Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

Oct 9, 2012 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.wisconsingazette.com

In a recent interview with Focus on the Family president Jim Daly, Paul Ryan reassured the anti-gay hate group that a Romney-Ryan administration will fiercely oppose gay rights.

Comments
4,761 - 4,780 of 5,438 Comments Last updated Jan 11, 2013
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5340
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
HaHaHaHaHaHa. Funny Fa$$ot. HaHaHaHa. I'll say one thing for ya, you're a barrel of laughs. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa. You perverted creatures, if you wasn't so funny, you'd be totally worthless. LMFAO Now get your fking meter out bitc,h.
Put your hard-on away, closet boy.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5341
Dec 10, 2012
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
What if the east-bound train is moving at 35mph and the east-bound train is going 42mph?
I LOVE story problems!
<quoted text>
I have another one for ya:

If Jane posts to Topix 8 hours a day, how many billable hours did he have last month? As if..........
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5343
Dec 10, 2012
 
Mona Lott wrote:
What the legislature actually did is of no concern to Jane. He likes to stick with the possibilities of what they "could" do. They "could" pass a law that says Jane is a lying wannabee, and they would have their reasons.
are you really that dense?

just kidding, I know you are...
the legislature COULD rationally decide means its rational...

but rather than address the reasons I provided themselves and admit you are going to get hit by them pretty hard in the scotus, you post to me, without posting to me, nonsense..
you are a pathetic fraud.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5344
Dec 10, 2012
 
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I have another one for ya:
If Jane posts to Topix 8 hours a day, how many billable hours did he have last month? As if..........
its not the right question.
I was lucky enough early in my career to not be a slave to the billable hour..

so the REAkl question is... how many people did I help today?
And the answer for today is three.

HOW ABOUT YOU?

reality is fun isn't it?
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5345
Dec 10, 2012
 
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think so, Mary. You'd pop a woody just having the plethysmograph strapped on. Just TRY to hide your true feelings from a penis lie detector. Go ahead. Volunteer. Just like the homophobes in the study did. 4 out of 5 were secretly gay. I'll take the bet that you are too, ANY DAY.
Look at this..
can anyone of you guys ever really critique any other poster while letting Mona be like this without comment?
if so, consistency is clearly not your virtue.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5346
Dec 10, 2012
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what you said, moron.
"I'm HIV" is what you said.
Nope. He said "HIV-" Pay attention.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5347
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you Freaks like to go by womens names, does it make you feel more feminine that you already are???
Feel feminine? Huh? I'm male...a gay male. Don't want to be a woman, never did. I would miss my enormous penis too much.

Mona Lott is a joke name. I love to watch how it makes you 'phobes go bat-shit crazy, because everything must be neatly pigeon holed in your world or you freak out. But if it makes you so confused, I'll start posting as Big Dick, if you like (I know you do... it's all you think about).
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5348
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>

Mona Lott is a joke name. I love to watch how it makes you 'phobes go bat-shit crazy, because everything must be neatly pigeon holed in your world or you freak out.
Funny, Mona went bat-shite over my using a female name..

Clearly he will say anything....
as all frauds do.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5349
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Poor Jane. Thinking what the legislature "could" do is actually more important than what they actually do. And what did the legislature actually do? They ignored all of Jane's "coulds".........

SCOTUS "could" rule like Jane wants them to, but they aren't stupid. They are REAL lawyers.

