Chik Fellatio

I always see these issues come up around election time. gay rights, gun control, etc. anything to stir up passions and keep peoples mind off the real issues. god forbid

So you disagree with the quoted comment to which I agreed with the Bingo remark? Why is any organization, religious based or animal rights based or vegan based or vagina based not allowed to petition the government for change or action based upon their views? Separate their views from the right to take action. What is the difference between the KKK and Greenpeace and PETA when it comes to throwing money at the government to petition for laws to change OTHER THAN whether or not you agree with them? Originally Posted by Boltfan

The difference between the KKK/Taliban/Dan Cathy and Greenpeace/Peta is that the former groups focus on suppressing equality of human rights and the latter groups focus on promoting animal rights. Dan Cathy is not fighting for his rights, he is fighting to prevent others from having the same rights that he has. Clear? I'm not ok with any group petitioning the government to limit another groups rights.

And how do you know Dan Cathy isn't ok with civil unions, but leave marriage alone? (I don't know, and don't care enough to know, but curious if you do know) Originally Posted by Boltfan

Because he is financing the fight in the legislature, not in the churches. I don't give a damn what the various religions think about marriage because I think the religions are irrelevant cults that are opt-in or opt-out. Our legal code is not opt-in or opt-out and that's why I think equality is important.

Oh and last time I checked, Dan Cathy hasn't beheaded anyone for taking a different position from his and hasn't precluded his female employees from going to school. So yeah, the Taliban comparison is a pretty good way NOT to get your point across. Originally Posted by Boltfan

The Taliban is about religion-based suppression of freedom of thought and oppression. Dan Cathy is part of a culture that may be more advanced than what know about the Taliban from what we see on TV, but his community shares many of the values of the Taliban, like it or not.

To say Bill Clinton was the best and most intellectual president give me a break, he was the most corrupt and lying guy we have had in years. He had people murdered in the whitewater deal, he did not have the balls to say he got a BJ from Monica, he went into office with less than $200,000.00 in assets but came out of office eight years later with over 12 million in assets with a job that payed 3.2 million and that was before taxes, can we all say corrupt. Originally Posted by Hobbyfun

Nonsense. You must get all of your information from the National Enquirer. Bill Clinton IS the most intellectual president we've had in my lifetime. Point to another Rhodes scholar if you want to dispute that. Don't bother, you CAN'T. There aren't any. The rest are actors and frat boys.

Yes, Clinton had a BJ from Monica and could have handled it better. I would have said to the media that she used too much teeth and moved on.

Kennedy was fucking a mafia bosses girlfriend AND Marilyn Monroe and look how popular he and his scumbag family STILL is. That's why the CIA took him out. Good job.

You say your not a Liberal but everything you say is what the Liberal brain dead people think. About the only thing we agree on is the government needs to be down sized. We need to fire everyone of the ass-holes and put most of them in jail.

You still don't get it "I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GAY PEOPLE" I just don't believe they should have the right to rewrite the constitution or make companies change there polices to suite there needs, if you look they are only 4% of our nation but want us to change everything like they were a group of 30 to 40%. Why is such a small percentage of people trying to make everybody change just for them.

A lot of people say you are born gay and I call BULLSHIT, if that was the case then you would not have bi people, they have a choose to be with a man or women and why are they teaching it in school if you were born that way, I think a lot of kids start hanging out with a group of people that are gay and it becomes pier pressure at that point and they turn gay or bi. I had a man that was working for me and was straight as a arrow chasing pussy and saying he did not understand gay thinking, well he started hanging out with a closet gay and then started hanging with that guys friends. After about six mouths he started changing he demeanor and the way he acted, it was like a completely different person every day, within one year he said he was guy.

Point is it was he did not have a lot of friends and when him and that other guy started hanging out together it was him wanting to fit in to that group and he became gay. I knew this kid and his brother and before him and that other guy started hanging out there is no way he was gay bi or whatever you want to call it.

