Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #1960068 > unrolled thread

Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage.

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2015-08-14 02:49 -0700
    Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 16:24 -0400
      Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> - 2015-08-16 17:26 -0700
        Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Snout@smack.com - 2015-08-16 21:20 -0600
          Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-17 11:11 +0100
            Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-17 03:38 -0700
              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-17 13:25 +0100
                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-17 05:35 -0700
                  Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-17 13:47 +0100
            Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 20:31 -0400
              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-20 11:51 +0100
                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:57 -0400
          Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2015-08-17 05:26 -0700
          Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> - 2015-08-17 08:04 -0700
          Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 17:03 -0400
            Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-19 09:14 +0100
              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. One Party System <eat_me@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-19 11:37 +0000
                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-20 11:51 +0100
                  Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. One Party System <eat_me@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 11:24 +0000
                    Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-20 13:53 +0100
                      Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Beam Me Up Scotty <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> - 2015-08-20 11:34 -0400
                        Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-21 09:18 +0100
                          Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Beam Me Up Scotty <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> - 2015-08-21 12:22 -0400
                            Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. deep - 2015-08-21 11:18 -0600
                              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Beam Me Up Scotty <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> - 2015-08-21 14:13 -0400
                                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Greg Smith" <PlasmaticsBass@gov.com> - 2015-08-21 15:22 -0400
                                  Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> - 2015-08-21 12:33 -0700
                                    Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. LBM@Sig.net - 2015-08-21 14:19 -0600
                                      Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. First Post <LiberalismIsADisease@Leftwing-Cowards.net> - 2015-08-21 18:34 -0500
                                    Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 20:25 -0400
                                      Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> - 2015-08-23 11:22 -0500
                                        Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Beam Me Up Scotty <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> - 2015-08-23 14:24 -0400
                                          Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> - 2015-08-23 13:43 -0500
                                            Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 20:39 -0400
                                              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> - 2015-08-24 10:52 -0500
                                            Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Just Wondering <fmhlaw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-23 19:56 -0600
                                              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. deep - 2015-08-23 20:13 -0600
                                                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Just Wondering <fmhlaw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-23 20:23 -0600
                                                  Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. deep - 2015-08-23 20:42 -0600
                                                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 18:09 -0400
                                              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> - 2015-08-24 10:57 -0500
                                                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 18:12 -0400
                                              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 18:08 -0400
                                            Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Beam Me Up Scotty <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> - 2015-08-24 02:49 -0400
                                              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 18:13 -0400
                                            Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> - 2015-08-24 08:32 -0700
                                              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> - 2015-08-24 11:37 -0500
                                              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. deep - 2015-08-24 11:48 -0600
                                                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> - 2015-08-24 11:53 -0700
                                                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 18:16 -0400
                                              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 18:14 -0400
                                          Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 18:05 -0400
                                        Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 20:37 -0400
                                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. deep - 2015-08-21 13:55 -0600
                            Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 20:20 -0400
                          Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Beam Me Up Scotty <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> - 2015-08-21 13:02 -0400
                            Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 20:27 -0400
                          Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Beam Me Up Scotty <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> - 2015-08-21 13:38 -0400
                    Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 20:05 -0400
                    Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 20:08 -0400
                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 18:19 -0400
                  Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Beam Me Up Scotty <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> - 2015-08-20 20:06 -0400
                    Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Just Wondering <fmhlaw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-20 20:07 -0600
                    Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-22 08:32 +0100
                      Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:17 -0700
                  Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-20 18:13 -0700
              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 18:17 -0400
                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Beam Me Up Scotty <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> - 2015-08-20 20:09 -0400
                  Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Just Wondering <fmhlaw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-20 20:10 -0600
                  Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-21 10:32 +0100
                  Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 20:46 -0400
            Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 20:37 -0400
              Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. "Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> - 2015-08-19 18:05 -0700
                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Just Wondering <fmhlaw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-20 00:34 -0600
                Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 20:55 -0400
        Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2015-08-17 05:25 -0700
        Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 17:02 -0400
      Re: here we are with the Liberal hypocrisy of gay marriage. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2015-08-17 05:24 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#1964936

