UidiotRACEMAKEW0 RLDPEACE

United States

#160635 Mar 27, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you're weirder than hell and your posts are hard to read.
But you can be funny, and you have a very interesting perspective.
ADD! I thought that WWW , WITH his SCREEN NAME :'Wild Weird Willy ' is more weirder than me?

:)

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#160636 Mar 27, 2013
UidiotRACEMAKEW0RLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>ADD! I thought that WWW , WITH his SCREEN NAME :'Wild Weird Willy ' is more weirder than me?
:)
No, you're weirder.

But that's ok.

You make people work hard to decipher your posts.

That makes you weirder.

Consider changing your writing style.
UidiotRACEMAKEW0 RLDPEACE

United States

#160637 Mar 27, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're weirder.
But that's ok.
You make people work hard to decipher your posts.
That makes you weirder.
Consider changing your writing style.
lOL! On the other threads some of the more intellectuals astute have no problem deciphering what i have to say, as some agree . If you or anyone have a problem with the post(s), u can just skip my post(s), i'm Ok with that!:)

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#160638 Mar 27, 2013
UidiotRACEMAKEW0RLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>lOL! On the other threads some of the more intellectuals astute have no problem deciphering what i have to say, as some agree . If you or anyone have a problem with the post(s), u can just skip my post(s), i'm Ok with that!:)
I have no problem deciphering your posts, and I am interested in what you have to say.

But to reach the "general populace," it would behoove you to be more user-friendly in your writing style.

I'm curious why you choose to write as you do.
Abu Umar al-Muhajir

Osaka, Japan

#160639 Mar 28, 2013
Obama is a better president. He deserves respect for supporting the mujahideen in bilaad al sham. After the victory Iran is next. Insha'Allah
Zattat

Pittsburgh, PA

#160640 Mar 28, 2013
youtube.com/watch...
Sometimes you get lucky and get Bush again

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#160642 Mar 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no problem deciphering your posts, and I am interested in what you have to say.
But to reach the "general populace," it would behoove you to be more user-friendly in your writing style.
I'm curious why you choose to write as you do.
Oh my dear Lord, you CAN'T be serious!

I just told ya a couple days ago he refuses to learn our language.
Which part of that didn't you get?

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#160643 Mar 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
DOMA died today.
One more step toward equality.
An Obama enabler, now you wanna STOMP on traditional marriage clearly defined as between 1 man and 1 woman. Like the annointed one, there seems to be NO end in your crusade to fundamentally change the US.

You want equality? After traditional marriage goes down in flames, look for 1 man wanting numerous wives (legally), or vice versa. Or why not brothers marrying aunts, or 2 guys marrying their horses? The combinations are limitless.

The "neigh" sayers here argue that would be impossible. But I can pretty much guarantee you, court dockets will be loaded with people asking for "equality".

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#160644 Mar 28, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my dear Lord, you CAN'T be serious!
I just told ya a couple days ago he refuses to learn our language.
Which part of that didn't you get?
My gut tells me it's his persona, and he's no dummy.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#160645 Mar 28, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
An Obama enabler, now you wanna STOMP on traditional marriage clearly defined as between 1 man and 1 woman. Like the annointed one, there seems to be NO end in your crusade to fundamentally change the US.
You want equality? After traditional marriage goes down in flames, look for 1 man wanting numerous wives (legally), or vice versa. Or why not brothers marrying aunts, or 2 guys marrying their horses? The combinations are limitless.
The "neigh" sayers here argue that would be impossible. But I can pretty much guarantee you, court dockets will be loaded with people asking for "equality".
No matter what I post about, you make it about Obama. Well, turnabout is fair play. Yes, I want equality and I'm not going to discuss it with a G W Bush troglodyte.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160646 Mar 28, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
An Obama enabler, now you wanna STOMP on traditional marriage clearly defined as between 1 man and 1 woman. Like the annointed one, there seems to be NO end in your crusade to fundamentally change the US.
You want equality? After traditional marriage goes down in flames, look for 1 man wanting numerous wives (legally), or vice versa. Or why not brothers marrying aunts, or 2 guys marrying their horses? The combinations are limitless.
The "neigh" sayers here argue that would be impossible. But I can pretty much guarantee you, court dockets will be loaded with people asking for "equality".
Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160647 Mar 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My gut tells me it's his persona, and he's no dummy.
Having tried what you're attempting, I think you're wrong.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#160648 Mar 28, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Having tried what you're attempting, I think you're wrong.
You're probably right, although he sometimes makes sense!

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160649 Mar 28, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>From what I can tell through searches on the case, the Constitutionality of DOMA is still being considered by the Court, and there has, as yet, been no ruling.
If you have better information, please provide it.
I am in favor of States recognizing the right of gays to marry - however, I am not in favor of the Federal government involving itself in regulating or defining marriage, which was not a power enumerated for the Federal government in the Constitution, and therefore is the province of the States. In my opinion, DOMA should be ruled Unconstitutional, and, as 'unequal' as this opinion sounds on its face, Proposition 8, as duly voted for by the citizens of California, should stand...even though I completely disagree with the law itself.
I also realize that without the Federal government's assumption of its right to rule on interracial marriage, it would now only be legal in certain states, and that this argument would also open the door faster than anything else currently before the court, to overturning Roe V. Wade. And we all know how I feel about that one.
Isn't America GREAT!!!!
The Supreme Court is not really being asked to regulate or define marriage.

