Wamitoria wrote:Then why are you complaining?
Because trying to make sense of your screwy legal system hurts.
And you wonder why there's so many constitutional nuts out there.
Advertisement
by Sun Aut Ex » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:00 pm
Wamitoria wrote:Then why are you complaining?
Strykyh wrote:I wasn't trying to be intelligent.
Keronians wrote:So you think it's ok to waste valuable police time and resources to pander to minority superstitions?
"All available officers, report downtown, armed suspected firing wildly into the public."
"I'll be about ten minutes, I have to go to ID a Muslim woman."
Yes.
Unless of course it's not OK for a woman to ask for a female to ask for a female officer to carry out body checks. In which case, the answer would be no.
"All available officers, report downtown, armed suspected firing wildly into the public."
"I'll be about then minutes, I have to go to carry out a body check on a woman."
by Wamitoria » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:00 pm
Greater Americania wrote:*Vomits*
by Vervaria » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:00 pm
Greater Americania wrote:*Vomits*
Robustian wrote:If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period.
Ashmoria wrote:it worries me more when people who hate the government and dont think it can do a good job at anything get into power and start running things.
Wanderjar wrote:hiding behind this "I WANT SOURCES" wall is very quaint
Self--Esteem wrote:No. I love smearing those people who evidently like their country blown by a nuke and who are too foolish to realise that middle-eastern terrorism is nothing to be fond of.
Novistranaya wrote:After the Civil War, the majority of Southerners were more than happy to accept defeat and acknowledge the fact that (though not immediately) blacks were going to have the same rights as them.
by Chazicaria » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:00 pm
by Sarzonia » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:00 pm
by Gahaldu » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:01 pm
Chazicaria wrote:Maybe that idiot judge will come to his senses and do the right thing by keeping prop-8 as law. The people voted, plain and simple.
by Seculartopia » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:01 pm
Rhodmire wrote:4/5 for being bold enough to put up what looks like something made from MS Paint.
That takes balls, and you've got them.
All was dark when the armies surrounded the town. There was little bloodshed as they swept in, and they quickly took control. "Success," said a communicator, "a base has been established."
OOC:There. Now, we'll wait for UK to catch up.
by Tekania » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:01 pm
by Gahaldu » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:01 pm
Chazicaria wrote:
The constitution wasn't designed with homos in mind. Back then they were secluded from society or frowned upon, and rightfully so. Now if the Constitution said "Let all be married" then I could understand the judges reasoning, but I would still heavily oppose gay marriage. I'm just waiting for an amendment that says "no marriage for homos".
by Wamitoria » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:02 pm
Chazicaria wrote:
The constitution wasn't designed with homos in mind. Back then they were secluded from society or frowned upon, and rightfully so. Now if the Constitution said "Let all be married" then I could understand the judges reasoning, but I would still heavily oppose gay marriage. I'm just waiting for an amendment that says "no marriage for homos".
by Chazicaria » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:02 pm
Gahaldu wrote:Chazicaria wrote:
The constitution wasn't designed with homos in mind. Back then they were secluded from society or frowned upon, and rightfully so. Now if the Constitution said "Let all be married" then I could understand the judges reasoning, but I would still heavily oppose gay marriage. I'm just waiting for an amendment that says "no marriage for homos".
It was designed with equality in mind.
by Jusela » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:02 pm
by Vervaria » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:02 pm
Chazicaria wrote:Gahaldu wrote:Chazicaria wrote:
The constitution wasn't designed with homos in mind. Back then they were secluded from society or frowned upon, and rightfully so. Now if the Constitution said "Let all be married" then I could understand the judges reasoning, but I would still heavily oppose gay marriage. I'm just waiting for an amendment that says "no marriage for homos".
It was designed with equality in mind.
Equality for normal people.
Robustian wrote:If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period.
Ashmoria wrote:it worries me more when people who hate the government and dont think it can do a good job at anything get into power and start running things.
Wanderjar wrote:hiding behind this "I WANT SOURCES" wall is very quaint
Self--Esteem wrote:No. I love smearing those people who evidently like their country blown by a nuke and who are too foolish to realise that middle-eastern terrorism is nothing to be fond of.
Novistranaya wrote:After the Civil War, the majority of Southerners were more than happy to accept defeat and acknowledge the fact that (though not immediately) blacks were going to have the same rights as them.
by Buffett and Colbert » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:02 pm
Chazicaria wrote:
The constitution wasn't designed with homos in mind. Back then they were secluded from society or frowned upon, and rightfully so. Now if the Constitution said "Let all be married" then I could understand the judges reasoning, but I would still heavily oppose gay marriage. I'm just waiting for an amendment that says "no marriage for homos".
