patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,194,265 comments by 13,889 users - Onvacation, porkchopXpress online now
What in the fuck is wrong with you people?
invite response
2014 Apr 22, 4:15am 23,311 views 115 comments
« First « Previous Comments 16 - 55 of 115 Next » Last » Search these comments
Dan8267
2014 Apr 23, 5:45am
The Liberals needs you broke, hungry, stupid and pissed off at the fat old white guys.
Do you have dementia?
If you have to ask.....
The thing is his statements are so unbelievably ludicrous. I can understand having a different, even vile and selfish, political philosophy, but I can't understand how he actually believes the world is anything like he describes it.
If CaptainShuddup were to describe they sky he'd say it was painted pink and purple by liberals and if full of gay-ass glitter. And he would not be talking metaphorically. How do you reconcile such delusional views of reality with an alleged sane person?
Dan8267
2014 Apr 23, 5:48am
If someone denies you a job because you are gay that's a problem, if a man can't marry a man...
Can I deny someone a job because he's a homophobe? Can I presume that any Christian is probably a homophobe and thus deny him a job simply on the knowledge that he's Christian?
Remember, someday your boss might be gay.
Dan8267
2014 Apr 23, 5:50am
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
Really good looking lesbians should be encouraged to marry and spend their lunch breaks at public parks making out, as the Founding Fathers intended.
FortWayne
2014 Apr 23, 7:30am
Gender is not a legal category of people. All persons regardless of gender are treated the same.
Yes it is a legal category. Everyone knows genders are different, and different by nature for a reason.
Laws treat women different then men in custody and other family related issues. So don't start with equal, because no where in the law they are equal.
FortWayne
2014 Apr 23, 7:33am
There mere existence of a single hermaphrodite in history means that marriage cannot be defined as "to a person of the opposite gender" because there is no opposite gender to a hermaphrodite.
Yes let's change all our laws for entire 314 million people so that 50 dopey weirdos can finally feel all special about who they can marry. Things that liberals concern themselves with...
FortWayne
2014 Apr 23, 7:34am
Remember, someday your boss might be gay.
I don't have a boss now, and I sure as hell don't plan on getting one.
CL
2014 Apr 23, 9:55am
Remember, someday your boss might be gay.
I don't have a boss now, and I sure as hell don't plan on getting one.
Then it almost certainly will be an offspring. My god is hilarious like that.
Dan8267
2014 Apr 23, 2:03pm
Laws treat women different then men in custody and other family related issues.
And that's wrong, too. Men get fucked in the family court system. That's very wrong and very Unconstitutional. It's also the primary reason why marriage rates have plummeted.
Dan8267
2014 Apr 23, 2:08pm
Yes let's change all our laws for entire 314 million people so that 50 dopey weirdos can finally feel all special about who they can marry. Things that liberals concern themselves with...
1. The number of people wanting to marry a same sex person number in the millions, not 50.
2. If the law is to be just, even one person's rights being violated would be unacceptable.
3. Liberals are concerned with equality under law. And anyone who isn't, is not a real American. The very foundation of American political philosophy is "all are created equal with inalienable rights".
4. Marriage equality involves literally thousands of rights.
5. Marriage equality simplifies our law and simplifies legal compliance, thereby greatly reducing costs to businesses. This is why both big business and small business strongly support marriage equality. The costs of discrimination is especially burdensome to small businesses that have to use different accounting systems where same-sex marriages are not recognized. If you were truly pro-small-business, you'd be for marriage equality.
6. If marriage equality and Christianity are mutually exclusive, then it is Christianity that must go. Freedom from a religion being imposed upon you is the most important part of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Y
2014 Apr 23, 2:30pm
Bullshit.
It has nothing to do with the original definition of marriage.
What it means is that a hermaphrodite cannot marry at all, since it cannot align itself to one gender or the other.
There mere existence of a single hermaphrodite in history means that marriage cannot be defined as "to a person of the opposite gender" because there is no opposite gender to a hermaphrodite.
Y
2014 Apr 23, 2:35pm
Not in the LBGabcxyz community of liberalists, Ft....
Gender has no meaning to that crew....
Gender is not a legal category of people. All persons regardless of gender are treated the same.
Yes it is a legal category. Everyone knows genders are different, and different by nature for a reason.
Dan8267
2014 Apr 23, 2:41pm
The original definition of marriage is the wife is property traded for cattle. Here are some other ancient, Christian definitions of marriage...
I don't give a flying fuck about how marriage worked or was defined in Bronze Age societies. The bottom line is that if our modern government recognizes any marriages as legal statuses, it must under the 14th Amendment recognize same sex marriages. Period.
When it comes to American law, the Constitution trumps the Bible every single time.
There is no legal justification for two men living together having to pay higher taxes than a man and a woman living together. None whatsoever.
So tell me, exactly what rights do you bigots want to deny gays from having and why? The right to file joint tax returns? The right to spousal health insurance? The right to veteran survival benefits? There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law alone. Exactly which ones of these should be denied because a life-partner owns a penis?
You know what. Forget about making gay marriage legal. Make straight marriage illegal. Revoke all rights and benefits from marriage altogether and have the government recognize NO marriage. If straight married people can't share these rights with gays, then they don't deserve to have them either. A few years without these benefits will probably change their minds.
Y
2014 Apr 23, 2:59pm
Yes there is.
Smokers are being taxed out the ass for the medical cost runups their filthy vile habits generate, the same should be applied to intentional spreading of AIDS.
Why should the rest of us have to pay for same sex AIDS proliferation throughout the world? Tax the incubators of the disease! They made deliberate choices to engage in behavior that is costing us our health care system!
Oh...I forgot. The fruit borne of pleasure fucking, be it AIDS or BABIES should be borne by the american taxpayer...Thanks Sarah Flunkie!
There is no legal justification for two men living together having to pay higher taxes than a man and a woman living together. None whatsoever.
Y
2014 Apr 23, 3:00pm
Oh...I forgot. The fruit borne of pleasure fucking, be it AIDS or BABIES should be borne by the american taxpayer...Thanks Sarah Flunkie!
Dan8267
2014 Apr 23, 3:10pm
Why should the rest of us have to pay for same sex AIDS proliferation throughout the world?
That is one of the stupidest things ever utter by mankind. If you want to decrease the proliferation of AIDS, you should strongly encourage gays to marry each other. One, same sex marriage is monogamous. Two, nothing kills sex faster than marriage.
Vicente
2014 Apr 23, 3:28pm
The move came after Benjamin Abbott recorded police officers in September 2010 telling him and his friend they needed a permit to pass out food to the homeless.
Don't know much about the specifics of this case. Journalism is unlikely to provide it.
But.... why didn't they just get the permit?
Cops are often expected to enforce various bullshit local things, they may not like it, but they didn't make it up.
When you talk about permits to serve food, I'm guessing the fingerprints all over those ordinances will be from businessmen who like putting up barriers to the casual hot-dog sellers. They of course pass it off as concern for the public, but it's really their own pockets they are protecting.
My favorite example was Georgia used to not allow alcohol sales on Sunday. But oh wait, restaurants could still serve drinks on Sunday. When it came time to vote on repeal, guess which group backed opposition? Go on, guess.
You're going to have a hard time convincing me, that everyone on Fox News, is deeply concerned about homeless people.
Homeboy
2014 Apr 23, 3:38pm
The original definition of marriage is the wife is property traded for cattle. Here are some other ancient, Christian definitions of marriage...
It says women should get stoned. Cool.
Y
2014 Apr 23, 11:21pm
Pretend you are playing chess, not checkers....take your statement out to it's logical conclusion.
if one is married, and one is not getting sex, then one is likely to seek out of wedlock sexual affairs.
Thus the proliferation of AIDS continues.
Oh, and it's 'uttered'.
Why should the rest of us have to pay for same sex AIDS proliferation throughout the world?
That is one of the stupidest things ever utter by mankind. If you want to decrease the proliferation of AIDS, you should strongly encourage gays to marry each other. One, same sex marriage is monogamous. Two, nothing kills sex faster than marriage.
Y
2014 Apr 23, 11:26pm
Why limit your analysis to "christian definitions"?
Again, you are playing checkers, not chess.
Hindu Marriage joins two individuals for life, so that they can pursue dharma (duty), artha (possessions), kama (physical desires), and moksa (ultimate spiritual release) together. Its a union of two individuals from the opposite sex as husband / wife and is recognized by law.
Here are some other ancient, Christian definitions of marriage...
Tenpoundbass
2014 Apr 24, 12:12am
You're going to have a hard time convincing me, that everyone on Fox News, is deeply concerned about homeless people.
Thanks for one of the only thought out responses that didn't spin in excuses and rhetoric Vincent. I guess that is what I am looking for, or would like to discuss.
Who is behind sending the man over to shut down a homeless feeding center?
I know when I rented last decade there was a Homeless Voice shelter, a condo on US1 that a rich man bought, he houses homeless people, but they have to pan handle for his brand. They pan handle so many hours a week, then have to bring home their haul and hand it over to the house to get to live there.
They aren't allowed to drink, so they hang out on the residential streets that are near the Homes east of US1.
As a result you look out your window, you'll see a bum sleeping on the sidewalk passed out, across the street.
The homeless voice homeless shelter didn't bother me, but he would turn these people who have deep emotional and alcohol issues and make them go drink on the street, rather than in the confines of his shelter he built. It would seem to me, it would be the least the guy could do, for having an army of homeless people panhandling him Millions of dollars a year.
