T1B

Posted: **Sat May 15, 2010 4:02 pm**

"...and then they came for the pillow-biters. But I wasn't a pillow-biter...so I didn't say anything..."

Posted: **Sat May 15, 2010 5:02 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:
Van wrote:There aren't a whole lotta heteros out there whose lives are demonstrably affected by gays marrying
Thank you for showing that the 'it will harm the institution of marriage' argument is completely full of shit.

The whole thing is much ado about nothing. 88 is still correct, though. Gays are seeking a new definition of marriage; a 'right' that isn't specified anywhere in the Constitution. If there is to be a new definition, it ought to be put to a vote of the people, not the SCOTUS.

I really couldn't care less how it turns out. Sure, gays are seeking a new right, so they have no constitutional claim, yet I don't care if they get it. What difference does it make to anyone but them?

Wags, as adamant as you are against the idea of gays marrying, how would it affect you in any way should they be granted the legal right to do so? How does it affect your marriage, or any other traditional marriage? Why do you even care?

Posted: **Sat May 15, 2010 11:46 pm**

Van wrote: How does it affect your marriage, or any other traditional marriage? Why do you even care?

I think it's his daughter's marriage that worries. She did play softball, remember?

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 3:37 am**

Chip,

I will take that bet.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 3:42 am**

Dude,

Quit trying to die!

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 3:44 am**

Jsc, of course Rog will take the bet. What does he have to lose? We all know he'll never pay up. If he can't even handle the $20 he's owed Mgo forever, how's he supposed to cover you for five times that amount?

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 3:45 am**

Van aka Dickhead,

Ask Mgo about the bet.

Stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Stick to selling motorcycles to people you know will die on them.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 3:51 am**

Roger_the_Penny Ante Welcher

"Mgo, I'll get you your $20 with my next check. No, really, I will. Tell me where to send it. No, wait. Better yet, send me a self-addressed, stamped envelope."

Sincerely,
Six months after the bet

You are one colossal buttfuck, Rog.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 3:55 am**

Van,

You are looking really stupid right now. Stop.

Or, just go ahead.

I like that you save everything I type, btw.

I never had a spreadsheet. Just saying.

Apparently you have a folder of everything I ever typed, though.

Obsess much?

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 3:58 am**

Pay your fucking debts on time, then STFU. EOS.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 4:06 am**

What business of this is yours?

I settled up, like I told him I would.

Why do you insist on sticking your nose into other people's business, Van?

Bored with your life?

You accuse me of doing EXACTLY what you do, and meanwhile, I never have.

Look up ego defense mechanisms, my tardly friend.

Projection, especially.

You are looking pretty damn bad right now.

I suggest you stop, like I suggested a few posts ago.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 4:30 am**

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:I settled up, like I told him I would.

Really? You told him it would take you six months before you'd finally break down and pay off your fucking debt? You told him that you'd offer up every lame excuse under the sun as to why you wouldn't pay off a measly $20 - even going so far as to request that he pay the postage

- after all that shit you talked when you were ahead in the pool?

That's how you told him you'd settle up?

No, it wasn't.

You "settled up" only after having your welching snout rubbed in your own pile of shit for months on end. You had to be shamed into it, you pathetic gimp.

It was really fucking funny, especially when you started whining for more time because your check hadn't arrived...six months after the fact, when Mgo was just KILLING you over it.

You were just beautiful. Mgo's telling you, "Dude, it's obviously too much of a financial hardship for you, and you've already welched on the bet anyway. It's not about the damn money. Keep it."

You had to be pitied for $20. You're not even a worthwhile blowjob!

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 4:43 am**

Van wrote:You are one colossal buttfuck, Rog.

It's OK if you repent. It's a clever loophole. Of course Christianity was designed with homosexual pederasts in mind. Why else would they make it so easy to slam a ten year old boy up the dirtpipe and get away with it? All you have to do is say you're sorry and all is forgiven. You don't even have to be catholic anymore:

Christian right leader George Rekers takes vacation with "rent boy"

The pictures on the Rentboy.com profile show a shirtless young man with delicate features, guileless eyes, and sun-kissed, hairless skin. The profile touts his "smooth, sweet, tight ass" and "perfectly built 8 inch cock (uncut)" and explains he is "sensual," "wild," and "up for anything" — as long you ask first. And as long as you pay.

On April 13, the "rent boy" (whom we'll call Lucien) arrived at Miami International Airport on Iberian Airlines Flight 6123, after a ten-day, fully subsidized trip to Europe. He was soon followed out of customs by an old man with an atavistic mustache and a desperate blond comb-over, pushing an overburdened baggage cart.

