View Full Version : My my, look who came out out today........
BPTactical
03-21-2013, 22:31
Little Johnny is no longer scared of his shadow:
Amid cheers and tears, Gov. John Hickenlooper on Thursday signed a civil-unions bill into law, erasing a generation of anguish for supporters of gay rights in what once was dubbed "the hate state."
"Unbelievable," Hickenlooper said, looking at the gays and straight allies who were crammed into the History Colorado Center to watch history being made.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22841921/colorado-civil-unions-hickenlooper-takes-up-pen-sign
So he has no problem stepping out to sign the Civil Union bill in public and enjoy the company of the public but is too fraidy cat to sign 3 bills stripping the rights of law abiding citizens in public to a crowded house.
Why is that little Johnny?
Little chicken shit pussy
Little chicken shit pussy
+1
Rooskibar03
03-21-2013, 22:35
Didn't the people of Colorado at some point in recent history vote in opposition of gay marriage? Not that these progressives give 2 shits about the will of the people.
Kraven251
03-21-2013, 22:36
My hero for the day is Bert.
Great-Kazoo
03-21-2013, 22:41
Didn't the people of Colorado at some point in recent history vote in opposition of gay marriage? Not that these progressives give 2 shits about the will of the people.
approx 10 years ago Amendment 2 Created the Hate state Boycott.
The irony of it was when Melissa Etheridge was on KBCO explaining why she supported the boycott. OH AND BY THE WAY i have a new CD on sale. [facepalm]
Nice way to pimp your newest record. In the state you're boycotting. I will not come to CO BUT happy to take your CO money.
I could care less who lives/ unions, with who. It's ludicrous he signs one bill protecting / supporting one life style while earlier, he did the same thing, to revoke ones lifestyle from people who want to Protect them self.
Rooskibar03
03-21-2013, 22:47
This is what I was thinking of.
In 2006, Colorado voters approved a discriminatory constitutional amendment that banned the freedom to marry in the state.
OneGuy67
03-21-2013, 22:49
He's a pickle puffer. In a room with his kind.
BPTactical
03-21-2013, 22:53
He's a pickle puffer. In a room with his kind.
You and your damn eloquence..........[fag]
He's a pickle puffer. In a room with his kind.
Hahah!!!
Little chicken shit pussy
[Beer]
Katastrophic
03-22-2013, 00:17
He didn't do it with the gun bills because he was too afraid of the "gun totin' nuts" and their car horns honking. We hurt his feelings... haha!
KestrelBike
03-22-2013, 00:22
That hypocrite POS knew the gun-bills were complete shit, but signed them anyways because that's the only way Up for him. Fuck him and fuck his kind.
planefixer
03-22-2013, 02:29
Dickinpooper is truly a man of no honor.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
clublights
03-22-2013, 06:20
He's a national Dem party wet dream right now .. hard on guns, light on drugs and gays
He will see a run at a federal job soon.
I don't overly have a problem with amendment 64 other then I feel it is written incorrectly. .. and I dunno why the government EVER had a say in gays getting married as I still don't see how it hurts anyone.
palepainter
03-22-2013, 08:41
New state motto...Dildoes and Doobies. Congrats on all those gay rights. Not enough to be tolerant and understanding. But now, we need to celebrate gayness. Personally do not have a problem with it, it is your choice, not mine. But do not rub your ass in my face and strip my rights at the same time. This state's administration literally blows.
HBARleatherneck
03-22-2013, 08:47
it is "funny" 9news was reporting yesterday how great the success of the civil unions was and in such short time since VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED AGAINST IT IN 2006.
real funny that legislators and judges run their own radical agendas AGAINST the will of the people.
so, when do we approve polygamist relationships? you cant tell me one is ok and one isnt.
Another politician with NO BALLS, No repect, for the people.
Only wanting to advance his career.
*waits as this thread will quickly turn into bashing those who enjoy freedoms granted while at the same time scorning their own freedoms lost*
We should vote for a state dildo. I think a perfect one would be the head that looks like hickenloopers. Fucking hypocrite.
