Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Canton

Canton, OH

#25545 Feb 16, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me where I'm going wrong here ...
1. Teabagging means sucking balls.
2. You are calling me a teabagger.
3. You are choosing that word specifically because of its sexual meaning.
So, apparently YOU like to picture two men in a homosexual act, or you wouldn't be calling me that. To each his own. Just wish you'd quit lying about it.
Right. There's no possible way that I was talking about Tea Party members when I said Tea Bagger...at least in your mind. If you want it to mean that you suck balls, then have at it. The rest of the country, the internet and anybody you ask will stick with it meaning a Tea Party member.
Canton

Canton, OH

#25546 Feb 16, 2014
Racer X wrote:
Old Fart's very proud of his indoctrination isn't he? He boast of his "edumaction" in almost every post.
Oh mutt. Funny that you felt ashamed enough of your post again to not want it associated with your other screen name. How weak.
Canton

Canton, OH

#25548 Feb 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention that it's Congress and not the President that spends most the money. Reagan presided with a Democrat Congress.
Yawn...87% of all of our nation's debt was spent by Republicans. Better go ask the Heritage Foundation for some spin on that one.
Canton

Canton, OH

#25550 Feb 16, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
No, YOU have to scroll 20 pages into a search engine, because your computer is as stupid as you are.
You're not complaining about Reagan's spending, are you? Because compared to Obama, he was like Scrooge McDuck, and you haven't uttered a peep about Obama's $17 T debt.
I personally don't cry about our nation's debt like you Tea Baggers do.
Canton

Canton, OH

#25551 Feb 16, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me where I'm going wrong here ...
1. Teabagging means sucking balls.
2. You are calling me a teabagger.
3. You are choosing that word specifically because of its sexual meaning.
So, apparently YOU like to picture two men in a homosexual act, or you wouldn't be calling me that. To each his own. Just wish you'd quit lying about it.
Who was talking about sex? I wonder if anything else I stated when I called you guys Tea Baggers would lead you to believe that? Nope. Now combine that with the FACT that the first 20 or so websites on Google or Bing make no mention of it being a homosexual act and we get a very clear picture into how you think. Stick to telling lies and agreeing with your own posts. VOID
Canton

Canton, OH

#25553 Feb 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I already replied to that comment several pages back. Of course it was mostly Republicans because with the exception of a few years, Republicans have held leadership of Congress for the last 20 years. It's like when they tell you most people that win the lottery do so with Auto Lotto. Well if 90% of the people that play the lottery use Auto Lotto, then of course most of the people that won did so by using that system. It's simple mathematics.
And here I thought it was due to the unpaid for and needless wars the Republicans always like getting us into.
Canton

Canton, OH

#25554 Feb 16, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me where I'm going wrong here ...
1. Teabagging means sucking balls.
2. You are calling me a teabagger.
3. You are choosing that word specifically because of its sexual meaning.
So, apparently YOU like to picture two men in a homosexual act, or you wouldn't be calling me that. To each his own. Just wish you'd quit lying about it.
Hey, you left out the part where you claimed it was a "homosexual" act. You know. Like you have mentioned in your other posts. I wonder why you left that part out? Perhaps it might have something to do with it not mentioning that on the first 20 sites that show up when you look it up on a search engine. Yet another conniving attempt to try to weasel your way out of something...AGAIN. VOID
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#25556 Feb 16, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. There's no possible way that I was talking about Tea Party members when I said Tea Bagger...at least in your mind. If you want it to mean that you suck balls, then have at it. The rest of the country, the internet and anybody you ask will stick with it meaning a Tea Party member.
Not me. I can't seem to shake the image of Marcus and Michelle trading off between powerful prayer healing sessions to convert gays to save them from Satan’s clutch. It cracks me up.

As does this Bachmann wedding photo:
http://www.google.com/imgres...

Or is it a cut from Kip and La Fawnduh’s pastural wedding scene in Napoleon Dynamite?
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/ERCzN91JicA/maxresdefa...

Well, to misquote Hillary as rendered in Fox's popular Benghazi script,“What difference does it make?”

Now, for those parting shots:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tCb0n6KJ1As/T1GC-bx...
http://content9.flixster.com/question/57/26/5...

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#25557 Feb 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough. So you want go get married for government benefits. Why should any two people be denied those same benefits? After all, my father is 83 now. I could sure use that SS money after he passes away. Just think of it! Another paycheck every month!
In the United States, marriage is the definition of one man and one woman being untied in matrimony. That's it. This isn't about exclusion or inclusion, it's about changing the entire definition of marriage. The only possible way to change that definition is to allow any two people to marry, or even perhaps marrying several people. But you can't change it to a laundry list of one man--one woman, one man-another man, one woman--another woman. It has to be changed for all people which is where we get into this father-daughter thing.
I know change is hard and yes its exactly about exclusion and it doesn't change the definition, who decides what the definition is anyway. Lets try to keep the comparisons to something that's based in reality. Father/daughter would be incest so that comparison doesn't really fly.

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#25558 Feb 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
You already do. You can marry any guy you like as he can marry any woman he likes. How can it be more fair than that? It's not impossible for you to marry a man.
Keep burying your head in the sand that will change everything.