That man was George Alan Rekers, of North Miami — the callboy's client and, as it happens, one of America's most prominent anti-gay activists. Rekers, a Baptist minister who is a leading scholar for the Christian right, left the terminal with his gay escort, looking a bit discomfited when a picture of the two was snapped with a hot-pink digital camera.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-06 ... -rent-boy/

Hey, he just needed somebody to help carry his bag...s his bags, OK? He must have been shocked to discover that this young man was a gay prostitute. One dropped bar of soap and, "WOAH, NELLY!! What's going on here!!"

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 am**

I was wrong.

It took 5 months, not 6. I am on disability, so I have no real disposebale income, as you well know.(well, if you had any real intellect) I had it, I paid.

Again, what business is this of yours?

I didn't post that I paid it, and he didn't post that I had. You stick your nose into people's business. Why is that?

And you apparently you have everything I have ever typed, either in chat or on the board.

Why?

And you call ME psycho?

PS - I had never sent money to a person via paypal before. I thought I needed his paypall account number or address.

Why have you saved everything I have ever typed?

Van, yer creeping me out.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 5:43 am**

Rog, get a job, you deadbeat slug.

Seriously.

I hate people that collect disability.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 8:08 am**

Van wrote:even going so far as to request that he pay the postage

lol

No props to Mgo for not offering to pay Rog's postage to have the $20 prize mailed to him.

And if Mgo were any kind of a man at all he would have also offered to pay Rog's bus fare to the post office.

Piss-weak shit, Mgo, you ASS!

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 9:04 am**

Van wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:
Van wrote:There aren't a whole lotta heteros out there whose lives are demonstrably affected by gays marrying
Thank you for showing that the 'it will harm the institution of marriage' argument is completely full of shit.
The whole thing is much ado about nothing. 88 is still correct, though. Gays are seeking a new definition of marriage; a 'right' that isn't specified anywhere in the Constitution.

Care to tell us where only heteros are given this right?

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 12:38 pm**

Diego wrote:Care to tell us where only heteros are given this right?

It's a state's issue.

41 states have specific statutes which define marriage as being a legal union of one man and one woman.

If a man wants to get married, he finds a woman.

Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.

This is not difficult.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 12:46 pm**

poptart wrote:
Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.

You're addressing Diego, remember?

Accessory To Felony much?

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 2:31 pm**

The bullshit argument is equating interracial marriage to homosexual marriage.

Again, Jsc, it is an undeniable reality that men and women have contrasting genitalia that is perfectly MADE for each other.

That being so, it is perfectly appropriate for a state to set the OBVIOUS standard that a legal marriage is a union between man and woman.

Doing other than that is flat out WACK.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 2:41 pm**

poptart wrote: That being so, it is perfectly appropriate for a state to set the OBVIOUS standard that a legal marriage is a union between man and woman.

Much earlier...

poptart wrote:Jsc, I believe the true conservative position is that government has no business being involved in marriage at all.

Glad you're taking such a firm position on this.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 2:53 pm**

Nice of you to CUT my take in half to try to prove something, Martard.

Yes, the true conservative position is that the gov has no business in marriage.
But as I said, the gov will leave it's involvement in marriage right around never.

So they must set a standard.

The obvious and appropriate standard for marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

And even if the government was not involved, and they had a ceremony, I would never consider a couple of fairies to be a married couple.

They're playing house, or some such bullshit - that's what I would think.

Have fun, fruits.

Jsc wrote:do you have anything of substance to add?

I made the case in two simple posts.

The substance is there.

I find no substance in YOUR take.

So there we are.

Jsc wrote:I told you so

Link me up to where I ever said the Supreme Court would not rule in favor of gay marriage.

It won't surprise me at all if they do.

But if you think that is progress of some sort, you must be a looney tune.

That's my opinion.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 3:13 pm**

poptart wrote: They're playing house, or some such bullshit - that's what I would think.

Have fun, fruits.

Maybe they should take a page from the Korean culture handbook and let teenage boys sleep with their moms until they're 17-18...

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 4:51 pm**

poptart wrote:The bullshit argument is equating interracial marriage to homosexual marriage.

Again, Jsc, it is an undeniable reality that men and women have contrasting genitalia that is perfectly MADE for each other.

How does genitalia matter in marriage?

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 5:00 pm**

mvscal wrote: Killing her child would require due process of law per the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Your and iodiot.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 5:11 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:
mvscal wrote: Killing her child would require due process of law per the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Your and iodiot.

Yep. On this issue he is an idiot. Even worse is that he's a hypocrite. On every other issue of constitutionality his stance has always been that if it's not expressly written in the document, it's not covered by the Constitution. That's his conservative/Libertarian position on every other issue. When it comes to aborting fetuses, though, suddenly he becomes Mr. Constitutional Interpretationist, and he's dead wrong. According to our Founding Fathers, fetuses have no rights.

For that matter, marriage isn't covered either, either between heteros or gays. Gays haven't a constitutional leg to stand on.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 8:24 pm**

Van wrote:On every other issue of constitutionality his stance has always been that if it's not expressly written in the document, it's not covered by the Constitution.