HBARleatherneck
03-22-2013, 09:26
Jer, i dont think many people here care if gays marry or whatever they want to do. but, these people dont care about freedom as a whole, like most of us do. we dont care if you smoke dope, marry your boyfriend, whatever. WE LOVE FREEDOM. The problem the way i see it, is these same people who demand freedom, will go out of their way to take our freedoms. they are not freedom lovers they just want what they want.
personally i want freedom for all against governmental tyranny. the government needs to stay the hell out of our lives.
BPTactical
03-22-2013, 09:29
Interesting qoute on yahoo news:
The Catholic archbishop of Denver, Samuel Aquila, said the passage of the law was an effort to redefine marriage and family. "Marriage is a stabilizing institution at the foundation of civil society. Religious liberty is a civil rights issue," he said. "Today both have been grievously harmed. Today our state and federal constitutions have been dealt a troubling blow."
Fox:
Hundreds looked on as Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper signed the bill, with many chanting "Equal! Equal!""There is no excuse that people shouldn't have all the same rights," Hickenlooper told the crowd.
Butt rights yes, gun rights no.
Uhmmm yeah, thats equal[fail]
Still say he is a chickenshit pussy
While I agree with Bert's sentiment- Hick is a chickenshit- I have no real dog in the "Civil Unions" fight, because frankly I don't give a rats ass... If I want to marry my GF, the fact that two lesbians can now be recognized by the state in a civil union doesn't detract from the vows I would take before God, and my family. Just because Adam and Steve wanna have their union legitimate in the eyes of the state doesn't make any marriage less legitimate or worthy.
Now, like Bert said, it's when you scream out of one side of your mouth that we all deserve the same "rights" but then turn around and try to restrict rights clearly reiterated and protected by the Constitution (by the way, marriage/civil unions ARE NOT), then I have a huge fucking problem and think you need to be put on trial for violations of the natural born rights of the people. You can not pave the way for one set of rights while steamrolling another, especially if the rights you're trying to limit are those that come second only the rights of free speech in the eyes of our nation's founders.
Alas, until the fight is over, everyone please don't bitch too much when your tax dollars are spend on making new signs welcoming people to Commierado- "Welcome to Colorado (a subsidy of CA)! If you're gay or a pot head, welcome... If you like guns, turn the f*** around!"
Jer, i dont think many people here care if gays marry or whatever they want to do. but, these people dont care about freedom as a whole, like most of us do. we dont care if you smoke dope, marry your boyfriend, whatever. WE LOVE FREEDOM.
Equality of freedoms is not the way that most of these threads go.
The problem the way i see it, is these same people who demand freedom, will go out of their way to take our freedoms. they are not freedom lovers they just want what they want.
Really? Couldn't the same be said by most of 'them' about most of 'us' since most of the group who are against same sex marriage fit the same demographic as those who fight for 2A rights?
personally i want freedom for all against governmental tyranny. the government needs to stay the hell out of our lives.
I couldn't agree with this statement more and the more people realize that ALL freedoms should be fought for and ALL freedoms affect someone's daily life the sooner we can all unite against the entity that wishes to take all of those away from us. How easier can we make it for them than to try to fight among ourselves about which freedom is more important and which people personally agree with or against.
Equality of freedoms is not the way that most of these threads go.
Very true. I've seen many on here- can't from memory and won't name names- who think homosexuality is "wrong" and "leading to the moral decay of American society." I'll just agree to disagree.
Really? Couldn't the same be said by most of 'them' about most of 'us' since most of the group who are against same sex marriage fit the same demographic as those who fight for 2A rights?
Both sides that believe opposite are wrong. Liberty is a two way street, there is no justification for wanting to be free while attempting to limit how "free" another person may be, regardless of your religious or social beliefs. HBAR said it best, they don't quest for freedom, they just want their way and to hell with everyone who thinks different.
