If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TwinCities.com)   One "Million" "Moms" might also want to avoid Target   (m.twincities.com) divider line 178
    More: Spiffy, Target Corp., Tom Emmer, gay marriage ban, campaign contributions  
•       •       •

20514 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jun 2012 at 9:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-02 06:58:18 PM

rynthetyn: gingerjet: Earpj: Crap. Looks like I have to go shopping at Target today. I can really piss off some Texans wearing those shirts in my town.

Sounds like fun.

My boyfriend and I wouldn't be caught dead in one of those ugly shirts. Couldn't Target hire the guy that designs their corner tables to design the shirts?

/however I have given money to local marriage equality causes

The only rainbow themed shirt I've ever seen that I didn't hate is the one that Threadless has with a Tyrannosaurus Rex shooting a rainbow out of its mouth. But then, I do have a hipster streak/


Rainbow motifs were very popular when I was a kid in the '70s. I still like them.
 
2012-06-02 06:58:18 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: endlessmonkeys: oh yes, bring IT! If you don't like gay marriage, that's quite ok. In fact, it's your right to do so and it's my responsibility to do what I can to ensure that your opinion is changed only in a positive and natural way. That is part of the social contract and one I'm happy for. What ISN'T your right, is to add legislation or a constitutional amendment that denies rights to people based on something so arbitrary as sexual preference (who cares regarding "nature versus nurture"). When you try to stop someone from doing something YOU can already legally do, you completely miss the point of democracy and really need a goddamn civics lesson. So, let's review:

1) Hating people: ok
2) Denying rights YOU enjoy to those people because of your hate: not ok

PS: Dear Target... well done.

It pains me to say this as lesbian, but Americans DO have a 'right' to install constitutional amendments -- at least at the federal level -- denying whatever a strong majority of American citizens agree with denying. Is it offensive? Yes, it is. Is it wrong? I'd say it is, but that's a moral question, not a legal one, and 'rights' are a legal issue. The right to amend the U.S. Constitution exists, and however The People want to amend it, they may.


Yeah, then I'm going to push for an amendment that declares open season on the offending amendment's scumbag supporters.
 
2012-06-02 07:06:32 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: endlessmonkeys: oh yes, bring IT! If you don't like gay marriage, that's quite ok. In fact, it's your right to do so and it's my responsibility to do what I can to ensure that your opinion is changed only in a positive and natural way. That is part of the social contract and one I'm happy for. What ISN'T your right, is to add legislation or a constitutional amendment that denies rights to people based on something so arbitrary as sexual preference (who cares regarding "nature versus nurture"). When you try to stop someone from doing something YOU can already legally do, you completely miss the point of democracy and really need a goddamn civics lesson. So, let's review:

1) Hating people: ok
2) Denying rights YOU enjoy to those people because of your hate: not ok

PS: Dear Target... well done.

It pains me to say this as lesbian, but Americans DO have a 'right' to install constitutional amendments -- at least at the federal level -- denying whatever a strong majority of American citizens agree with denying. Is it offensive? Yes, it is. Is it wrong? I'd say it is, but that's a moral question, not a legal one, and 'rights' are a legal issue. The right to amend the U.S. Constitution exists, and however The People want to amend it, they may.


Ok, yes you are absolutely correct and I most certainly could have chose my words better. I guess sometimes I forget that democracy exists in such a way as to be absolutely loyal to the will of the majority.
 
2012-06-02 07:06:47 PM
Sylvia_Bandersnatch

You're the third person to make this certain point, and I think it deserves to be addressed.

Let's imagine a candidate for office, Schmedley. Scmedley is the candidate for the Kicking Puppies Party. They have other planks in their platform, such as free ice cream in your kids' school, a new community swimming pool, and lower taxes for everyone, which would benefit you directly. They also advocate the kicking of puppies, and back legislation in support of that.

Does the possibility of good things justify your support of a party and candidate whom you know also want to kick puppies?