On 08/20/2015 08:53 AM, Alex W. wrote:
> On 20/08/2015 12:24, One Party System wrote:
>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:d3lpopFs08sU1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> On 19/08/2015 12:37, One Party System wrote:
>>>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>>> news:d3is7tF5irtU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/08/2015 22:03, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:20:01 -0600, Snout@smack.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 "Wayne" wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Governor Swill"  wrote
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 02:49:47 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A marriage license is a CONTRACT----and only TWO (2) citizens
>>>>>>>>>> (any
>>>>>>>>>> gender) can enter into that CONTRACT
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's the most stupid motherfucking thing I've heard you say.....
>>>>>>>>> today.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course multiple people can enter into a contract you idiot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> # He wrote, "that contract" IDIOT, not "a contract".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And there's the rub.  "That contract" should not be limited to two
>>>>>>>> persons if you take gender out of the definition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Polygamists can claim the exact same injustices against their
>>>>>>>> marriage that was used to justify queer "marriage".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a definite reason why it is limited to "two" persons. 
>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>> is some limitation on "freedom" that courts rule as a part of a
>>>>>>> society issue.  For example:  Abortion is constitutional---but a
>>>>>>> limitation is (as a society issue) limited to a certain number of
>>>>>>> weeks prior to birth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, so why is marriage limited to two people?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He thinks marriage is limited to two people because that is the
>> (narrow)
>>>>> limit of his knowledge of history, anthropology and the bible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No because it has worked well for a long time.
>>>
>>> Define "well".
>>
>> Hmm. Blacks have been doing great since the federal government wrecked
>> the
>> black family through welfare rules.
>>
>>> Do so bearing in mind the historically customary disenfranchisement of
>>> women in this deal, the equally customary husband's right to marital
>>> rape, and the socially acceptable practise of whaling on the wife
>>> whenever hubby felt like it.
>>
>> Another moron. I do not grant your point. Take your brave new world and
>> move elsewhere with it.
> 
> SO you prefer the olden days?  When you could beat and rape your wife as
> and when you pleased?  When her property and inheritance rights
> automatically transferred to you?  When costudy came to you and you had
> no obligation whatsoever to support her if she leaves?
> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course it sets the focus on individuals so I can understand why a
>>>> collectivist doesn't get it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Whether two, three or four people marry, there is still individual
>>> involvement.
>>>
>>> For that matter, if you really think that a marriage between one woman
>>> and one man "sets the focus on individuals", you have never been
>>> married.  Short of the "hey, we're in Vegas so why not go to the
>>> drive-thru chapel" type of wedding, it's a social event.  It's a
>>> community event.  Whole families get involved.  And then there is a
>>> lifetime (defined these days as "life until the courts decide on custody
>>> for the dog") of dealign with in-laws and other relatives...
>>
>> To bad you are so stupid. I'm married and getting divorced from a woman
>> with sever emotional problems. And I am fighting to get full custody
>> of my
>> daughter.
>>
>> So fuck off Alex.
>>
> 
> With all due regard for a difficult situation, under the old rules of
> "one man one woman until death do you part" you would be in a much worse
> place.  And so would every other party concerned.
> 
> 
> 
I like the idea of Alabama making all their marriage licenses gay and
everything.... all be for a one year length of time.

Who can stop them?

Then change the
"until death do you part"
and use
"until taxes are delinquent".

That will make it a true Liberal Marriage.