Vermont "could" have kept CUs but they actually granted marriage to gays. Jane still hasn't gotten over that insult. I wonder what will happen to the three clients he told to get a CU? They "could" sue him, but none of it really happened anyway. A fake lawyer also has fake clients. I guess he forgets about when he bragged about having a "ton" of billable hours. As if....
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5350
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Mona Lott wrote:
Poor Jane. Thinking what the legislature "could" do is actually more important than what they actually do. And what did the legislature actually do? They ignored all of Jane's "coulds".........
SCOTUS "could" rule like Jane wants them to, but they aren't stupid. They are REAL lawyers.
Vermont "could" have kept CUs but they actually granted marriage to gays. Jane still hasn't gotten over that insult. I wonder what will happen to the three clients he told to get a CU? They "could" sue him, but none of it really happened anyway. A fake lawyer also has fake clients. I guess he forgets about when he bragged about having a "ton" of billable hours. As if....
Way to seize on one word and make it into NONSENSE..

anyone is free to read and see what a liar Mona is...
"First, the Legislature could rationally
decide that, for the welfare of children, it
is more important to promote stability, and
to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in
same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to
the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of
science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a
sexual relationship between a man and a
woman, and the Legislature could find that
this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships
are all too often casual or temporary. It
could find that an important function of
marriage is to create more stability and
permanence in the relationships that cause
children to be born. It thus could choose
to offer an inducement—in the form of
marriage and its attendant benefits—to
opposite-sex couples who make a solemn,
long-term commitment to each other.
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with
comparable force to same-sex couples.
These couples can become parents by
adoption, or by artificial insemination or
other technological marvels, but they do
not become parents as a result of accident
or impulse. The Legislature could find
that unstable relationships between people
of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow
up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting
stability in opposite-sex relationships will
help children more. This is one reason
why the Legislature could rationally offer
the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex
couples only.
There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children
to grow up with both a mother and a
father. Intuition and experience suggest
that a child benefits from having before his
or her eyes, every day, living models of
what both a man and a woman are like. It
is obvious that there are exceptions to this
general rule—some children who never
know their fathers, or their S360mothers, do
far better than some who grow up with
parents of both sexes—but the Legislature
could find that the general rule will usually
hold."

the court was merely saying that the legislature has a rational basis, the rest is stupid word games that Mona uses to pretend he is smart and try to bully people...

and then comes the attempts to bully...

in the end even gay lawyers agree with me...

"E.J. Graff, writing in the gay and lesbian news magazine The Advocate, summed it up this way in September: "If the court does take up Perry, be afraid, be very afraid." She continues:
Almost no one believes the Supreme Court is ready to get out ahead of American opinion on the question at Perry's heart: Do same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution? Maybe the Supremes would be ready to say this in 10 years, after LGBT forces have repealed most of the state [bans], replacing them with marriage equality in all but a handful of Southern states. But not yet."

As usual MONA IS A FRAUD.
and boring too...
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5351
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll start posting as Big Dick,
as long as you mean your attitude, fine.

but if you actually had one, you would not hide your posts from me ....
and you wouldn't feel the clear urge you have to truly and demean other people..

You aren't fooling anyone...
we already know...
you are a fraud that acts like a big d!ck.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5352
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
lol
That one will keep Jane estimating what the trains "could" do.
you do get that you are the idiot who is guessing what I will do...

what a literal loser you are!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5354
Dec 10, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
no need to apologize, but I appreciate your politeness. I hope you can maintain it with this crowd!
"First, the Legislature could rationally
decide that, for the welfare of children, it
is more important to promote stability, and
to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in
same-sex relationships.
This is stupid. It's not like it's an either/or situation. Allowing gay marriage won't stop straight couples from getting married.
Rose's Law...
Jane Dough wrote:
Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to
the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of
science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a
sexual relationship between a man and a
woman, and the Legislature could find that
this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships
are all too often casual or temporary. It
could find that an important function of
marriage is to create more stability and
permanence in the relationships that cause
children to be born. It thus could choose
to offer an inducement—in the form of
marriage and its attendant benefits—to
opposite-sex couples who make a solemn,
long-term commitment to each other.
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with
comparable force to same-sex couples.
People marry for all sorts of reasons. Straight couples who can't or don't want to reproduce marry all the time. It's not as if they can only print out a limited number of marriage licensees.
Jane Dough wrote:
These couples can become parents by
adoption, or by artificial insemination or
other technological marvels, but they do
not become parents as a result of accident
or impulse. The Legislature could find
that unstable relationships between people
of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow
up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting
stability in opposite-sex relationships will
help children more. This is one reason
why the Legislature could rationally offer
the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex
couples only.
Again, stupid. Allowing gay marriage won't stop straight couples from getting married and breeding.
Jane Dough wrote:
There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children
to grow up with both a mother and a
father.