Wow, talk about constructing a strawman. To equate somebody who wants to do physical harm to another living being to somebody who just doesn't believe in gay marriage is just plain disingenuous. I don't doubt that's the way you try to rationalize your positions, but it doesn't wash with me.

That's a silly example, to be sure, but the issue is quite serious. Civil rights and equality of citizens in democracy -- not to mention just basic decency and respect -- aren't just nice ideas. They're the difference between a civil society and a mean one, and for many people in that society the difference between personal welfare and lack of it.

Silly, no. Asinine yes. If you want decency and respect, you might want to start out with knocking off the hateful rationalizations like you just gave.

Donating to people who can benefit you but who you also know are against some important basic liberties for people who aren't you isn't actually justified. That's an "I got mine" argument, and not worthy of respect.


So then I'll assume if you are in favor of woman being treated civilly, you've called for Obama to give back to donation made by Bill Maher then. Please provide a link to an instance where you did this. If not, then your argument is hypocritical as well as disingenuous.
 
2012-06-02 07:18:02 PM

HoneyDog: mat catastrophe


Listen, you capitalist pig dog, I won't have you besmirching the name of my website. We are dedicated to America and preserving the sort of socialist utopia that Thomas Jefferson promised us through the glorious mouth of the prophet Thomas Paine, which will be delivered by his Most High Holy, Our Lord and Saviour, Barack H. Obama.

LOL ok, whatever. Now you're just trolling. Have a nice one.


It's amazing that it takes most people so long to figure it out. It's not like I'm even trying to be subtle most of the time.

/commie
 
2012-06-02 07:19:34 PM

3StratMan: Still haven't had anyone explain to me exactly why it is so important for gays to be able to marry. The argument is that they want the same "rights" that heteros have when they marry. Exactly what "rights" do heteros have when they are married that gays who are not are being denied? Still sounds like gay marriage advocates are using the word "rights" when what they actually are meaning is "benefits".

Simple question- what "rights' are being denied?


You don't need anything explained to you. If you still don't get it by this point, then you just don't understand what's surely been explained to you countless times already. What you need is a dopeslap.
 
2012-06-02 07:36:39 PM

Mr.Tangent: FTA:"Target is attacking traditional marriage, which is an incredibly misguided thing for them to have done,"

Nobody has yet to explain how two gay people getting married is an "attack on traditional marriage." If two gay people get married does it void all straight marriages? Are they affraid that gay men will be too busy planning their own weddings to plan a straight couples wedding?


There actually is something to this, and yes, it's as stupid as you'd expect.

Back in the day -- we're talking only a little over half a century ago -- not a few Whites in this country objected vociferously to Black men being called "Mr." "Mr.," they felt, was an honorific properly reserved for men of distinction, and it was, to them, indisputable that but for a few exceptions, Black men were not men of distinction and therefore undeserving of this honorific that later came to be take for granted by nearly all men in our society. There was actually a tiny bit of validity to this: If you go back far enough -- a few centuries -- only certain men of distinction (whatever their race) were called "Mr.," and most others -- including most Whites -- did not. What put the lie to this mid-century attitude is that naturally, ALL White men were entitled to be called "Mr.," merely by dint of being White men -- even though many were clearly scumbags.

The attitude of a lot of people is that if gays can get married, then marriage isn't special anymore, or not Christian anymore, so some crap like that. It's bullshiat, of course, but it's a real sentiment, and the feelings are valid -- it just feels right to say this for them, even if they can't explain why. And history, including modern history, is filled with similar examples, of various classes of people who can't do or wear certain things, as a mark of their relative cultural status. The restriction of marriage to straight citizens in our society is very obviously meant to clarify that gays are second-class citizens. That's all.
 
2012-06-02 07:57:42 PM
Sylvia_Bandersnatch

Nobody has yet to explain how two gay people getting married is an "attack on traditional marriage." If two gay people get married does it void all straight marriages? Are they affraid that gay men will be too busy planning their own weddings to plan a straight couples wedding?

There actually is something to this, and yes, it's as stupid as you'd expect.


The attitude of a lot of people is that if gays can get married, then marriage isn't special anymore, or not Christian anymore, so some crap like that. It's bullshiat, of course, but it's a real sentiment, and the feelings are valid -- it just feels right to say this for them, even if they can't explain why. And history, including modern history, is filled with similar examples, of various classes of people who can't do or wear certain things, as a mark of their relative cultural status. The restriction of marriage to straight citizens in our society is very obviously meant to clarify that gays are second-class citizens. That's all.


See, but with this argument, you are giving the anti-gay marriage proponents ammunition and a point to their argument. What about polygamy? What's going to stop the Mormons, or any other polygamy believers from saying that they are being denied their civil rights. There are plenty of historical examples of polygamy being part of a culture. Are we saying polygamist are second class citizens? What about two first cousins who want to get married?

Don't get me wrong, I support gay marriage. But you have to be careful with the arguments you use in support of gay marriage.
 
2012-06-02 08:06:51 PM
Someone needs to go there and just quietly leave a goatse shirt on the rack.
 
2012-06-02 08:15:13 PM

Kuroshin: Just want to say one more time that I hate my own State of Oregon. Measure 36 has burned several of my friends, and I will never forgive those in the State who voted for it.


You know what I've got a problem with? Ballot initiative. Ballot initiative -- or as I call it, "legislating from the street" -- seems to be to offend the Constitutional assurance that, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...." Yes, I know about Luther v. Borden, Baker v. Carr, and PT&T v. Oregon, and I know that the Supreme Court refuses to rule on that clause, deferring to Congress. But you'd think an elected representative body, if no one else, would recognise that street legislation is an end-run around republican government, and a dangerous one at that. In the Federalist Papers, Madison and others argued against the dangerous vagaries of pure democracy, appropriately nothing that left to themselves, The People tend to exercise little and poor temperament in important decisions, and by that ensure their own undoing. Such is the case in California, where ballot initiative has led to some citizens paying far more in taxes than their otherwise equal neighbours, and common drunks deciding if it's okay to hang people and deny civil rights to queers.

A lot of people bristle when I argue that pure democracy is dangerous because most people aren't smart or wise. It sounds un-American to them, and I can understand why. But that doesn't make it unsound. I suggest they take a stroll through Walmart, end to end, every aisle, then spend several hours watching reality TV shows. THEN say you still believe in direct democracy. I'm sorry, but republican government is necessary and appropriate to insulate the levers of power from our least intelligent and prudent citizens, and there are many. We don't hand a gun to a toddler, and we shouldn't hand control of the electric chair to idiots -- but that's exactly what California did, with predictable results.
 
2012-06-02 08:24:08 PM

HoneyDog: Sylvia_Bandersnatch

You're the third person to make this certain point, and I think it deserves to be addressed.

Let's imagine a candidate for office, Schmedley. Scmedley is the candidate for the Kicking Puppies Party. They have other planks in their platform, such as free ice cream in your kids' school, a new community swimming pool, and lower taxes for everyone, which would benefit you directly. They also advocate the kicking of puppies, and back legislation in support of that.

Does the possibility of good things justify your support of a party and candidate whom you know also want to kick puppies?

Wow, talk about constructing a strawman. To equate somebody who wants to do physical harm to another living being to somebody who just doesn't believe in gay marriage is just plain disingenuous. I don't doubt that's the way you try to rationalize your positions, but it doesn't wash with me.

That's a silly example, to be sure, but the issue is quite serious. Civil rights and equality of citizens in democracy -- not to mention just basic decency and respect -- aren't just nice ideas. They're the difference between a civil society and a mean one, and for many people in that society the difference between personal welfare and lack of it.

Silly, no. Asinine yes. If you want decency and respect, you might want to start out with knocking off the hateful rationalizations like you just gave.

