Defense Of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional By Second Federal Judge

We need them for the same reason we need anti-racist legislation and protective legislation for equal pay etc. I'm sure you're being sarcastic with your bolded statement because I seriously doubt you've ever heard anyone say anything like that.

How do you define 'anti-racist' legislation?

I'm guessing it would work out something like this:

1. Ban the KKK, Aryan Nation, and other white supremacist groups
2. Black Panthers and other black supremacist groups are A-OK

That's typically how the liberal mind operates. White racism = bad, black racism = freedom of speech/association.
 
lol...the sniper comes along. btw...did i actually claim he said that?

yes or no.

i predict onceler will not answer this because it will make him look like a dumbass because i never said he claimed that. thus proving, that onceler's claims of reading comprehension are bogus.

watch.
 
i predict onceler will not answer this because it will make him look like a dumbass because i never said he claimed that. thus proving, that onceler's claims of reading comprehension are bogus.

watch.

Who are you talking to? I think just about everyone thinks you're an idiot at this point.

When you ask a question like that in direct response to a statement, it's clearly implied. That's how most people use the language. Oh - and you have definitely reacted the same way when someone asks a question where they clearly misunderstood what was being said.

You just don't want to admit that you misread something again.

Hey everyone - Yurt won't admit that he misread something again. Watch.
 
How do you define 'anti-racist' legislation?

I'm guessing it would work out something like this:

1. Ban the KKK, Aryan Nation, and other white supremacist groups
2. Black Panthers and other black supremacist groups are A-OK

That's typically how the liberal mind operates. White racism = bad, black racism = freedom of speech/association.
well duh!!!! black panthers and other liberal friendly groups don't really intend to be violent, it's just 'talk'.
 
you want to make a crime to be racist and a crime to name call?


Are you serious? Did you even read page one of the thread?

People might assume you didn't, considering Lord Foul or whoever asked Haiku the exact same question and Haiku responded in post #15:


I'm sure you're being sarcastic with your bolded statement(laws against name calling) because I seriously doubt you've ever heard anyone say anything like that.

Maybe you should worry a little more about staying on topic and a little less about trying so desperately to catch others in one of your "gotcha" moments.
 
If anyone is spewing poison it is those who oppose gay marriage.

The fact is that gay marriage is being opposed either on religious grounds or because of a dislike of homosexuals. Neither is a valid reason to deny them the same benefits enjoyed by straight couples.


Thank God I never opposed gay marriage.....homos have every right to get married.....equal rights....

Men just can't marry men or women marry women......though women have been known to marry some pigs.....
 
Who are you talking to? I think just about everyone thinks you're an idiot at this point.

When you ask a question like that in direct response to a statement, it's clearly implied. That's how most people use the language. Oh - and you have definitely reacted the same way when someone asks a question where they clearly misunderstood what was being said.

You just don't want to admit that you misread something again.

Hey everyone - Yurt won't admit that he misread something again. Watch.

as i predicted onceler would not answer the question. you're lying again onceler. i gave my specific reasons why i ASKED. you're just embarrassed because you got caught being an idiot...again.

what a dumbass.
 
Are you serious? Did you even read page one of the thread?

People might assume you didn't, considering Lord Foul or whoever asked Haiku the exact same question and Haiku responded in post #15:




Maybe you should worry a little more about staying on topic and a little less about trying so desperately to catch others in one of your "gotcha" moments.

read post 20 you ignorant jackass.
 
do you know what a question mark is? did i say you said that? i <<ASKED>> if that is what you were saying. here is why i asked:

We need them for the same reason we need anti-racist legislation and protective legislation for equal pay etc. I'm sure you're being sarcastic with your bolded statement because I seriously doubt you've ever heard anyone say anything like that.
To which you jumped to this
you want to make a crime to be racist and a crime to name call?

I'm still wondering where you came up with that.
 
How do you define 'anti-racist' legislation?

I'm guessing it would work out something like this:

1. Ban the KKK, Aryan Nation, and other white supremacist groups
2. Black Panthers and other black supremacist groups are A-OK

That's typically how the liberal mind operates. White racism = bad, black racism = freedom of speech/association.
Clearly you make it up as you go along if you think that's how liberal minds operate. Where do you get your information and how about sharing. You don't understand why we needed the civil rights movement and subsequent legislation? You don't understand the women's movement and why it was and is needed? You don't seem to understand why people have to take their rights to the courts?
 
To which you jumped to this


I'm still wondering where you came up with that.

and you claim i have reading comprehension issues? LOL...i even underlined it for you.

we need anti-racist legislation

what the fuck do you think your statement means?
 
Back
Top