-- 
That's Karma

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1965589

On 20/08/2015 16:34, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> On 08/20/2015 08:53 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>> On 20/08/2015 12:24, One Party System wrote:
>>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:d3lpopFs08sU1
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> On 19/08/2015 12:37, One Party System wrote:
>>>>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>>>> news:d3is7tF5irtU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/08/2015 22:03, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:20:01 -0600, Snout@smack.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 "Wayne" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Governor Swill"  wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 02:49:47 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A marriage license is a CONTRACT----and only TWO (2) citizens
>>>>>>>>>>> (any
>>>>>>>>>>> gender) can enter into that CONTRACT
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's the most stupid motherfucking thing I've heard you say.....
>>>>>>>>>> today.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course multiple people can enter into a contract you idiot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> # He wrote, "that contract" IDIOT, not "a contract".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And there's the rub.  "That contract" should not be limited to two
>>>>>>>>> persons if you take gender out of the definition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Polygamists can claim the exact same injustices against their
>>>>>>>>> marriage that was used to justify queer "marriage".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a definite reason why it is limited to "two" persons.
>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>> is some limitation on "freedom" that courts rule as a part of a
>>>>>>>> society issue.  For example:  Abortion is constitutional---but a
>>>>>>>> limitation is (as a society issue) limited to a certain number of
>>>>>>>> weeks prior to birth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, so why is marriage limited to two people?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He thinks marriage is limited to two people because that is the
>>> (narrow)
>>>>>> limit of his knowledge of history, anthropology and the bible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No because it has worked well for a long time.
>>>>
>>>> Define "well".
>>>
>>> Hmm. Blacks have been doing great since the federal government wrecked
>>> the
>>> black family through welfare rules.
>>>
>>>> Do so bearing in mind the historically customary disenfranchisement of
>>>> women in this deal, the equally customary husband's right to marital
>>>> rape, and the socially acceptable practise of whaling on the wife
>>>> whenever hubby felt like it.
>>>
>>> Another moron. I do not grant your point. Take your brave new world and
>>> move elsewhere with it.
>>
>> SO you prefer the olden days?  When you could beat and rape your wife as
>> and when you pleased?  When her property and inheritance rights
>> automatically transferred to you?  When costudy came to you and you had
>> no obligation whatsoever to support her if she leaves?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it sets the focus on individuals so I can understand why a
>>>>> collectivist doesn't get it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whether two, three or four people marry, there is still individual
>>>> involvement.
>>>>
>>>> For that matter, if you really think that a marriage between one woman
>>>> and one man "sets the focus on individuals", you have never been
>>>> married.  Short of the "hey, we're in Vegas so why not go to the
>>>> drive-thru chapel" type of wedding, it's a social event.  It's a
>>>> community event.  Whole families get involved.  And then there is a
>>>> lifetime (defined these days as "life until the courts decide on custody
>>>> for the dog") of dealign with in-laws and other relatives...
>>>
>>> To bad you are so stupid. I'm married and getting divorced from a woman
>>> with sever emotional problems. And I am fighting to get full custody
>>> of my
>>> daughter.
>>>
>>> So fuck off Alex.
>>>
>>
>> With all due regard for a difficult situation, under the old rules of
>> "one man one woman until death do you part" you would be in a much worse
>> place.  And so would every other party concerned.
>>
>>
>>
> I like the idea of Alabama making all their marriage licenses gay and
> everything.... all be for a one year length of time.

Limited-term marriage licences would ba a very practical approach.

I'm not sure it would ever be a choice to be considered.
It's too .... unromantic.
Something as basic as a prenup is already controversial because it 
introduces unwanted reality into the fluffy clouds of hormones and 
skew-whiff brain chemistry that wafts the couple on its way into the 
snug embrace of the marital port.  People who are in love (or at least 
in lust) generally do not wish to hear about legal provisions.  It ruins 
the high.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1965790