Donating to people who can benefit you but who you also know are against some important basic liberties for people who aren't you isn't actually justified. That's an "I got mine" argument, and not worthy of respect.

So then I'll assume if you are in favor of woman being treated civilly, you've called for Obama to give back to donation made by Bill Maher then. Please provide a link to an instance where you did this. If not, then your argument is hypocritical as well as disingenuous.


Ah, the old, "I don't like what you said, so fark you, you farking fark, and your farking dog, too" argument.

Here, try this one instead: Go suck on a tailpipe.
 
2012-06-02 08:41:12 PM

HoneyDog: Sylvia_Bandersnatch

Nobody has yet to explain how two gay people getting married is an "attack on traditional marriage." If two gay people get married does it void all straight marriages? Are they affraid that gay men will be too busy planning their own weddings to plan a straight couples wedding?

There actually is something to this, and yes, it's as stupid as you'd expect.


The attitude of a lot of people is that if gays can get married, then marriage isn't special anymore, or not Christian anymore, so some crap like that. It's bullshiat, of course, but it's a real sentiment, and the feelings are valid -- it just feels right to say this for them, even if they can't explain why. And history, including modern history, is filled with similar examples, of various classes of people who can't do or wear certain things, as a mark of their relative cultural status. The restriction of marriage to straight citizens in our society is very obviously meant to clarify that gays are second-class citizens. That's all.

See, but with this argument, you are giving the anti-gay marriage proponents ammunition and a point to their argument. What about polygamy? What's going to stop the Mormons, or any other polygamy believers from saying that they are being denied their civil rights. There are plenty of historical examples of polygamy being part of a culture. Are we saying polygamist are second class citizens? What about two first cousins who want to get married?

Don't get me wrong, I support gay marriage. But you have to be careful with the arguments you use in support of gay marriage.


First of all, I'm not "handing ammunition" to anyone. No one owns facts or arguments. And nothing I say or don't say is going to change that. What's more, fear of the truth must never guide our actions: If you believe something or know something to be true, then speak it boldly. I can't control what others believe, or hope to. And if a majority of citizens in this country wish to shame themselves, then I can't prevent that.

Second, I don't have a problem with polyamoury per se, though I admit some reticence towards its legal recognition without some safeguards in place. I've thought it over and I don't see any rational argument against it, so long as it involves consenting adults of serious mind making serious commitments. Same with all marriage: The real problem with marriage is that we make it a little too easy to get hitched in the first place, and a little to easy to back out. It's become the most expensive form of dating ever, and that, more than anything else, is what has really eroded whatever sanctity it can lay claim to. But if my arguments advance the cause of polyamoury, I'm okay with that. I'm much more concerned about the inequality of citizens in a modern democratic society, and how that debases them as human beings.

Third, why should I be careful? What will happen if I'm not?
 
2012-06-02 08:41:20 PM
Sylvia_Bandersnatch


Ah, the old, "I don't like what you said, so fark you, you farking fark, and your farking dog, too" argument.

Here, try this one instead: Go suck on a tailpipe.


No, that is not what I said. Your analogy is flawed. Now your last comment to me clearly says to me that you didn't like the fact that I didn't buy your flawed argument. And isn't go suck on a tailpipe just another form of "I don't like what you said, so fark you, you farking fark, and your farking dog, too" argument.?

How old are you? Two? By the way, your posts reek of arrogant pseudo-intellectualism.
 
2012-06-02 08:47:21 PM
Sylvia_Bandersnatch

First of all, I'm not "handing ammunition" to anyone. No one owns facts or arguments. And nothing I say or don't say is going to change that. What's more, fear of the truth must never guide our actions: If you believe something or know something to be true, then speak it boldly. I can't control what others believe, or hope to. And if a majority of citizens in this country wish to shame themselves, then I can't prevent that.

Yeah you are, you just don't see it.