Very true. I've seen many on here- can't from memory and won't name names- who think homosexuality is "wrong" and "leading to the moral decay of American society." I'll just agree to disagree.
It just amazes me how they alienate others who are fighting for freedom and then wonder why others are so quick to not respect the freedoms that THEY hold dear.
Both sides that believe opposite are wrong. Liberty is a two way street, there is no justification for wanting to be free while attempting to limit how "free" another person may be, regardless of your religious or social beliefs. HBAR said it best, they don't quest for freedom, they just want their way and to hell with everyone who thinks different.
So who is 'they' in this case? Those who want firearms, gay marriage or pot smokers?
HBARleatherneck
03-22-2013, 10:43
jer, we arent all conservative republicans. some of us are libertarians.
ive said it in the past, we need to let everyone know that the 2A is for everyone. actually Freedom from the government is for everyone.
gay, straight, lgbt, polygamist, black, white, yellow, green, red, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, doper, drinker, tea totaller, city people, country people, man, woman, child everyone.
of course you guys will have to help with some of those outreach areas.
and just because we all rate the same freedom as everyone else, I still may think you are a freak.
jer, we arent all conservative republicans. some of us are libertarians.
I understand. The question was rhetorical and was to prove a point for those listening who think their rights are superior to other's. That's all.
ive said it in the past, we need to let everyone know that the 2A is for everyone. actually Freedom from the government is for everyone.
Couldn't agree more.
gay, straight, lgbt, polygamist, black, white, yellow, green, red, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, doper, drinker, tea totaller, city people, country people, man, woman, child everyone.
of course you guys will have to help with some of those outreach areas.
Yes. Freedom is for EVERYONE not just those who want it in areas you personally support. Demanding freedom in one respect while simultaneously fighting to take freedoms from others is recipe for failure. (BTW, that 'you' is collective for those who would think their freedoms count more than those they don't personally support)
So who is 'they' in this case? Those who want firearms, gay marriage or pot smokers?
"They" in the case I spoke of is anyone who refuses to recognize that liberty for one is liberty for all, it is not mutually exclusive. Prime example- I equate it as being equally wrong and an infringement for someone to be pro gun, yet anti-gay and makes attempts to limit the rights of gays (you can be anti-whatever, but the moment you try to decide that they are not entitled to equal treatment and equal rights then you just crossed the line). Just as it is wrong and infringement for a marijuana user to push for his rights to smoke pot, but then attempt to pass laws that limit my second amendment rights.
"They" in the case I spoke of is anyone who refuses to recognize that liberty for one is liberty for all, it is not mutually exclusive. Prime example- I equate it as being equally wrong and an infringement for someone to be pro gun, yet anti-gay and makes attempts to limit the rights of gays (you can be anti-whatever, but the moment you try to decide that they are not entitled to equal treatment and equal rights then you just crossed the line). Just as it is wrong and infringement for a marijuana user to push for his rights to smoke pot, but then attempt to pass laws that limit my second amendment rights.
Like I said in my next post, rhetorical question to prove a point. I don't know how many times I hear exactly what you said by someone talking about 2A as he demonizes others who would want similar rights int he same sentence. In those statements you can switch the words around and it has the same meaning but they will never understand that.
lowbeyond
03-22-2013, 11:48
Like I said in my next post, rhetorical question to prove a point. I don't know how many times I hear exactly what you said by someone talking about 2A as he demonizes others who would want similar rights int he same sentence. In those statements you can switch the words around and it has the same meaning but they will never understand that.
If everyone would just STFU and MYOB, and not impose their preferences on other people, we would not have to deal with the Shit Stain Government, at all levels, we do now.
Are you Gay? That's Nice Who the Fuck Cares
Do you want to get married. Who the Fuck cares.
Do you want to own a gun. That's Nice who cares. Don't want one, well who cares spend your $ as you see fit.
Quite frankly, god only knows why the fuck the State is involved in a private mutual contract between two consenting adults in the first place, and why it has preferential (and sometimes not) Laws for those that are married. IOW it could just be, You want to get married? That is nice. Go to a flippin' Church. You want to a bundle of contracts with this person, ok fine we will call it "marriage" or civil unions, or whatever and there you go.
Instead of a bunch of contracts separately executed, you can just use that shorthand of "marriage" as it pertains to the State. But Noooooo. You cant have that, as people seemingly feel the need to Fuck With Their Neighbor becasue ya know Fuck Them! Be it marriage, or pot or Guns, or whatever the ZOMG the sky is falling issue if X does Y or possesses Z.
Nope can't just leave people free to choose, no You MUST impose your will on them becasue they do not wish to make the same choice as you, even if they have not harmed a soul, becasue Fuck Them! They are Dirty Gays, Dopers, Hippies, or Gun Owners , They will ruin society !!
Genius. Pure Genius
If everyone would just STFU and MYOB, and not impose their preferences on other people, we would not have to deal with the Shit Stain Government, at all levels, we do now.
Are you Gay? That's Nice Who the Fuck Cares
Do you want to get married. Who the Fuck cares.
Do you want to own a gun. That's Nice who cares. Don't want one, well who cares spend your $ as you see fit.
Quite frankly, god only knows why the fuck the State is involved in a private mutual contract between two consenting adults in the first place, and why it has preferential (and sometimes not) Laws for those that are married. IOW it could just be, You want to get married? That is nice. Go to a flippin' Church. You want to a bundle of contracts with this person, ok fine we will call it "marriage" or civil unions, or whatever and there you go.
Instead of a bunch of contracts separately executed, you can just use that shorthand of "marriage" as it pertains to the State. But Noooooo. You cant have that, as people seemingly feel the need to Fuck With Their Neighbor becasue ya know Fuck Them! Be it marriage, or pot or Guns, or whatever the ZOMG the sky is falling issue if X does Y or possesses Z.
Nope can't just leave people free to choose, no You MUST impose your will on them becasue they do not wish to make the same choice as you, even if they have not harmed a soul, becasue Fuck Them! They are Dirty Gays, Dopers, Hippies, or Gun Owners , They will ruin society !!
Genius. Pure Genius
Exactly. This exact sort of hypocrisy is alive and well on this particular forum and I've been ridiculed multiple times for trying to interject a little brevity into the conversation when it does rear it's ugly head.
If everyone would just STFU and MYOB, and not impose their preferences on other people, we would not have to deal with the Shit Stain Government, at all levels, we do now.
Are you Gay? That's Nice Who the Fuck Cares
Do you want to get married. Who the Fuck cares.
Do you want to own a gun. That's Nice who cares. Don't want one, well who cares spend your $ as you see fit.
Quite frankly, god only knows why the fuck the State is involved in a private mutual contract between two consenting adults in the first place, and why it has preferential (and sometimes not) Laws for those that are married. IOW it could just be, You want to get married? That is nice. Go to a flippin' Church. You want to a bundle of contracts with this person, ok fine we will call it "marriage" or civil unions, or whatever and there you go.
Instead of a bunch of contracts separately executed, you can just use that shorthand of "marriage" as it pertains to the State. But Noooooo. You cant have that, as people seemingly feel the need to Fuck With Their Neighbor becasue ya know Fuck Them! Be it marriage, or pot or Guns, or whatever the ZOMG the sky is falling issue if X does Y or possesses Z.
Nope can't just leave people free to choose, no You MUST impose your will on them becasue they do not wish to make the same choice as you, even if they have not harmed a soul, becasue Fuck Them! They are Dirty Gays, Dopers, Hippies, or Gun Owners , They will ruin society !!
Genius. Pure Genius
^What he said! [Beer]
You have an interesting way of putting it... I like it!
If everyone would just STFU and MYOB, and not impose their preferences on other people, we would not have to deal with the Shit Stain Government, at all levels, we do now.
Are you Gay? That's Nice Who the Fuck Cares
Do you want to get married. Who the Fuck cares.
Do you want to own a gun. That's Nice who cares. Don't want one, well who cares spend your $ as you see fit.
Quite frankly, god only knows why the fuck the State is involved in a private mutual contract between two consenting adults in the first place, and why it has preferential (and sometimes not) Laws for those that are married. IOW it could just be, You want to get married? That is nice. Go to a flippin' Church. You want to a bundle of contracts with this person, ok fine we will call it "marriage" or civil unions, or whatever and there you go.
Instead of a bunch of contracts separately executed, you can just use that shorthand of "marriage" as it pertains to the State. But Noooooo. You cant have that, as people seemingly feel the need to Fuck With Their Neighbor becasue ya know Fuck Them! Be it marriage, or pot or Guns, or whatever the ZOMG the sky is falling issue if X does Y or possesses Z.
Nope can't just leave people free to choose, no You MUST impose your will on them becasue they do not wish to make the same choice as you, even if they have not harmed a soul, becasue Fuck Them! They are Dirty Gays, Dopers, Hippies, or Gun Owners , They will ruin society !!
Genius. Pure Genius
I can get behind this line of thinking! Too many people want to control other people they don't even know... but when people they don't know want to impose control(s) on them then they get all upset. I'm in the camp of LMTFA and I'll LYTFA! Marriage (man/woman, woman/woman, man/man) doesn't affect MY marriage one bit. If a term is what bothers you so much... put the term back in the church where some think it belongs and make everyone get a civil union instead. DONE. Next? I don't care if my next door neighbor has a gun. Matter of fact... I HOPE he does. I can only hope he or she feels the same way about me. They shouldn't care! Too many people sticking their nose in other people's business when we should leave lifestyle CHOICES (it is my choice to own/carry a gun... it is my choice to marry who I want) alone. I shouldn't have a say in what you can own/carry... how much you can carry... when you can carry... etc... and I shouldn't have a say in who you marry, when you marry, why you marry, etc...
OneGuy67
03-22-2013, 12:20
Let me preface this by saying I am not interested in the conversation as to whether this civil union is a good thing or not.
The issue surrounding this that I am concerned with, is the extra federal and state money that is going to be expended due to decisions like this. Currently, at the state employment level, same sex relationships are recognized for the purposes of health care. With this, disability payments will be extended to same sex as well, which will add to the drain of taxpayer provided funds. Eventually, civil unions will be recognized at the federal level and then SSI and SSDI be attached and paid out to those partners, which will be another drain on the taxpayer.
The more people we recognize for taxpayer funded "benefits", the more of a drain on the system and those who work to pay into that system.
Let me preface this by saying I am not interested in the conversation as to whether this civil union is a good thing or not.
The issue surrounding this that I am concerned with, is the extra federal and state money that is going to be expended due to decisions like this. Currently, at the state employment level, same sex relationships are recognized for the purposes of health care. With this, disability payments will be extended to same sex as well, which will add to the drain of taxpayer provided funds. Eventually, civil unions will be recognized at the federal level and then SSI and SSDI be attached and paid out to those partners, which will be another drain on the taxpayer.
The more people we recognize for taxpayer funded "benefits", the more of a drain on the system and those who work to pay into that system.
Well we could always just FLIP it. Give same sex couples benefits and stop giving benefits to non same sex couples. That should be less of a strain... don't ya think?
Let me preface this by saying I am not interested in the conversation as to whether this civil union is a good thing or not.
The issue surrounding this that I am concerned with, is the extra federal and state money that is going to be expended due to decisions like this. Currently, at the state employment level, same sex relationships are recognized for the purposes of health care. With this, disability payments will be extended to same sex as well, which will add to the drain of taxpayer provided funds. Eventually, civil unions will be recognized at the federal level and then SSI and SSDI be attached and paid out to those partners, which will be another drain on the taxpayer.
The more people we recognize for taxpayer funded "benefits", the more of a drain on the system and those who work to pay into that system.
I guess the silver lining could be that the sooner these get drained the sooner people figure out that those who relied on themselves instead of the government are going to survive...
HBARleatherneck
03-22-2013, 12:27
Let me preface this by saying I am not interested in the conversation as to whether this civil union is a good thing or not.
The issue surrounding this that I am concerned with, is the extra federal and state money that is going to be expended due to decisions like this. Currently, at the state employment level, same sex relationships are recognized for the purposes of health care. With this, disability payments will be extended to same sex as well, which will add to the drain of taxpayer provided funds. Eventually, civil unions will be recognized at the federal level and then SSI and SSDI be attached and paid out to those partners, which will be another drain on the taxpayer.
The more people we recognize for taxpayer funded "benefits", the more of a drain on the system and those who work to pay into that system.
so, are you saying two gay men dont both pay into social security? if you are saying that two gays who both work and pay into the system dont deserve the same as a heterosexual couple who does the same, then you are clearly part of the problem. this line of thinking is why republicans will never control shit again. they wont to push their religion based thinking on everyone else.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but arent Queers taxpayers too ? If thats not fallacy then they've been getting the proverbial "shaft" by paying for benefits they could never collect.
[QUOTE=OneGuy67;1036043]Let me preface this by saying I am not interested in the conversation as to whether this civil union is a good thing or not.
The issue surrounding this that I am concerned with, is the extra federal and state money that is going to be expended due to decisions like this. Currently, at the state employment level, same sex relationships are recognized for the purposes of health care. With this, disability payments will be extended to same sex as well, which will add to the drain of taxpayer provided funds. Eventually, civil unions will be recognized at the federal level and then SSI and SSDI be attached and paid out to those partners, which will be another drain on the taxpayer.
The more people we recognize for taxpayer funded "benefits", the more of a drain on the system and those who work to pay into that system.[/QUOT
OneGuy67
03-22-2013, 12:57
Well we could always just FLIP it. Give same sex couples benefits and stop giving benefits to non same sex couples. That should be less of a strain... don't ya think?
That is true. I'm not against what you propose by any means.
I guess the silver lining could be that the sooner these get drained the sooner people figure out that those who relied on themselves instead of the government are going to survive...
Yup.
so, are you saying two gay men dont both pay into social security? if you are saying that two gays who both work and pay into the system dont deserve the same as a heterosexual couple who does the same, then you are clearly part of the problem. this line of thinking is why republicans will never control shit again. they wont to push their religion based thinking on everyone else.
Each of those people can and do get what they put into it as individuals; however, now you are adding spousal support to the roles as well. I never said anything about republicans or religion. Time to knock the chip off your shoulder.
[QUOTE=Stvros;1036065]Correct me if I'm wrong, but arent Queers taxpayers too ? If thats not fallacy then they've been getting the proverbial "shaft" by paying for benefits they could never collect.
They are and are due what they and everyone else put into it. However, there are benefits paid out to spouses currently (that I think should not be paid out to any spouse, hetero or not) that we will add to that pool of applicants.
so, are you saying two gay men dont both pay into social security? if you are saying that two gays who both work and pay into the system dont deserve the same as a heterosexual couple who does the same, then you are clearly part of the problem. this line of thinking is why republicans will never control shit again. they wont to push their religion based thinking on everyone else.
HBAR, I think he was talking about the spousal benefits specifically, not the individual ones that everyone is entitled to when they're of retirement age.
OneGuy67
03-22-2013, 13:15
HBAR, I think he was talking about the spousal benefits specifically, not the individual ones that everyone is entitled to when they're of retirement age.
Thank you. I was. Apparently what I was thinking in my mind did not come across the keyboard as well as in my head.
ChunkyMonkey
03-22-2013, 13:30
Very true. I've seen many on here- can't from memory and won't name names- who think homosexuality is "wrong" and "leading to the moral decay of American society." I'll just agree to disagree.
Both sides that believe opposite are wrong. Liberty is a two way street, there is no justification for wanting to be free while attempting to limit how "free" another person may be, regardless of your religious or social beliefs. HBAR said it best, they don't quest for freedom, they just want their way and to hell with everyone who thinks different.
You just posted a letter that is against females, minorities, gays and non christians etc... make up your mind!!!
HBARleatherneck
03-22-2013, 14:03
Thank you. I was. Apparently what I was thinking in my mind did not come across the keyboard as well as in my head.
no, i get what you are saying. you are saying if you are heterosexual you deserve to get spousal benefits. if you are homosexual you dont? that about sums up your position right?
i dont know any gay people, i have probably only seen a couple gay people in my whole life. but, what you are saying is gay couples dont rate the same consideration as straight couples. that is why the liberals are winning and republicans are losing.
life and America are about freedom. not some twisted conservative version of it. freedom and equality is for everyone. i would ban non church marriage and take away any tax benefits, spousal benefits, etc for being married and solve the problem.
You just posted a letter that is against females, minorities, gays and non christians etc... make up your mind!!!
Posted, asking what people thought... I did not write it, nor do I agree with everything stated in it line by line. C'mon Chunky, let's go build a straw man...
ChunkyMonkey
03-22-2013, 14:19
Posted, asking what people thought... I did not write it, nor do I agree with everything stated in it line by line. C'mon Chunky, let's go build a straw man...
There were no asking of an opinion. When given one, you were defending the letter -- Calling it the truth.
What I find funny, They gay dudes, that own guns, Yes, there may be quite a few, once they get over the euphoria of civil unions, are going to find out they can't share mags. Then the Hickster may have hell to pay. [LOL]
There were no asking of an opinion. When given one, you were defending the letter -- Calling it the truth.
Only defending from ignorance... I was defending A PART of the letter... not it in it's entirety. Jeez... no wonder America ranks so low in education. [facepalm]
Thank you. I was. Apparently what I was thinking in my mind did not come across the keyboard as well as in my head.
No, it came across alright. You just can't sugar coat being a bigot.
What I find funny, They gay dudes, that own guns, Yes, there may be quite a few, once they get over the euphoria of civil unions, are going to find out they can't share mags. Then the Hickster may have hell to pay. [LOL]
but what if the mags are used in their "union"
yep...that went too far.
KestrelBike
03-23-2013, 06:13
I guess the silver lining could be that the sooner these get drained the sooner people figure out that those who relied on themselves instead of the government are going to survive...
Gotta say I think rock bottom/crash will be a quicker way out of this than the 100 years it would take for us to by sheer luck have responsible leadership
OtterbatHellcat
03-23-2013, 07:51
Read a lot of good points from many of you here.
To me, all this recent legislation is just "feel good stuff" for the people that currently have the power. Gays have, and always will get together and do their thing...it was said that medically they already had legal recognition? ....now the spouse benefit thing will be legal, and in the long run will have costs to the system. I'll be upfront about it, I don't like that the "everyone is a winner" approach is now active legislation. If you think about it, that's what it is.
Why don't we just call them the T-ball laws. We'll molest a constitutional amendment by taking away all your military death mags, and force everyone to have smaller ones...cause if it'll save just one life it's the right thing to do. And, the poor gay community has been persecuted way too long, we'll make that all legal with paper work and rings and all that happy feel good crap. FTR, I do not care if you're gay, but go ahead and enjoy your special rights in our state now. Kind of along the lines of the marijuana.... Neither are recognized by the federal government....yet.
Until the country approves of it, it's special rights given and guaranteed rights taken away. And wait for the lawsuits, they're a coming.
I hope for this Libtard regime to be voted OUT (here AND fed) and repeal the amendment 2 injustice. I still think this is the best country in the world, and I love her, but this sure is one fucked up system being run poorly, we'd better get our shit together as a country or it's all gonna come apart one day.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.