And yes Lust you are a Liberal though and though. Originally Posted by Hobbyfun

No, I am not a liberal and you are not a conservative. You are definitely a fucktard (Republican or Tea Party) if you believe what you wrote in the previous paragraph.

P.S. Looking forward to your first review... when should we expect it?

The difference between the KKK/Taliban/Dan Cathy and Greenpeace/Peta is that the former groups focus on suppressing equality of human rights and the latter groups focus on promoting animal rights. Dan Cathy is not fighting for his rights, he is fighting to prevent others from having the same rights that he has. Clear? I'm not ok with any group petitioning the government to limit another groups rights.

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

So you are only ok with groups with which you don't disagree. I am very clear. Freedom, so long as you are cool with their agenda.

"I'm not OK with any group petitioning the government to limit another groups rights."

This statement you made right here shows all you can do is speak out of your ass you stupid PRICK
I believe in a different thread you said you believe in gun control and taking of all guns so how can you make this statement, isn't that taking a groups freedom away because YOU don't agree with that group?

"So you are only OK with groups with which you don't disagree. I am very clear. Freedom, so long as you are cool with their agenda."

Every time you start typing stupid pours out and i"m sure it's the same way when you speak.

One other thing why are you so obsessed with me writing a review, I'm beginning to think you want to go in right behind me with a lady and see if you can lick my cum off of her tits, your a sick person.

And if you think just because somebody is a Rhodes scholar that person is smart you have to have your head all the way up your ASS, they may be book smart but they do not have common sense and without common sense you are a useless person. 95 % of the CEO's and ALL of the Presidents are in there position from having the right connections NOT because they are smart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harro69
This is nonsense... millions of Americans strap on a gun everyday. UK and Aussie crimes are way up since the UN took there guns. You can spout numbers all day but concealed carry of loaded guns is a daily part of American life in most states. Look at crime where guns are NOT allowed in US like Chicago and NYC are they lower? no lol.

"It is not nonsense unless you can explain the numbers that I've quoted. We're not talking about all crime, we're talking about death by guns and whether or not we're safer with guns in our community. We aren't." This is your statement.

This statement came from you Lust so I think you need to start eating CROW with your statement about letting groups have freedoms. Like Bolt said as long as your cool with the groups and there agenda it's OK. I don't think you know from one day to the next what your saying.

peta is focused on preventing me from eating meats, or wearing furs or leather shoes. greenpeace et al are ostensibly focused on the environment, but in reality are a bunch of leftist orgs focused on curtailing my ability to make a living.

what do all of these groups have in common with churches? They all lobby government... in some cases to legislate what I'm allowed to do in my bedroom, in some cases to legislate how much of my sweat and blood gets confiscated on their behalf, or how much more it'll cost me to heat my home... sweat and blood I would otherwise use to make my life better in the way I see fit.

They all lobby government. But "they" aren't the problem. Government is. The church doesn't pass anti sodomy laws, government does. Greanpeace can't drive up the cost of living without their willing accomplices in government.

Bill Clinton is no dummy. But so what? Lust, do you really believe he's smart enough to choose how best you should live your life? And just how smart would someone have to be to tie your shoes better than you can? or choose what movie you want to see? or decide what you should eat for dinner tonight? or determine how much soda you should be allowed to purchase?

Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, fucktard, kkk, taliban, Christians, communist socialist, fascist...

We can all sling labels and epithets. Question is, do we believe in individual liberties or do we think someone else is more qualified to tell us how we should live our lives? Can we really say we believe in individual liberties if they shouldn't apply to those with whom we disagree?

L4L has painted himself into a corner with his statements. His stance on gun control and PETA being ok, but others not being ok just shows that liberty and freedom is ok, so long as he agrees with them.

Sorry L4L, it is a pretty black and white statement. Either you are for individual freedoms or you aren't. If some regulations on your "rights" or freedoms are ok, but others are not, then you just aren't being intellectually honest about your beliefs.