Second, I don't have a problem with polyamoury per se, though I admit some reticence towards its legal recognition without some safeguards in place. I've thought it over and I don't see any rational argument against it, so long as it involves consenting adults of serious mind making serious commitments. Same with all marriage: The real problem with marriage is that we make it a little too easy to get hitched in the first place, and a little to easy to back out. It's become the most expensive form of dating ever, and that, more than anything else, is what has really eroded whatever sanctity it can lay claim to. But if my arguments advance the cause of polyamoury, I'm okay with that. I'm much more concerned about the inequality of citizens in a modern democratic society, and how that debases them as human beings.


See, just what I said. You have no problem with a marriage between multiple partners. So double yeah, you are handing the anti-crowd their arguments and fears on a silver platter. By the way, just what safeguards would you put in place? Wouldn't that still be denying somebody their civil rights?

Third, why should I be careful? What will happen if I'm not?

Wow, you really don't think ahead do you? Ever heard the phrase its going to come back and bite you in the butt?
 
2012-06-02 09:02:31 PM

HoneyDog: Sylvia_Bandersnatch

First of all, I'm not "handing ammunition" to anyone. No one owns facts or arguments. And nothing I say or don't say is going to change that. What's more, fear of the truth must never guide our actions: If you believe something or know something to be true, then speak it boldly. I can't control what others believe, or hope to. And if a majority of citizens in this country wish to shame themselves, then I can't prevent that.

Yeah you are, you just don't see it.

Second, I don't have a problem with polyamoury per se, though I admit some reticence towards its legal recognition without some safeguards in place. I've thought it over and I don't see any rational argument against it, so long as it involves consenting adults of serious mind making serious commitments. Same with all marriage: The real problem with marriage is that we make it a little too easy to get hitched in the first place, and a little to easy to back out. It's become the most expensive form of dating ever, and that, more than anything else, is what has really eroded whatever sanctity it can lay claim to. But if my arguments advance the cause of polyamoury, I'm okay with that. I'm much more concerned about the inequality of citizens in a modern democratic society, and how that debases them as human beings.


See, just what I said. You have no problem with a marriage between multiple partners. So double yeah, you are handing the anti-crowd their arguments and fears on a silver platter. By the way, just what safeguards would you put in place? Wouldn't that still be denying somebody their civil rights?

Third, why should I be careful? What will happen if I'm not?

Wow, you really don't think ahead do you? Ever heard the phrase its going to come back and bite you in the butt?


Your daddy's going to be really mad when he finds you up this late on a church night.
 
2012-06-02 10:20:56 PM
Shouldn't they re-name themselves the 14 Moms Group?

Seriously can't someone sue them out of existence for false advertising? They have nowhere near a million members.
 
2012-06-02 10:38:50 PM

skyshooter: Shouldn't they re-name themselves the 14 Moms Group?

Seriously can't someone sue them out of existence for false advertising? They have nowhere near a million members.


And most don't appear to actually be Moms...
 
2012-06-02 11:54:22 PM

ciberido: 3StratMan: Yep, looks like "benefits" to me. But I guess you could reword it all and say "rights to obtain benefits". Then it would be more truthful. And more obvious at the intentions of the whole issue.

Ok, I'll slap "dishonest" next to "homophobic" next to your name. Thanks. I like to be thorough.


That's awesome. I get tagged with the Homophobe label because I question the intention of the gay marriage advocates. Pretty much the same as getting slapped with the Racist label if I was to mention that I disagree with President Obama's policies. Ridiculous, you geniuses are.
 
2012-06-03 12:20:55 AM

3StratMan: ciberido: 3StratMan: Yep, looks like "benefits" to me. But I guess you could reword it all and say "rights to obtain benefits". Then it would be more truthful. And more obvious at the intentions of the whole issue.

Ok, I'll slap "dishonest" next to "homophobic" next to your name. Thanks. I like to be thorough.