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Gahaldu » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:02 pm
Chazicaria wrote:Gahaldu wrote:Chazicaria wrote:
The constitution wasn't designed with homos in mind. Back then they were secluded from society or frowned upon, and rightfully so. Now if the Constitution said "Let all be married" then I could understand the judges reasoning, but I would still heavily oppose gay marriage. I'm just waiting for an amendment that says "no marriage for homos".
It was designed with equality in mind.
Equality for normal people.
by Sun Aut Ex » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:03 pm
Tekania wrote:Our very foundation of law is based upon the assumption of natural rights. Truthfully it's the only system which makes sense; anything else is merely despotism in new clothes.
Strykyh wrote:I wasn't trying to be intelligent.
Keronians wrote:So you think it's ok to waste valuable police time and resources to pander to minority superstitions?
"All available officers, report downtown, armed suspected firing wildly into the public."
"I'll be about ten minutes, I have to go to ID a Muslim woman."
Yes.
Unless of course it's not OK for a woman to ask for a female to ask for a female officer to carry out body checks. In which case, the answer would be no.
"All available officers, report downtown, armed suspected firing wildly into the public."
"I'll be about then minutes, I have to go to carry out a body check on a woman."
by Tokos » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:03 pm
Gahaldu wrote:It was designed with equality in mind.
by Buffett and Colbert » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:03 pm
Vervaria wrote:Chazicaria wrote:Gahaldu wrote:Chazicaria wrote:
The constitution wasn't designed with homos in mind. Back then they were secluded from society or frowned upon, and rightfully so. Now if the Constitution said "Let all be married" then I could understand the judges reasoning, but I would still heavily oppose gay marriage. I'm just waiting for an amendment that says "no marriage for homos".
It was designed with equality in mind.
Equality for normal people.
White male landowners you mean.
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Vervaria » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:03 pm
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Vervaria wrote:Chazicaria wrote:Gahaldu wrote:Chazicaria wrote:
The constitution wasn't designed with homos in mind. Back then they were secluded from society or frowned upon, and rightfully so. Now if the Constitution said "Let all be married" then I could understand the judges reasoning, but I would still heavily oppose gay marriage. I'm just waiting for an amendment that says "no marriage for homos".
It was designed with equality in mind.
Equality for normal people.
White male landowners you mean.
Fixed.
Robustian wrote:If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period.
Ashmoria wrote:it worries me more when people who hate the government and dont think it can do a good job at anything get into power and start running things.
Wanderjar wrote:hiding behind this "I WANT SOURCES" wall is very quaint
Self--Esteem wrote:No. I love smearing those people who evidently like their country blown by a nuke and who are too foolish to realise that middle-eastern terrorism is nothing to be fond of.
Novistranaya wrote:After the Civil War, the majority of Southerners were more than happy to accept defeat and acknowledge the fact that (though not immediately) blacks were going to have the same rights as them.
by Buffett and Colbert » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:04 pm
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Wamitoria » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:04 pm
Jusela wrote:
Heck, if we legalise gay marriage, why just not go ahead and legalise polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia (insert your choice of sexual perversion here) then? Equal rights for everyone, let us not discriminate against anyone! Surely that is what most liberal leftists want.
by Knowlandia » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:04 pm
by Chazicaria » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:04 pm
Gahaldu wrote:Chazicaria wrote:Gahaldu wrote:Chazicaria wrote:
The constitution wasn't designed with homos in mind. Back then they were secluded from society or frowned upon, and rightfully so. Now if the Constitution said "Let all be married" then I could understand the judges reasoning, but I would still heavily oppose gay marriage. I'm just waiting for an amendment that says "no marriage for homos".
It was designed with equality in mind.
Equality for normal people.
Once upon a time interracial marriage was considered abnormal.
by Buffett and Colbert » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:04 pm
Sun Aut Ex wrote:Tekania wrote:Our very foundation of law is based upon the assumption of natural rights. Truthfully it's the only system which makes sense; anything else is merely despotism in new clothes.
I don't believe in natural rights. Nature doesn't hand out rights. Man makes his own rights, and must be prepared to defend them against idiots from over the seas who want to quash them.
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 2nd Apil Republic, Deadly Weaponry, Einsiev, Liberal Malaysia, The Kharkivan Cossacks, THE Trash, Tommito
Advertisement