I think we're also having some trouble with moral equivalencies. As much as I may hate the socialist Nancy Pelosi, she ain't Pol Pot, the Cambodian dictator who slaughtered millions to bring socialism to his country.
Dan Cathy believes marriage should be between man and woman. We all agree he's entitled to his opinion (whether we agree with his opinion or not). Petitioning the government with that opinion (whether we agree he has that right or not) doesn't even come close to strapping on a bomb or flying a plane into the buildings of people who disagree. Taliban? Give me a break.
To suggest that people who support Dan Cathy's right to petition the goverment are somehow equivalent to the kkk is a bit extreme(ist).

If you will notice if you disagree with a liberal party person then you are labeled kkk, pointed hat person a hater or some other name.

Most of them are so f*cked up in the mind they want freedom just so long as you agree with them.

L4L has painted himself into a corner with his statements. His stance on gun control and PETA being ok, but others not being ok just shows that liberty and freedom is ok, so long as he agrees with them.

Sorry L4L, it is a pretty black and white statement. Either you are for individual freedoms or you aren't. If some regulations on your "rights" or freedoms are ok, but others are not, then you just aren't being intellectually honest about your beliefs. Originally Posted by Boltfan

No, I'm not in a corner.

We need more gun control because too many innocent victims are getting killed because of the free availability of guns. This is like seat belts. Seat belt laws were passed because too many dumb asses refused to buckle up and were killed. How stupid do people have to be to not understand that? How many deaths?

As I stated, I don't think PETA is ok at all. You aren't paying attention. Wake the fuck up and read my last post. I think animals are our prey until they turn the tables on us.

L4L

So you are only ok with groups with which you don't disagree. I am very clear. Freedom, so long as you are cool with their agenda. Originally Posted by Boltfan

No, I'm ok with many groups that I disagree with. I'm opposing a community that actively works to suppress the legal rights of those that they disagree with based on religious grounds, which goes against the protections we are guaranteed by our constitution.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harro69
This is nonsense... millions of Americans strap on a gun everyday. UK and Aussie crimes are way up since the UN took there guns. You can spout numbers all day but concealed carry of loaded guns is a daily part of American life in most states. Look at crime where guns are NOT allowed in US like Chicago and NYC are they lower? no lol.

"It is not nonsense unless you can explain the numbers that I've quoted. We're not talking about all crime, we're talking about death by guns and whether or not we're safer with guns in our community. We aren't." This is your statement.

This statement came from you Lust so I think you need to start eating CROW with your statement about letting groups have freedoms. Like Bolt said as long as your cool with the groups and there agenda it's OK. I don't think you know from one day to the next what your saying. Originally Posted by Hobbyfun

Ok, pay attention Safire...

- mandatory seat belts were legislated to protect dummies from themselves and to protect the rest of us from the medical costs of the idiots who didn't wear them.

- no smoking laws in the workplace, bars, stores, etc., were put in place to protect us from dummies who smoke.

- DUI laws were put in place to protect us from people who drink and drive and kill people.

It is not unreasonable to expect a government to regulate the other major killer of innocent victims - guns. The data exists. The only obstacles to solving this problem is NRA money and lack of balls with our elected representatives.

So back to you... please answer my original question that you referenced... or stop referencing it.

L4L

...

One other thing why are you so obsessed with me writing a review, I'm beginning to think you want to go in right behind me with a lady and see if you can lick my cum off of her tits, your a sick person.

And if you think just because somebody is a Rhodes scholar that person is smart you have to have your head all the way up your ASS, they may be book smart but they do not have common sense and without common sense you are a useless person. 95 % of the CEO's and ALL of the Presidents are in there position from having the right connections NOT because they are smart. Originally Posted by Hobbyfun

SS, you know why I want to see a review. You shouldn't have access to the locker room or ROS.

Do you even know what a Rhodes Scholar is? Yes, it includes 'book smart' (OMG!). No, 95% of CEOs and Presidents did not get there because of connections. The only case I can think of that meets that criteria is that little Bush.

To be clear, I'm here to discuss and debate topics, not to attack individuals. But if you bring it on, then you bring it on.

I don't think I've gone after anyone without provocation. If I'm wrong please call me on it.

Cheers,

L4L