The Supreme Court is being asked to determine whether denying same sex couples the same rights as different sex couples discriminates against same sex couples under the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment says:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Realist

Syracuse, NY

#160650 Mar 28, 2013
TOBY wrote:
Antonyto---If you want to get down to the facts on the decision that Bush made Read The Bible.He went totally by scripture and did his best to solve this without a war.Nobody wants to see the death and destruction of a war,but if we pull out before the job is done then we will be considered cowards and ANYONE can do what they want with our country.
The bible? HA! What a joke that is. Why don't you use some common sense before you say things as ignorant as that.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160651 Mar 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're probably right, although he sometimes makes sense!
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, Catcher. Listen to BB and Willie, and the rest of us who have been on this thread a long time. The World Idiot is a world-class fruitcake.(Scratch that--I like fruitcake!) He's a world-class headcase. You may not know it yet, but you will.

You said "he's no dummy." No, I'm sure his I.Q. is decent, but there's plenty of very intelligent loons out there.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160652 Mar 28, 2013
Realist wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible? HA! What a joke that is. Why don't you use some common sense before you say things as ignorant as that.
Why don't YOU use some common sense to see if your post makes MORE sense at the end of a thread that's been running for at least 6 years?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#160653 Mar 28, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>From what I can tell through searches on the case, the Constitutionality of DOMA is still being considered by the Court, and there has, as yet, been no ruling.
If you have better information, please provide it.
I am in favor of States recognizing the right of gays to marry - however, I am not in favor of the Federal government involving itself in regulating or defining marriage, which was not a power enumerated for the Federal government in the Constitution, and therefore is the province of the States. In my opinion, DOMA should be ruled Unconstitutional, and, as 'unequal' as this opinion sounds on its face, Proposition 8, as duly voted for by the citizens of California, should stand...even though I completely disagree with the law itself.
I also realize that without the Federal government's assumption of its right to rule on interracial marriage, it would now only be legal in certain states, and that this argument would also open the door faster than anything else currently before the court, to overturning Roe V. Wade. And we all know how I feel about that one.
Isn't America GREAT!!!!
From what I've read, they're not trying to define marriage. In fact, it looks to me like they're addressing the social implications with the greatest of reluctance, tho' they can't help but tiptoe thru that minefield a bit.

They're merely tasked to determine if Prop 8 discriminates against a particular group. For me, the bigger question is whether social "norms" and "morality" can be defined and dictated by popular vote, and force the state's hand to enforce it. That sounds like tyranny of the mob to me.

Shout out to the libertarian/Tea Party wannabe's - this >should< be right in your wheelhouse. Yet, I hear silence........
lisw

Georgetown, OH

#160654 Mar 28, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
An Obama enabler, now you wanna STOMP on traditional marriage clearly defined as between 1 man and 1 woman. Like the annointed one, there seems to be NO end in your crusade to fundamentally change the US.
You want equality? After traditional marriage goes down in flames, look for 1 man wanting numerous wives (legally), or vice versa. Or why not brothers marrying aunts, or 2 guys marrying their horses? The combinations are limitless.
The "neigh" sayers here argue that would be impossible. But I can pretty much guarantee you, court dockets will be loaded with people asking for "equality".
I do understand your concern. Exposure makes for acceptance. If you've ever watched "sister wives" you know that at least those ladies are really nice people. The worry is definitely for those children because everything you do is like a ripple in a pond. It affects lots of others. I don't agree with polygamy but I can't say it doesn't work for them.
Maybe if we had all handled traditional marriage a little better, didn't have a 50% divorce rate, with blended families that the kids can't figure out, maybe if we'd treated marriage as more sacred, we'd have a leg to stand on. But we can hardly say that all kids need a mom and a dad, when so many are raised by moms or multiple people. What kids need is stability.
lisw

Georgetown, OH

#160655 Mar 28, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, Catcher. Listen to BB and Willie, and the rest of us who have been on this thread a long time. The World Idiot is a world-class fruitcake.(Scratch that--I like fruitcake!) He's a world-class headcase. You may not know it yet, but you will.
You said "he's no dummy." No, I'm sure his I.Q. is decent, but there's plenty of very intelligent loons out there.
I like headcases.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Chess 560,580
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 min It aint necessari... 778,836
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 26 min onemale 265,482
Teacher back in class after Bush-Hitler comparison (Mar '06) 36 min Swedenforever 96
My wife want mee to peeing her mouth every time... 43 min vicky9669 2
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 49 min Mandela 37,845
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Peace_Warrior 605,359
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 20 hr risque 137
More from around the web