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#25560 Feb 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
It is reality. Marriage in the US is the word that defines the religious and social union of one man and one woman. It's been that way since the founding of this country. To say otherwise would be like calling a fire hydrant a car. A fire hydrant is not a car. A car has four wheels and transports people.
We have states in this country where judges have ruled against the will of the people and allowed gay marriage. But you're not so disturbed by this that you would move to one of those states, so obviously, you don't want marriage all that bad. It isn't making you all that unhappy.
well if I wanted to get married I would move to one of those states but since I have said like about 150 times now I am happy being single but if I wanted to change that I would like that option. Besides the way things are looking I might not have to wait that long and neither will you considering the will of the people who actually enforce the constitution even if it isn't a popular choice. Religion has no dog in this fight or no dog that should be anyway.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#25561 Feb 16, 2014
joanna50 wrote:
<quoted text>Keep burying your head in the sand that will change everything.
Since you're being so patient and willing to keep trying to counter the absurdly literal interpretation of carefully selected biblical scripture with unbiased factual information, I feel it important to remind the era-challenged among us that while I've heard tell that there may be a bit of traditional, yet ill-advised, inbreeding and maybe even some youthful farm-style experimentation going down (if you'll pardon the expression) in Kentucky, it's actually still illegal to marry only one man and one woman if one were so inclined.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#25562 Feb 16, 2014
Racer X wrote:
Old Fart's very proud of his indoctrination isn't he? He boast of his "edumaction" in almost every post.
Ah, so you equate formal education with "indoctrination"? Is that why you've avoided it?

Actually, education helps to avoid indoctrination, by giving one the tools to critically examine ideas presented. All that's asked of an indoctrinated individual is that they repeat the ideas they given, without analyzing them critically. An indoctrinated individual will have difficulty explaining how their personal ideas differ from the doctrine they received.

"Education is unbiased. It is founded in fact, and isn’t there to persuade anyone to come up with a certain belief. Education is development of one’s own beliefs based on the facts that are discovered throughout the process. Indoctrination has an agenda. It is used to encourage the embracing of another’s beliefs, and developing blinding and complete agreement with those beliefs."

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneou...
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#25563 Feb 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never been married and I'm not missing out on any happiness.
For a person that has no personal experience in this area, you sure do have a lot of opinions about it.

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#25565 Feb 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
We'll see. But if it does boil down to a constitutional issue even though the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, it can't pertain to gay couples only, it has to pertain to everybody. Nobody can be excluded. If it's an equal rights issue, then those equal rights can't stop at gay couples. If it's a pursuit of happiness issue, then pursuit to happiness doesn't apply to gay couples only. If it's an equal protection under the law issue, then equal protection for all.
If you and yours are so successful, at that point, marriage will be nothing more than a huge joke with people marrying their daughters, sons, dogs, cats. It will just destroy the entire institution. But the good news is, you won't feel so left out.
Can you please base your analogies in reality. Incest is illegal as is beastility and I hardly think a whole institution would collapse if gays were to marry.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#25566 Feb 16, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
can you tie your shoes yet?
and how are you going to spend your raise, when Obama grants you a whole $10 an hour?
in waverly is the mayor paid $10 an hour too?
Gee, only $10.00. I'm still accruing interest on those 2 separate $300.00 Bush stimulus checks that every taxpayer was sent to boost economic spending to help out the economy back then. I put mine in my savings account and never had to use them.
Aww, you didn't get any, and that's why you're still sore. You had to have a real job, earn real money and pay real taxes.
If quit poutin', mommy might give you some more allowance.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#25567 Feb 16, 2014
joanna50 wrote:
<quoted text>Can you please base your analogies in reality. Incest is illegal as is beastility and I hardly think a whole institution would collapse if gays were to marry.
He'll be back after he checks Foxbot Fraud Central to see what he's allowed to say.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#25570 Feb 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
We'll see. But if it does boil down to a constitutional issue even though the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, it can't pertain to gay couples only, it has to pertain to everybody. Nobody can be excluded.
Really? Why not? Because you say so?
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If you and yours are so successful, at that point, marriage will be nothing more than a huge joke with people marrying their daughters, sons, dogs, cats. It will just destroy the entire institution.
Right now 17 states and the District of Columbia have approved same sex marriages. I've yet to read about any human/animal marriages occurring as a result.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#25571 Feb 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, the last few years the Republican Congress has been trying to cut the budget, but your Dictator keeps threatening a government shutdown if they do. So in order for the Republican Congress not to take blame, they have to spend this money DumBama wants to spend.
However, the Republican Congress did manage to get our deficit down, so we have to give them credit for that. But if we want to see real cuts, we need to get rid of Democrats in the Senate and replace DumBama with a conservative President, but I don't think Americans are smart enough to figure that out yet.
See how easy it was for Obama to fool you Foxbots. He wanted to shut the country down because you fools refused to repeal Obamacare for the umpteenth time.
Thank goodness the dumb dimwitted minority people like yourself is just that, the dumb dimwitted minority.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#25572 Feb 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah. Just looking out the window to see when global warming is going to stop.
And all the while blaming Obama for California's severe water shortage due to drought. When the price of produce goes up, it's all his fault too. CONSPIRACY I TELL YA. HE DID IT ON PURPOSE.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Springboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why did white liberals let the Salem Mall die? 3 hr The Duke of Hazard 3
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 17 hr Oh well 20,085
Dayton's Best Pizza? Really!? (Nov '14) 23 hr Mama larosa 14
We hope Republicans are not serious! Sun The Old Cold Warrior 2
Miamisburg Mafia 3rd generation (Apr '13) Sun Montie 4
sexting Sun Sma 6
Anyone know John Vlahos? Aug 1 Sos 3
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Springboro Mortgages