded by them, they're my neighbours. Their personal hygiene is top notch, never mind the dead - they put us to shame.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:38 am**

Does it have any effect on me personally? Not one bit.

But that doesn't mean I shouldn't care about others enjoying the same rights & privileges that I have.

And let me get this straight...you don't hold anything against homosexuals, but you don't think they should have that same right to marry the person that they choose, same as you do? Yeah, I'm sure you don't have anything against them.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:48 am**

88 wrote: I find it mildly grating that supporters of same sex marriage refuse to take their request to redefine the word to the People of the States who would be affected by the new definition, as opposed to the Courts. The notion that they have some sort of special right because, well damnit, they really, really want it, doesn't sit well with me. Let them make their case to the voters, which I think they will do in due time. The weed smokers are moving that way and succeeding. Why can't the pole smokers do the same?

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:51 am**

Personal prejudice aside, it seems he has a problem with identity politics, which can seperate means from ends - you have to admit it's indulgent. But why should it be any other way - me is a cultural institution, it's America's base.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:13 am**

Diego in Seattle wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:Care to hook us up with a link to where the Constitution outlines the right to have assault weapons?

Oh, that's right, it's not in there.
Wrong again, you kiddy-diddling fucktard. It's right here.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
88's point which you are clearly too stupid to comprehend is that marriage of any kind is not mentioned by the Constitution which means that the issue is left to the authority of the individual states per the 10th amendment.

Now hop back in your pedo-van and fuck off.
Nice try, bootlicker....

I didn't see assault weapons listed there. By 88's & your argument there's no right to anything not specifically outlined in the Constitution.

You may now report back to your wife for your continued beatings.

88;
I thought the slippery-slope argument of being married to an animal was the most stupid you bigots could get. By virtue of your cannibalism argument you have proven that theory wrong.

Assault weapons are arms, you fucking idiot.

T1B

blame Washington (!) on page 4 (!)

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington

Re: blame Washington