On 08/21/2015 04:18 AM, Alex W. wrote:
> On 20/08/2015 16:34, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 08/20/2015 08:53 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>>> On 20/08/2015 12:24, One Party System wrote:
>>>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:d3lpopFs08sU1
>>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>> On 19/08/2015 12:37, One Party System wrote:
>>>>>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>>>>> news:d3is7tF5irtU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17/08/2015 22:03, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:20:01 -0600, Snout@smack.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 "Wayne" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Governor Swill"  wrote
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 02:49:47 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A marriage license is a CONTRACT----and only TWO (2) citizens
>>>>>>>>>>>> (any
>>>>>>>>>>>> gender) can enter into that CONTRACT
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's the most stupid motherfucking thing I've heard you
>>>>>>>>>>> say.....
>>>>>>>>>>> today.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course multiple people can enter into a contract you idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> # He wrote, "that contract" IDIOT, not "a contract".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And there's the rub.  "That contract" should not be limited to
>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>> persons if you take gender out of the definition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Polygamists can claim the exact same injustices against their
>>>>>>>>>> marriage that was used to justify queer "marriage".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a definite reason why it is limited to "two" persons.
>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>> is some limitation on "freedom" that courts rule as a part of a
>>>>>>>>> society issue.  For example:  Abortion is constitutional---but a
>>>>>>>>> limitation is (as a society issue) limited to a certain number of
>>>>>>>>> weeks prior to birth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok, so why is marriage limited to two people?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He thinks marriage is limited to two people because that is the
>>>> (narrow)
>>>>>>> limit of his knowledge of history, anthropology and the bible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No because it has worked well for a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Define "well".
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. Blacks have been doing great since the federal government wrecked
>>>> the
>>>> black family through welfare rules.
>>>>
>>>>> Do so bearing in mind the historically customary disenfranchisement of
>>>>> women in this deal, the equally customary husband's right to marital
>>>>> rape, and the socially acceptable practise of whaling on the wife
>>>>> whenever hubby felt like it.
>>>>
>>>> Another moron. I do not grant your point. Take your brave new world and
>>>> move elsewhere with it.
>>>
>>> SO you prefer the olden days?  When you could beat and rape your wife as
>>> and when you pleased?  When her property and inheritance rights
>>> automatically transferred to you?  When costudy came to you and you had
>>> no obligation whatsoever to support her if she leaves?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it sets the focus on individuals so I can understand why a
>>>>>> collectivist doesn't get it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether two, three or four people marry, there is still individual
>>>>> involvement.
>>>>>
>>>>> For that matter, if you really think that a marriage between one woman
>>>>> and one man "sets the focus on individuals", you have never been
>>>>> married.  Short of the "hey, we're in Vegas so why not go to the
>>>>> drive-thru chapel" type of wedding, it's a social event.  It's a
>>>>> community event.  Whole families get involved.  And then there is a
>>>>> lifetime (defined these days as "life until the courts decide on
>>>>> custody
>>>>> for the dog") of dealign with in-laws and other relatives...
>>>>
>>>> To bad you are so stupid. I'm married and getting divorced from a woman
>>>> with sever emotional problems. And I am fighting to get full custody
>>>> of my
>>>> daughter.
>>>>
>>>> So fuck off Alex.
>>>>
>>>
>>> With all due regard for a difficult situation, under the old rules of
>>> "one man one woman until death do you part" you would be in a much worse
>>> place.  And so would every other party concerned.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I like the idea of Alabama making all their marriage licenses gay and
>> everything.... all be for a one year length of time.
> 
> Limited-term marriage licences would ba a very practical approach.
> 
> I'm not sure it would ever be a choice to be considered.
> It's too .... unromantic.
> Something as basic as a prenup is already controversial because it
> introduces unwanted reality into the fluffy clouds of hormones and
> skew-whiff brain chemistry that wafts the couple on its way into the
> snug embrace of the marital port.  People who are in love (or at least
> in lust) generally do not wish to hear about legal provisions.  It ruins
> the high.
> 
The Montana resident that filed for a Polygamist marriage may get
Montana to be the first and that will make them the go-to place for a
polygamist marriage and a 1 year marriage license guarantees That County
a lot of tax revenue for all the years that it works it's way through
the courts.

They can have some fun stirring up Liberals and make money while doing
it, that makes it a win/win for the county/state that does it.  People
will come like tourists to get double and triple hitched.

And it's NOT about romance it's about Liberalism and taxes.

-- 
Still I Wonder

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1965829

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:22:43 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
wrote:

>
>And it's NOT about romance it's about Liberalism and taxes.

It must really suck being you.   You clearly have a miserable and
pathetic life.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1965860

On 08/21/2015 01:18 PM, deep wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:22:43 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
> wrote:
> 
>>
>> And it's NOT about romance it's about Liberalism and taxes.
> 
> It must really suck being you.   You clearly have a miserable and
> pathetic life.
> 
It's NOT about me it's about marriage....  Liberals think gays can
marry, how sad is that?

-- 
Still I Wonder

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1965899

"Beam Me Up Scotty"  wrote in message news:dTJBx.6001$sq6.458@fx27.iad...

On 08/21/2015 01:18 PM, deep wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:22:43 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> And it's NOT about romance it's about Liberalism and taxes.
>
> It must really suck being you.   You clearly have a miserable and
> pathetic life.
>
It's NOT about me it's about marriage....  Liberals think gays can
marry, how sad is that?

#####
Gays marry all the time..Sometimes to opposite sex.
Just ask Bruce Jenner 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1965906

"Greg Smith"  wrote in message news:VTKBx.25231$nM7.9127@fx08.iad...



"Beam Me Up Scotty"  wrote in message news:dTJBx.6001$sq6.458@fx27.iad...

On 08/21/2015 01:18 PM, deep wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:22:43 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> And it's NOT about romance it's about Liberalism and taxes.
>
> It must really suck being you.   You clearly have a miserable and
> pathetic life.
>
It's NOT about me it's about marriage....  Liberals think gays can
marry, how sad is that?

#####
Gays marry all the time..Sometimes to opposite sex.
Just ask Bruce Jenner
<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Brucie is a special case.  We don't know exactly what sex he/she/it is, nor 
the preferred sexual partners.  He has claimed he likes women.  I'm assuming 
that there has not been a wang removal, so he is still a he in my book.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1965929

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:33:23 -0700, "Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net>
wrote:

>Brucie is a special case.  We don't know exactly what sex he/she/it is, nor 
>the preferred sexual partners.  He has claimed he likes women.  I'm assuming 
>that there has not been a wang removal, so he is still a he in my book.

Actually---who gives a rat's ass what he is?  Between him or
trump----both are a joke.



>---------------------------------------------------------

>“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
>because I was not a communist;
>Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
>because I was not a socialist;
>Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
>because I was not a trade unionist;
>Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
>because I was not a Jew;
>Then they came for me—
>and there was no one left to speak out for me.” 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1966114

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:19:24 -0600, LBM@Sig.net Snout@smack.com AKA
davidp@agent.com AKA Billfilmore@LTP.net AKA
Slim@Jim.net AKA Screwy@Winger.net AKA Room@Bellview.net AKA
bcbcbc@sasasas.com AKA s.f.@wellcom.net AKA LBM@Sig.net AKA
Kurt@Click.com AKA speed@reo.net AKA  Garand@M1.net, Liar, forger and
troll better known as Gary Rozelles


The more people wake up to what hate filled psychopaths the left is,
the more desperate the left wing basement dwellers become and the more
insane their ramblings.
Which is why they are so scared that they can only forge posts and
then redirect followups.  They're just whiney little cowards that are
incapable of taking care of themselves and want real people to wipe
their little butts for them.
The last dying gasps of a dying idiotic ideology.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1967161

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:33:23 -0700, "Wayne"  wrote:
>It's NOT about me it's about marriage....  Liberals think gays can
>marry, how sad is that?
>
>#####
>Gays marry all the time..Sometimes to opposite sex.
>Just ask Bruce Jenner
><<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>Brucie is a special case.  We don't know exactly what sex he/she/it is, nor 
>the preferred sexual partners.  He has claimed he likes women.  I'm assuming 
>that there has not been a wang removal, so he is still a he in my book.

Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation.  Sure,
we've all heard about the "woman trapped in a man's body", but what if
that "woman" is a lesbian?

Swill
-- 
"Nancy Pelosi is evil.  Not Dick Cheney evil
(nobody is *that* evil), more like Darth Vader evil or 
the evil of a pubescent Lucifer." -- for liberals with
no sense of humor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1967766

Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1f4itad22gv64e9je7u8jiee89f2mlhsrq@4ax.com: 

> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:33:23 -0700, "Wayne"  wrote:
>>It's NOT about me it's about marriage....  Liberals think gays can
>>marry, how sad is that?
>>
>>#####
>>Gays marry all the time..Sometimes to opposite sex.
>>Just ask Bruce Jenner
>><<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>>Brucie is a special case.  We don't know exactly what sex he/she/it
>>is, nor the preferred sexual partners.  He has claimed he likes women.
>> I'm assuming that there has not been a wang removal, so he is still a
>>he in my book. 
> 
> Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation.  Sure,
> we've all heard about the "woman trapped in a man's body", but what if
> that "woman" is a lesbian?

So what?  She still would pursue the same sex objects.  It would be women 
or other women.

-- 
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human".  It just comes in many sizes and colors.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1967854

On 08/23/2015 12:22 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1f4itad22gv64e9je7u8jiee89f2mlhsrq@4ax.com: 
> 
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:33:23 -0700, "Wayne"  wrote:
>>> It's NOT about me it's about marriage....  Liberals think gays can
>>> marry, how sad is that?
>>>
>>> #####
>>> Gays marry all the time..Sometimes to opposite sex.
>>> Just ask Bruce Jenner
>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>
>>> Brucie is a special case.  We don't know exactly what sex he/she/it
>>> is, nor the preferred sexual partners.  He has claimed he likes women.
>>> I'm assuming that there has not been a wang removal, so he is still a
>>> he in my book. 
>>
>> Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation.  Sure,
>> we've all heard about the "woman trapped in a man's body", but what if
>> that "woman" is a lesbian?
> 
> So what?  She still would pursue the same sex objects.  It would be women 
> or other women.
> 
Gender identity is who they think they are and the sexual orientation
tells us what they wish they were?