Guess again, you brainless fuckwit.

According to our Founding Fathers, fetuses have no rights.

Link?

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 8:31 pm**

Show me any language where fetuses are given rights in the Constitution. When you again strike out on that one, go ahead and toss out your usual insults and otherwise fuck off.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 8:52 pm**

mvscal wrote:
According to our Founding Fathers, fetuses have no rights.
Link?

Were black ones 3/5th of a person?

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 9:10 pm**

Van wrote:Show me any language where fetuses are given rights in the Constitution. When you again strike out on that one, go ahead and toss out your usual insults and otherwise fuck off.

From the Fifth Amendment

No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

In order to be deprived of life, the only necessary criteria is that one be alive. A fetus is alive. That is an inarguable fact and that life may not be destroyed without due process of law per the Constitution.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 9:35 pm**

Dumbshit, a house plant is also alive while not being a person, and just like a fetus it's equally unprotected by the 5th Amendment.

The Constitution has undergone revisions to correct issues of personage when it came to minorites in general and women's suffrage. There have been no revisions to the Constitution to include fetuses. There are no mentions whatsoever of fetuses, so they are afforded no constitutional rights. Until such time that the Constitution is revised to include fetuses under the 5th Amendment, you remain hilariously wrong.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 10:10 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:WW, it doesn't quite work that way. It might be three to five years before this would happen, or it could be all over in a matter of weeks; if it is over in a few weeks, you would win. There are a lot of variables, and pretty much all of them would have to go in my favor for me to win.

Again, I have $100 that says I'm right. You in?

ok, so it's 5 years then. So on May 14th, 2015 gay marriage must be legal in all 50 states, or you're out $100. If it is legal in all 50 states at any time before then, then I'm on the hook.

You've got a bet.

Now might be a good time to mention that my favorite charity is me.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 10:17 pm**

Van wrote: Wags, as adamant as you are against the idea of gays marrying, how would it affect you in any way should they be granted the legal right to do so? How does it affect your marriage, or any other traditional marriage? Why do you even care?

Easy answer is that'll just piss me rotally off to see abhorent behavior become state sactioned, especially if it's because of the SCOTUS legislating from the bench.

And besides that, my wife will be none too happy with me if I'm forced to donate $100 to the Baton Rouge, LA. chapter of NAMBLA.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 10:27 pm**

Well they're not that bad. I live a few blocks from boystown and the practical reality of it is tasteful antique shops, exquisite delis and well-kept houses. It's not like a catholic neighbourhood where they run around shaking their dicks at everyone.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 10:41 pm**

You live in Nebraska, Phibes?

he ain't heavy Father, he's my brother.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 11:31 pm**

Van wrote:a house plant is also alive while not being a person,

House plants aren't human, dumbfuck.

There have been no revisions to the Constitution to include fetuses.

None are necessary. They are human and they are alive. That is all that is necessary to ensure their their life may not be destroyed without due process of law.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 11:59 pm**

If fetuses are constitutionally protected, then why are abortions legal throughout much of the country?

Fetuses aren't people, dumbfuck.

Posted: **Mon May 17, 2010 12:27 am**

Van, turnabout is fair play.

What is your vested interest in defending abortion on demand?

I mean, I really get both sides of the arguement and am ambivalent, unlike with the gay marriage issue, which is clearly black and white to me.

But you obviously seem to have an agenda when it comes to abortion. Your line about how they should be as easy to get as an oil change struck a nerve. How many have you had?

Posted: **Mon May 17, 2010 12:34 am**

None, Wags. No abortions in my closet. Angelina never got pregnant, and Susan could no longer get pregnant by the time I met her.

I have no emotional interest in this issue. I don't care much about it one way or the other, to tell the truth. I simply recognize that fetuses have no rights under the Constitution, and I greatly prioritize the mother over her fetus. I also firmly believe that if men were the ones who got pregnant then yes, abortions would be as easy to get as an oil change. I didn't say that they should be that easy to get; I said they would be, if men got pregnant. We'd see Keith Hernandez and Clyde Frazier doing quasi-humorous commercials about abortion pills for men, with hot chicks in bars blowing off the pregnant men and licking their lips salaciously at the site of trim, un-pregnant men. There would be no question as to its legality.

Posted: **Mon May 17, 2010 1:06 am**

Jsc810 wrote: You're too slow, RtS took the bet. And in any event, you didn't agree to the bet as I stated it. The Prop 8 litigation may last longer than 5 years, that was just a guess.

wtf?

so you were only offering the bet to one person, and not even on a first come first served basis? I was first, you know. I just wanted the terms clearly defined.

You wanted the bet to have no definitive timetable, just some sorta' open ended bullshit you threw out so you could endlessly prevaricate the outcome.

Nice troll job, counsellor. I guess I should know better than to ever even consider wagering with a shyster.

T1B

Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

Re: Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling