DC Tom Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Certainly sounds like they have some "authority" over dicks up asses no? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 No. Haha the answer is yes Tom. Dicks up asses is a protected privacy interest under federal constitution. They has some authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 No. No? You know. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Haha the answer is yes Tom. Dicks up asses is a protected privacy interest under federal constitution. They has some authority. No. "Being protected" is not the same thing as "having authority over". And in fact, the Supremes specifically ruled that the states - and by extension, the feds - DO NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER SUCH WHATSOEVER. Now stop being willfully dense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) No. "Being protected" is not the same thing as "having authority over". And in fact, the Supremes specifically ruled that the states - and by extension, the feds - DO NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER SUCH WHATSOEVER. Now stop being willfully dense. Willfully dense? When the federal judiciary tells Texas it can't prohibit dicks in asses, that's called authority. Stop bending over backwards to disagree with me. (pun intended) Edited May 17, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Willfully dense? When the federal judiciary tells Texas it can't prohibit dicks in asses, that's called authority. Stop bending over backwards to disagree with me. (pun intended) That doesn't sound right. Sounds like limiting the government to me, not extending it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 That doesn't sound right. Sounds like limiting the government to me, not extending it. Nothing about what you just said sounds right. "Authority" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 So, if someone wants a certificate allowing him to put his dick up someone's ass our Federal government should give it to them? The Federal government has no authority over dicks up asses. The states may, but that is questionable. Regardless, are you idiots more interested in what consulting adults do than the somewhat more serious issues we have in this country? Missed it. Any links? Is anyone, anywhere, asking for the government, state or federal, to give them a certificate allowing them to have sex? No. This issue is about marriage, and if I have learned anything from 90s sitcoms it's sex and marriage are mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Is anyone, anywhere, asking for the government, state or federal, to give them a certificate allowing them to have sex? No. This issue is about marriage, and if I have learned anything from 90s sitcoms it's sex and marriage are mutually exclusive. Ya but gay or not gay if you had a license to !@#$ people in the ass you would probably frame it and stick it on the wall no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Easiest solution to this problem is to start calling him Fudge Pacquiao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) Where can anybody tell me that the Federal Government has anything to do with "dicks up asses"? You guys are a bunch of whiny ass bitches complaining because I've upset your comfort zone. This post has been heavily edited. To edit it some more: Why in Hell's name would you want the Fed's to officially approve of something that has nothing to do with them? To me, dicks up asses seems to be a personal matter. I don't think the Federal government should have much to say about it. Who out there who has disagreed with me wants to refute this? What say you DC? Edited May 17, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Where can anybody tell me that the Federal Government has anything to do with "dicks up asses"? You guys are a bunch of whiny ass bitches complaining because I've upset your comfort zone. This post has been heavily edited. To edit it some more: Why in Hell's name would you want the Fed's to officially approve of something that has nothing to do with them? To me, dicks up asses seems to be a personal matter. I don't think the Federal government should have much to say about it. Who out there who has disagreed with me wants to refute this? What say you DC? I love how you're quoting yourself in your rant. Ya but gay or not gay if you had a license to !@#$ people in the ass you would probably frame it and stick it on the wall no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I love how you're quoting yourself in your rant. You need to get your characters straight. You know what straight means, don't you? BTW, I've seen your recent posts. Do you really want go there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoutbox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Is anyone, anywhere, asking for the government, state or federal, to give them a certificate allowing them to have sex? No. This issue is about marriage, and if I have learned anything from 90s sitcoms it's sex and marriage are mutually exclusive. You're wasting your time here, tgreg99. 3rdnlng can't understand the difference between gay sex and gay marriage because - like Manny and like anyone who blindly follows organized religion - he is of low intelligence. This thread has no purpose anymore. For one thing, we now know that Manny never said gays should be put to death. It was a terribly written summary of an interview with Manny that has spiraled out of control in the media and internet. All we have left here is another public person giving a religion-based opinion on a political subject; he has every right to say it, but must also face the consequences of this opinion. Nothing more needs to be said. As for the gay marriage debate, it's a dead end. We dealt with it here last week. Religious people aren't interested in questioning why their imaginary God doesn't like gay people. A lot of people, in fact, just plain don't like gay people because they're different from themselves; God of the Abrahamic religions then becomes a convenient scapegoat behind whom they can hide their bigotry without suffering the usual public castigation for such an offensive opinion. This gay marriage issue is itself a convenient scapegoat for the collapse of the traditional family, which many believe will in turn lead to the collapse of civilization. It's all a very specious argument, bordering on ridiculous when us heterosexuals have done more than our fair share to destroy the credibility of marriage in the past 40 years. Manny Pacquiao, who has cheated many times on his wife, is a typical hypocrite among the anti-gay marriage crowd who should probably be more concerned with his own faults first before worrying about the imaginary faults of those that his imaginary God says are immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) Tolerance means having concern for others whose interests and practices differ from your own. It also means a freedom from bigotry. Religious literalists, by definition, do not practice tolerance in any capacity other than to their own kind. Stating that someone doesn't have the right to marry their other half because they're of the same gender isn't preaching tolerance. It's preaching bigotry. It's divisive rather than unifying. Someone who serves in an elected office as well as being a minister and arguably the second best pound for pound fighter in his sport absolutely deserves to be raked over the coals for saying something so hateful and ignorant and using religion as the rational or excuse for having that kind of hate in his heart. Ill "tolerate" the guy in assless chaps shaking his ass against a drag queen in the public park during "pride" events when YOU "tolerate" a church group signing "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" in the same public park on Christmas Eve. Deal? As far as that boxer goes, you DO realize he was misquoted and PACQUIAO NEVER MADE THAT STATEMENT, right? http://blogs.laweekl...te_timeline.php Edited May 17, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 So, if someone wants a certificate allowing him to put his dick up someone's ass our Federal government should give it to them? The Federal government has no authority over dicks up asses. The states may, but that is questionable. Regardless, are you idiots more interested in what consulting adults do than the somewhat more serious issues we have in this country? Missed it. Any links? People have been trained the last few decades to believe this crap is the most important issue of our times. Even though it has nothing or very little to do with them personally. PC heads so far up their ass they can't see the trees for the forest. I heard that one before ... but it was back in November of 1938. I don't know what this means but I sense some sort of Nazi reference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I heard that one before ... but it was back in November of 1938. You remember 1938? How old are you anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I don't know what this means but I sense some sort of Nazi reference? Kristallnacht. (Side note: little known fact that replacing all the broken glass, since it had to be imported, caused a minor foreign exchange crisis in Nazi Germany. The Nazis were not too bright, really.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Kristallnacht. Drank some of that last night with dinner. Delightful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Kristallnacht. (Side note: little known fact that replacing all the broken glass, since it had to be imported, caused a minor foreign exchange crisis in Nazi Germany. The Nazis were not too bright, really.) Yeah but we have our own glass industry in America. So lets go out and break the windows of the 1% to create/save/touch jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts