OCinBuffalo Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Comparing anyone to OC, in a negative way, is contemptible and reprehensible. If that is the case, did you ever stop to wonder why? Or, do you derive more pleasure from being an !@#$, than you do misery in having to defend yourself all the time? It seems like someone did a number on you, somewhere along the way...my contempt is turning to pity... I don't need to wonder why, I know why, and so does everybody else that bills by the hour. You are way off base, and this is silly.
OCinBuffalo Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) Mr. Spock. None had the laws on the books and none allowed gays to marry. Now there are 11, oops 12, states that allow it. 12>0 As of today, there are 6(six) that allow it. Moron. You have yet to get a single fact right in this entire discussion. And the legion of unintended consequences stemming from this? Still waiting for them. What plans are needed? You want every contingency defined? Two dudes can marry. It's really not that complicated. The parade of evils you're so concerned about hasn't happened anywhere else. Why would NYS be different? Come on logic boy. See through your biases. You're wrong that progress hasn't been made--HUGE progress has been made. You're wrong that gay marriage will lead to legions of unintended consequences. But please, keep telling everyone how logical you are. The homeless guy in Suburban Station that talks into the pay phone often says the same thing. My concerns were so trivial.... ....that Gov. Cuomo, whose law this is, SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THEM BY MODIFYING THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL PERSONALLY, AFTER MEETING AGAIN WITH REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO GET THE FINAL VOTES REQUIRED AS HE HAS BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 3 MONTHS. You are absolutely wrong, and the modified language of the law itself proves that. The hysterical part is that you were wrong before my first post. This was going on the entire time but I knew some were blinded by the need for a Hallmark moment. Ergo, I decided to go fishing for emoting idiots...what a haul. Why does the language of the law SPECIFICALLY protect churches and clergy...if my concerns were invalid? Why does the language of the law SPECIFICALLY protect non-clergy, like the Knights of Columbus...if my concerns were invalid? Answer: they already were addressing "my concerns", before I even posted anything in this thread. Where do you think "my concerns" came from? Answer: you think I spend my days worried about what happens to the f'ing Knights of Columbus? I got "my concerns" from the same news that you could have read them in...if you weren't more interested in your Hallmark moment. We don't even know the rest yet(the speculation is that it isn't even written yet, and will be negotiated behind closed doors)....but more of "my concerns" will be addressed in this law, that was modified, and will continue to be modified, by both the Governor and Senate Republicans, specifically to protect us from your stupidity and unintended consequences, that you would otherwise have gladly accepted....if it meant you got your Hallmark moment. Yeah, you were really thinking, rather than emoting your way to your Hallmark moment. You were thinking so much that you and others walked right into this. Idiots. Any of you could have done a small amount of reading and came back and told me - "hey, they are already working on this". But NONE of you did. Can't wait to hear the excuses and lame attempts at trying to play this off. I want even more lulz out of this. This one was faaaaar too easy. Loves the fantasy of beating up 30 kids with a chair. Way to go Rambo. Pretty sure that the principal who was begging my dad not to sue...didn't think it was much of a fantasy. Pretty sure the school board, who asked my mom to come in and talk about it...was fairly scared that their liberal assclownery would be exposed. You know, posting out of ignorance isn't working very well for you: Look at what happened above. You're trying and really the only champion I can put forth, but in a battle of egomaniacs, OCinBuffalo will kick. Your. Ass. (Now it's time for OCinBuffalo to say that I don't like him because he refuses to apologize for being so mentally superior to everyone and he's the man and the rest of us are just jealous, etc. Maybe another long-winded anecdote about how he won the state spelling bee or sank a 3 at the buzzer in high school or was smarter than all his college professors. Some demonstration of his narcissism is coming and even this parenthetical can't prevent it. Just watch.) No...given this post? It's time for OCinBuffalo to ask: uh...who's delusional again? Edited June 26, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Booster4324 Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 As of today, there are 6(six) that allow it. Moron. You have yet to get a single fact right in this entire discussion. My concerns were so trivial.... ....that Gov. Cuomo, whose law this is, SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THEM BY MODIFYING THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL PERSONALLY, AFTER MEETING AGAIN WITH REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO GET THE FINAL VOTES REQUIRED. You are absolutely wrong, and the modified language of the law itself proves that. The hysterical part is that you were wrong before I posting anything. This was going on the entire time, and I knew it, but you didn't. I set up you for this because I knew you, or someone, would be emoting, instead of actually do any reading on the process that was going on while we were talking about it in this thread. Why does the language of the law SPECIFICALLY protect churches and clergy...if my concerns were invalid? Why does the language of the law SPECIFICALLY protect non-clergy, like the Knights of Columbus...if my concerns were invalid? Answer: they already were addressing my concerns, before I even posted anything in this thread. We don't even know the rest yet(the speculation is that it isn't even written yet, and will be negotiated behind closed doors)....but do you want to bet 100 naked youtube pushups that more of "my concerns"(which actually aren't my concerns, btw) are addressed in that law, that was modified, and will continue to be modified, by Republicans, specifically to protect New Yorkers from your stupidity? This one was faaaaar too easy. Yeah, you were really thinking, rather than demanding your Hallmark moment, you were thinking so much that you and others walked right into this. Idiots. Can't wait to hear the excuses and lame attempts at trying to play this off. I want even more lulz out of this. I tell the truth. Tough schit if you don't like it. No...given this post? It's time for OCinBuffalo to ask: uh...who's delusional again? Crack the whip, pretend you actually did something. Too funny considering how Peace gave you an out.