That's awesome. I get tagged with the Homophobe label because I question the intention of the gay marriage advocates. Pretty much the same as getting slapped with the Racist label if I was to mention that I disagree with President Obama's policies. Ridiculous, you geniuses are.


It's been explained many, many times that what they want is equality. Apparently that simple concept is too much for you.
 
2012-06-03 03:08:51 AM

3StratMan: That's awesome. I get tagged with the Homophobe label because I question the intention of the gay marriage advocates.


No, you get tagged with the homophobe label because you argue that gays should be denied their constitutional rights.

Marriage is a basic civil right, guaranteed in the United States by our constitution. That's not just my opinion, that's the finding of the US Supreme Court. To deny gays marriage is to deny us one of our basic civil rights, and to deny us one of our basic civil rights makes you, sir, a homophobe.

3StratMan: Pretty much the same as getting slapped with the Racist label if I was to mention that I disagree with President Obama's policies. Ridiculous, you geniuses are.


I wouldn't call you a racist if you disagreed with President Obama's policies. I would, however, call you a racist if you tried to deny African-Americans the right to marry the right to marry non-African-Americans. Oh, wait, I forgot, that already happened. By people we call racists.

Lastly, let me add that I also called you "dishonest" because you claim to be "asking questions" when you are in fact doing no such thing. You are disingenuously trying to argue that gays don't, or shouldn't have the right to marry by couching your argument in the form of questions. We answer the questions, and then you ignore the answers given to you because they do not suit your agenda (the homophobic one you pretend --- badly --- not to have).

I was willing at the start to give you the benefit of the doubt and treat your "question" as an actual question, but you've shown your true colors a little too clearly now.

If you had just come out and said "I don't think gays should have the right to marry and I don't care what you or the Supreme Court think!," you would be no more or less of a homophobe. You would, however, be less of a prevaricator.
 
2012-06-03 05:27:45 AM
Sylvia_Bandersnatch

Your daddy's going to be really mad when he finds you up this late on a church night.

Wow, talk about a puerile comeback. By the way, my dad died 19 years ago so I doubt he'd give a shiat. And that's without even mentioning that I'm not a Christian.
 
2012-06-03 06:39:49 AM
Gay marriage is still an issue in the flyover states?

Oh, that's adorable!

-Massachusetts snob
 
2012-06-03 09:21:07 AM

HoneyDog: Sylvia_Bandersnatch

Your daddy's going to be really mad when he finds you up this late on a church night.

Wow, talk about a puerile comeback. By the way, my dad died 19 years ago so I doubt he'd give a shiat. And that's without even mentioning that I'm not a Christian.


What you're getting is tit for tat. Your Weeners was puerile, and for that you got a puerile reply. Your second was intelligent, and for that you earned a respectful and thoughtful reply. By the third, you were back to puerile. I also don't give a shiat it you give a shiat. The subject matter is what interests me, far more than whatever it might mean to you personally. If you want to have a smart convo, we'll do that. If you want to trade biatchslaps, I'm good for that, too, and I consider you worthy either way. It's entirely up to you.
 
2012-06-03 09:35:39 AM

ciberido: 3StratMan: That's awesome. I get tagged with the Homophobe label because I question the intention of the gay marriage advocates.

No, you get tagged with the homophobe label because you argue that gays should be denied their constitutional rights.

Marriage is a basic civil right, guaranteed in the United States by our constitution. That's not just my opinion, that's the finding of the US Supreme Court. To deny gays marriage is to deny us one of our basic civil rights, and to deny us one of our basic civil rights makes you, sir, a homophobe.

3StratMan: Pretty much the same as getting slapped with the Racist label if I was to mention that I disagree with President Obama's policies. Ridiculous, you geniuses are.

I wouldn't call you a racist if you disagreed with President Obama's policies. I would, however, call you a racist if you tried to deny African-Americans the right to marry the right to marry non-African-Americans. Oh, wait, I forgot, that already happened. By people we call racists.