-- 
Still I Wonder

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1967875

Beam Me Up Scotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EP
A.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> wrote in
news:ldoCx.25506$Xt6.973@fx07.iad: 

> On 08/23/2015 12:22 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1f4itad22gv64e9je7u8jiee89f2mlhsrq@4ax.com: 
>> 
>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:33:23 -0700, "Wayne"  wrote:
>>>> It's NOT about me it's about marriage....  Liberals think gays can
>>>> marry, how sad is that?
>>>>
>>>> #####
>>>> Gays marry all the time..Sometimes to opposite sex.
>>>> Just ask Bruce Jenner
>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>
>>>> Brucie is a special case.  We don't know exactly what sex he/she/it
>>>> is, nor the preferred sexual partners.  He has claimed he likes
>>>> women. I'm assuming that there has not been a wang removal, so he
>>>> is still a he in my book. 
>>>
>>> Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation.  Sure,
>>> we've all heard about the "woman trapped in a man's body", but what
>>> if that "woman" is a lesbian?
>> 
>> So what?  She still would pursue the same sex objects.  It would be
>> women or other women.
>> 
> Gender identity is who they think they are and the sexual orientation
> tells us what they wish they were?
> 

The point is that whether a woman is "in a man's body" or her own and she 
is a lesbian, in both cases 'she' would be interested in female sex 
partners.

-- 
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human".  It just comes in many sizes and colors.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1968203

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 13:43:02 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:

>>>> Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation.  Sure,
>>>> we've all heard about the "woman trapped in a man's body", but what
>>>> if that "woman" is a lesbian?
>>> 
>>> So what?  She still would pursue the same sex objects.  It would be
>>> women or other women.
>>> 
>> Gender identity is who they think they are and the sexual orientation
>> tells us what they wish they were?
>> 
>
>The point is that whether a woman is "in a man's body" or her own and she 
>is a lesbian, in both cases 'she' would be interested in female sex 
>partners.

Gender identity is what gender one feels one is or should be.

Sexual orientation is what gender one is aroused by.

Bruce likes sex with women.  Everybody thought he was a normal,
straight guy.  Turns out, he still likes women, but he's a lesbian.

Swill
-- 
Reagan in the White House with Mujahadeen leaders.
<http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/5117fe5deab8ea355300000e-480/attached-image.jpeg?maxX=400>

Politicans are liars.  We require it of them because 
voters don't want to hear the truth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1968655

Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:qrpktatg8ifora2ebhuhm81apvamevkth0@4ax.com: 

> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 13:43:02 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:
> 
>>>>> Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation. 
>>>>> Sure, we've all heard about the "woman trapped in a man's body",
>>>>> but what if that "woman" is a lesbian?
>>>> 
>>>> So what?  She still would pursue the same sex objects.  It would be
>>>> women or other women.
>>>> 
>>> Gender identity is who they think they are and the sexual
>>> orientation tells us what they wish they were?
>>> 
>>
>>The point is that whether a woman is "in a man's body" or her own and
>>she is a lesbian, in both cases 'she' would be interested in female
>>sex partners.
> 
> Gender identity is what gender one feels one is or should be.
> 
> Sexual orientation is what gender one is aroused by.
> 
> Bruce likes sex with women.  Everybody thought he was a normal,
> straight guy.  Turns out, he still likes women, but he's a lesbian.

Yes, I had figured that out.  Hell, if I ever transgendered into a woman, 
I would be a lesbian also.  I think women make the best objects for me.  
YMMV


-- 
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human".  It just comes in many sizes and colors.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1968238

On 8/23/2015 RD Sandman wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scottywrote:
>> On 08/23/2015 RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation.  Sure,
>>>> we've all heard about the "woman trapped in a man's body", but what
>>>> if that "woman" is a lesbian?
>>>
>>> So what?  She still would pursue the same sex objects.  It would be
>>> women or other women.
>>>
>> Gender identity is who they think they are and the sexual orientation
>> tells us what they wish they were?
>>
>
> The point is that whether a woman is "in a man's body" or her own and she
> is a lesbian, in both cases 'she' would be interested in female sex
> partners.
>
So if a man is attracted to women and wishes he was a woman, too, does 
that make him a lesbian?  Will genuine 100% female lesbians be attracted 
to him?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1968248

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:56:30 -0600, Just Wondering
<fmhlaw@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 8/23/2015 RD Sandman wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scottywrote:
>>> On 08/23/2015 RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation.  Sure,
>>>>> we've all heard about the "woman trapped in a man's body", but what
>>>>> if that "woman" is a lesbian?
>>>>
>>>> So what?  She still would pursue the same sex objects.  It would be
>>>> women or other women.
>>>>
>>> Gender identity is who they think they are and the sexual orientation
>>> tells us what they wish they were?
>>>
>>
>> The point is that whether a woman is "in a man's body" or her own and she
>> is a lesbian, in both cases 'she' would be interested in female sex
>> partners.
>>
>So if a man is attracted to women and wishes he was a woman, too, does 
>that make him a lesbian?  Will genuine 100% female lesbians be attracted 
>to him?

Human sexuality is complicated.   Clearly way too complicated for you,
so maybe you shouldn't stress your perverted, repressed psyche on
things you can't grasp.   Oh, and stop trying to claim the right to
dictate how others can live when there is so much you don't
understand.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1968254

On 8/23/2015 8:13 PM, deep wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:56:30 -0600, Just Wondering
> <fmhlaw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/2015 RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scottywrote:
>>>> On 08/23/2015 RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation.  Sure,
>>>>>> we've all heard about the "woman trapped in a man's body", but what
>>>>>> if that "woman" is a lesbian?
>>>>>
>>>>> So what?  She still would pursue the same sex objects.  It would be
>>>>> women or other women.
>>>>>
>>>> Gender identity is who they think they are and the sexual orientation
>>>> tells us what they wish they were?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that whether a woman is "in a man's body" or her own and she
>>> is a lesbian, in both cases 'she' would be interested in female sex
>>> partners.
>>>
>> So if a man is attracted to women and wishes he was a woman, too, does
>> that make him a lesbian?  Will genuine 100% female lesbians be attracted
>> to him?
>
> Human sexuality is complicated.   Clearly way too complicated for you,
> so maybe you shouldn't stress your perverted, repressed psyche on
> things you can't grasp.   Oh, and stop trying to claim the right to
> dictate how others can live when there is so much you don't
> understand.
>
So you want to screw sheep and wish you were one, and you think that 
makes you normal. As long as the sheep give their consent, who cares?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1968262

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 20:23:45 -0600, Just Wondering
<fmhlaw@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 8/23/2015 8:13 PM, deep wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:56:30 -0600, Just Wondering
>> <fmhlaw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/23/2015 RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> Beam Me Up Scottywrote:
>>>>> On 08/23/2015 RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation.  Sure,
>>>>>>> we've all heard about the "woman trapped in a man's body", but what
>>>>>>> if that "woman" is a lesbian?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what?  She still would pursue the same sex objects.  It would be
>>>>>> women or other women.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Gender identity is who they think they are and the sexual orientation
>>>>> tells us what they wish they were?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The point is that whether a woman is "in a man's body" or her own and she
>>>> is a lesbian, in both cases 'she' would be interested in female sex
>>>> partners.
>>>>
>>> So if a man is attracted to women and wishes he was a woman, too, does
>>> that make him a lesbian?  Will genuine 100% female lesbians be attracted
>>> to him?
>>
>> Human sexuality is complicated.   Clearly way too complicated for you,
>> so maybe you shouldn't stress your perverted, repressed psyche on
>> things you can't grasp.   Oh, and stop trying to claim the right to
>> dictate how others can live when there is so much you don't
>> understand.
>>
>So you want to screw sheep and wish you were one, and you think that 
>makes you normal. As long as the sheep give their consent, who cares?

There will never be another ewe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1969030

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 20:13:34 -0600, deep wrote:

>>> The point is that whether a woman is "in a man's body" or her own and she
>>> is a lesbian, in both cases 'she' would be interested in female sex
>>> partners.
>>>
>>So if a man is attracted to women and wishes he was a woman, too, does 
>>that make him a lesbian?  Will genuine 100% female lesbians be attracted 
>>to him?
>
>Human sexuality is complicated.   Clearly way too complicated for you,
>so maybe you shouldn't stress your perverted, repressed psyche on
>things you can't grasp.   Oh, and stop trying to claim the right to
>dictate how others can live when there is so much you don't
>understand.

He's asking questions about an admittedly interesting topic.  Why you
gotta be such a asshole to somebody who wasn't talking to you in the
first place?

Swill
-- 
Reagan in the White House with Mujahadeen leaders.
<http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/5117fe5deab8ea355300000e-480/attached-image.jpeg?maxX=400>

Politicans are liars.  We require it of them because 
voters don't want to hear the truth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web