OCinBuffalo Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) Crack the whip, pretend you actually did something. Too funny considering how Peace gave you an out. Any of them could have told me "Hey, they are already addressing that" at any time. The news articles were all over the internet. All they had to do was read one. But they didn't, and now: they have no outs. You are a moron for not seeing how obvious this was. All they had to do was read. Anything. What makes anyone on this board not immediately go to the internet to find a link when opposing what someone is saying? What makes them miss an opportunity to say: "you are an idiot". In this case, only one thing: the need for the self-righteous Hallmark moment. I didn't do anything...they did it to themselves. Edited June 26, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Peace Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Why ? Are you for the indoctrination of our kids? Homosexuals don't want to get married for happiness...because all the married ones here know that marriage and happiness don't equate. They want marriage as spring board into others areas like, adoption of children to further their selfish quest to desensitize the youth of this once great country. Libs have figured out that slow, steady desenitization works. Turn up the heat one degree a day and you won't realize you're boiling until it is to late. First, they can already adopt and it's a good thing. Second, yes, homosexual marriage is a plot to further indoctrinate people. Hell, once that bill passed, didn't you want to go suck some rooster?
Booster4324 Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Any of them could have told me "Hey, they are already addressing that" at any time. The news articles were all over the internet. All they had to do was read one. But they didn't, and now: they have no outs. You are a moron for not seeing how obvious this was. All they had to do was read. Anything. What makes anyone on this board not immediately go to the internet to find a link when opposing what someone is saying? What makes them miss an opportunity to say: "you are an idiot". In this case, only one thing: the need for the self-righteous Hallmark moment. I didn't do anything...they did it to themselves. Translation:
Peace Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) No...given this post? It's time for OCinBuffalo to ask: uh...who's delusional again? Good dancing, monkey want a banana? 6 allow marriage. 12 permit some kind of union. I'd made that clear in an earlier post but misspoke in that last one. 12>0 and 6>0. But I guess you can keep saying that homosexuals are making no progress on this issue because you're smart and beat up 30 kids. Keep the delusions of grandeur coming. Booster may not be a shrink but your narcissism is a thing of beauty. Edited June 26, 2011 by Peace
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Good dancing, monkey want a banana? 6 allow marriage. 12 permit some kind of union. I'd made that clear in an earlier post but misspoke in that last one. 12>0 and 6>0. But I guess you can keep saying that homosexuals are making no progress on this issue because you're smart and beat up 30 kids. Keep the delusions of grandeur coming. Booster may not be a shrink but your narcissism is a thing of beauty. Fag union
Peace Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Fag union Hey, you're in the state with all the guys. I'm sure you're there for a reason hanging out on those long winter nights with all your boys.
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Hey, you're in the state with all the guys. I'm sure you're there for a reason hanging out on those long winter nights with all your boys. I notice being ignorant and stupid is one of your trademarks. You never fail me
....lybob Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) Hey, you're in the state with all the guys. I'm sure you're there for a reason hanging out on those long winter nights with all your boys. I though he was there for the oil welfare check- one of the reasons Palin was popular was she increased taxes on the oil companies. Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared. Alaska collected an estimated $6 billion from the new tax during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. That helped push the state's total oil revenue — from new and existing taxes, as well as royalties — to more than $10 billion, double the amount received last year. Alaska is not really a fiscally conservative state. All the subsurface resources belong to the State, so all the oil revenue goes directly to the State Treasury and is then distributed into the economy by political rather than market forces. Call it socialist, call it state capitalism, but the driving force in Alaska economics is not Main Street capitalism. Palin and the Legislature dramatically increased taxes on the oil industry last year and the right side of the GOP has been quite critical of the action. Those who sided with Palin dismissed that opposition by casting the opponents of the tax measure as being in thrall to the Oil Industry, an industry much tainted by corruption scandals over the last year or so. The governor signs checks to residents distributing the state's share of oil revenue The government of Alaska is almost all-powerful, much of the State has little or no local government. Only the larger cities and towns have local government; the State does everything, pays for all the schools, provides much of the health care, paves and plows the roads, where there are roads, builds and maintains the airports throughout the state, operates a huge ferry system which it promotes for tourist dollars, and pays any state resident's tuition at any college they wish to attend anywhere. Until recently the State even operated a major dairy. Edited June 27, 2011 by ....lybob
Peace Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 I notice being ignorant and stupid is one of your trademarks. Says the "fag union" poster!
Peace Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Now stop saying I'm anti-union.
Adam Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Congradulations to Grisanti! He is now offially part of the problem. Thanx for turn your backs on the people who voted you in. The people who you told that you were against same sex marriage and would oppose any law brought to the State Senate. With all the problems that 100% of NY faces, lets deal with something that only 10% of NY faces. Last night during his speech he could hardly look in the camera...shame does funny things. HEY MARK GRISANTI! HOW MUCH DOES A SOUL GO FOR THESE DAYS? Enjoy your one term as a State Senator. Jerk! Call him at 716 854 8705 Why ? Are you for the indoctrination of our kids? Homosexuals don't want to get married for happiness...because all the married ones here know that marriage and happiness don't equate. They want marriage as spring board into others areas like, adoption of children to further their selfish quest to desensitize the youth of this once great country. Libs have figured out that slow, steady desenitization works. Turn up the heat one degree a day and you won't realize you're boiling until it is to late. The truth hurts ..but racist ? I don't think so. Just a lib scare tactic to get the opposition to back off...call them a racist! You obviously don't see the agenda behind the law. Oh, Ozzie guy, you are so silly!
pBills Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 People that upset by this law crack me up!! So funny.
Delete This Account Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 everyone can get married now, sounds fair to me. if OCinBuffalo wanted to marry a goat, i'd be fine with that. what's the big deal? jw
Recommended Posts