Lastly, let me add that I also called you "dishonest" because you claim to be "asking questions" when you are in fact doing no such thing. You are disingenuously trying to argue that gays don't, or shouldn't have the right to marry by couching your argument in the form of questions. We answer the questions, and then you ignore the answers given to you because they do not suit your agenda (the homophobic one you pretend --- badly --- not to have).

I was willing at the start to give you the benefit of the doubt and treat your "question" as an actual question, but you've shown your true colors a little too clearly now.

If you had just come out and said "I don't think gays should have the right to marry and I don't care what you or the Supreme Court think!," you would be no more or less of a homophobe. You would, however, be less of a prevaricator.


Blah, blah, blah...whatever. Exactly where did I say gay people should be denied ANYTHING, whether it's "rights" or "benefits" or anything else for that matter? Citation, please. I NEVER once said whether I agree or disagree with gay marriage or if they should get any "rights" or not; Just asked questions that got answers from many of you. I just commented that a spade should be called a spade- If people want "stuff" they need to call it "stuff". "Rights" and "Stuff" are 2 different things, but they are turned into the same thing in most of the arguments you hear. That's pretty "dishonest" if you ask me. Accusing me of being a homophobe for asking questions about the intent of gay marriage advocates is about the same as if I were to call all you gay marriage defenders homosexuals just because you support it. Ridiculous, and I don't roll that way. And you all look ridiculous when you roll that way.

And as far as this statement goes- "I wouldn't call you a racist if you disagreed with President Obama's policies. I would, however, call you a racist if you tried to deny African-Americans the right to marry the right to marry non-African-Americans. Oh, wait, I forgot, that already happened. By people we call racists."...Holy Mother of God! Where in the hell did that giant pile of absurdity come from? Not even going to respond to that nonsense.
 
2012-06-03 09:42:00 AM
Sylvia_Bandersnatch

What you're getting is tit for tat. Your Weeners was puerile, and for that you got a puerile reply. Your second was intelligent, and for that you earned a respectful and thoughtful reply. By the third, you were back to puerile. I also don't give a shiat it you give a shiat. The subject matter is what interests me, far more than whatever it might mean to you personally. If you want to have a smart convo, we'll do that. If you want to trade biatchslaps, I'm good for that, too, and I consider you worthy either way. It's entirely up to you.


BS, you're the one reaping what you sow. Your Boobies to me was rude and snarky, and used false logic. All you are doing is proving yourself to be a conceited stuck up biatch that can't handle it when somebody doesn't agree with them, and when they point out your false logic you resort to temper tantrums and name calling. You my dear have proven yourself totally unworthy. You're going to be the first one going on ignore.
 
2012-06-03 09:49:19 AM
Would you guys stop talking about your weeners and boobies?
 
2012-06-03 10:00:38 AM

HoneyDog: Sylvia_Bandersnatch

What you're getting is tit for tat. Your Weeners was puerile, and for that you got a puerile reply. Your second was intelligent, and for that you earned a respectful and thoughtful reply. By the third, you were back to puerile. I also don't give a shiat it you give a shiat. The subject matter is what interests me, far more than whatever it might mean to you personally. If you want to have a smart convo, we'll do that. If you want to trade biatchslaps, I'm good for that, too, and I consider you worthy either way. It's entirely up to you.

BS, you're the one reaping what you sow. Your Boobies to me was rude and snarky, and used false logic. All you are doing is proving yourself to be a conceited stuck up biatch that can't handle it when somebody doesn't agree with them, and when they point out your false logic you resort to temper tantrums and name calling. You my dear have proven yourself totally unworthy. You're going to be the first one going on ignore.


Your choice, man. You stoop, you scoop. Suck it up.
 
2012-06-03 10:59:56 PM

ciberido: mafiageek1980: Dear Homophobic assholes in this article
[...] ps: eat a dick!

Haven't we already established that the homophobe brigade does NOT need any more encouragement in that direction?


LMFAO!
 
Displayed 28 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report