Intuition and experience suggest
that a child benefits from having before his
or her eyes, every day, living models of
what both a man and a woman are like. It
is obvious that there are exceptions to this
general rule—some children who never
know their fathers, or their S360mothers, do
far better than some who grow up with
parents of both sexes—but the Legislature
could find that the general rule will usually
hold"
http://www2.law.columbia.edu/faculty_franke/G...
Again, Rose's Law.
No matter how you feel about gay couples raising children, gay marriage is a separate issues.
Gay couples can marry and not raise kids, or raise kids and not marry.
In fact, if a person were really concerned about kids, and not just using them to try to stir up emotion, the person would ask, "How does a child being raised by a gay couple benefit from the couple not being able to marry?"
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5355
Dec 10, 2012
 
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Mona, the TransQueer, always on the defense cause of its gender. The only big penis you have is the one that gets rammed up your A$$ by another Fa$$ot. Considering you enjoy Feces & Semen so much, it's not surprising that you would play every part Imaginable to be in on all the action. Post as Shiteater for all I care, Fa$$ot. You're still the same Nasty A$$ Filthy Perverted Fa$$ot no matter what name you post under.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm a top. Does that interrupt your little beat-off fantasy, closet boy?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5356
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

could, could, could
The legislature "could" eat nickels and shit dimes.
What did the legislature actually do?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5357
Dec 10, 2012
 
Oh hell. Jane missed my job reference AGAIN. This makes four times I told her I worked for GE. She whines incessantly about it until I tell her, then she ignores it.

I "could" have been a movie star. Jane "could" have gone to law school. As if...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5358
Dec 10, 2012
 
Trick question...jane has never had a client he could bill.
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I have another one for ya:
If Jane posts to Topix 8 hours a day, how many billable hours did he have last month? As if..........

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5359
Dec 10, 2012
 
With your grasp of the law? The obvious answer is zero. With your counsel, a jaywalker get lethal injection.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
its not the right question.
I was lucky enough early in my career to not be a slave to the billable hour..
so the REAkl question is... how many people did I help today?
And the answer for today is three.
HOW ABOUT YOU?
reality is fun isn't it?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5363
Dec 10, 2012
 
sugarfoot7 wrote:
From PBS:
"DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, there's a big disparity in this country, Ray. There's -- 12 percent of the American population is African-American. And of the new infections, close to 50 percent of them are among African-Americans.
Sadly, among African-Americans who are gay or bisexual men, they're still the leading proportion, if you look at the slice of the pie of people that are getting infected. There has been less among injection drug uses, but an increase among heterosexual transmissibility, which accounts for the increasing percentage among women in the United States.
But, still, men who have sex with men is still the largest fraction of the individuals who are -- get newly infected. And there's a great disparity racially in that, with African-Americans bearing the brunt of the burden."
I'm not worried at all.
Famous last words. While female to male transmission is less likely, it still happens and the likelihood only increases with the number of women who are infected. If there's any risk of infection in what you are doing, use common sense, use protection.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5364
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

sugarfoot7 wrote:
<quoted text>
i'm saying it's highly unlikely my white ass will ever get it from sex with a straight white female.
It HAS happened. I used to volunteer at an HIV food and support distribution. Not all of our client were gay, in fact, it was about 30 percent heteros, men and women.

One nice guy, I'm sorry, there were so many, I can't recall his name, he was heterosexual and caught HIV from a woman. He eventually died and one of my best memories was him eating the spaghetti I brought in for him one day. He loved it.

Don't be so arrogant. Hubris has brought down bigger than you before this time.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••