I drove by about a month ago, and there was a Brinks armor truck parked out front stopped right on US1 in the far right lane in front of the door. As a few people from the shelter were standing with a media cart with about 30 bags of either coins or bills, I'm not sure what denominations were in those bags but there were a lot of them. And it was an armor truck.
Now I had some serious gripes about this place. But the fact that the guy was housing and feeding them, was the last issue. He should have done more to help those people get off Alcohol and drugs(not very likely) or he should have gave them a safe place to do it at his shelter.
But about 4 or 5 years ago, it could have been more, this aint a dig on Obama's administration. There was an ex-homeless person who made good, I think he came into a lot of money from a settlement or the Lottery. That was feeding homeless people a daily BBQ/Lunch in the park where they always hang out.
I remember that being on the news, someone was trying to shut that down. There's enough shit to bitch about homeless people, them getting fed or housed, is the last problem someone should be bitching about. And homeless criminals, or loonies belong in jail, or and institution not in a shelter or in the street.
Vicente
2014 Apr 24, 1:22am
Who is behind sending the man over to shut down a homeless feeding center?
Just about anyone and everyone.
Look if there's anything most "regular" middle class people don't want hanging in their neighborhood it's the homeless people.
I was in Atlanta in the 1990's. We had tons of homeless people near Georgia Tech and Midtown area. I used to carry a book of coupons for a beloved greasy spoon on my street, and if I got panhandled for food while walking I'd walk them down to Junior's Grill and see they got something to eat. But most people cross the street to avoid encountering anyone shabbily dressed. Starting around 1995, bus tickets were plentifully handed out and they were "encouraged" to migrate. I'm pretty sure this was business interests looking to clean the city up prior to the Olympics. That's not liberal or conservative politics IMO, but rather business/establishment interests deciding they need to look good "for the world".
If you want to open a new soup kitchen you will likely find NIMBY busybodies on the neighborhood association oppose it. I mean I get their point, they associate homeless people as society always has, prone to petty theft and other crimes of opportunity and they don't want them walking up and down their street and possibly peering in their windows going "hey nice stuff you have there". Breaking up hobo camps was a job of the police both in the Roaring 20's and the depressed 30's.
zzyzzx
2014 Apr 24, 1:27am
. Liberals are concerned with equality under law. And anyone who isn't, is not a real American. The very foundation of American political philosophy is "all are created equal with inalienable rights".
Affirmative action is not equality.
zzyzzx
2014 Apr 24, 1:31am
We had tons of homeless people near Georgia Tech and Midtown area.
Never saw any there (on campue) and only heard about them being in the area below North Ave near that old dorm there. That would have been 1983-1988
Y
2014 Apr 24, 1:54am
Unfortunately, it is apparent you did not get it.
This is what happens when you jump into the middle of a conversation without knowing what the fuck the beginning contained.
Here, let me clear it up for you:
Dan said:
That is one of the stupidest things ever utter by mankind. If you want to decrease the proliferation of AIDS, you should strongly encourage gays to marry each other. One, same sex marriage is monogamous. Two, nothing kills sex faster than marriage.
Dan is completely wrong as follows:
Dan sez...
#1: Same sex marriage is not monogamous
Statistics taken from the liberal bastion of society, your alma mater..
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17951664/ns/health-sexual_health/t/many-
cheat-thrill-more-stay-true-love/
are, estimating that 44 percent of married men and 36 percent of married women are unfaithful., the survey found.
Dan sez...
#2: nothing kills sex faster than marriage.
SS sez...
"if one is married, and one is not getting sex, then one is likely to seek out of wedlock sexual affairs.
Thus the proliferation of AIDS continues."
IW sez...(btw, this is where you don't have a clue....)
You mean sometimes people cheat so therefore marriage is utterly useless in reducing infidelity?
SS sez...(btw, this is where I apply the winning post...)
"If you are not getting laid, unless you are a monk you are most likely to put yourself into a position where you will get laid, married or not."
IW sez...( off into left field again...trying to change the subject)
Right. Marriage has nothing to do with getting laid or keeping a sex partner around or making promises of fidelity. Got it!
FINAL ANALYSIS:
Whether you are married or not has little impact in sexual activity causing the spread of AIDS.
FortWayne
2014 Apr 24, 2:18am
3. Liberals are concerned with equality under law. And anyone who isn't, is not a real American. The very foundation of American political philosophy is "all are created equal with inalienable rights".
Equality of rights does not mean same thing as equality of outcome. Marriage is same for everyone, we don't need to have additional rules for people who play by the rules not acceptable in society.
You can't marry a pig, a chicken, or a cow. You shouldn't have men marrying men either. Because that disrupts the structure of society, and it starts taking a toll on it. If kids see men marrying men, they are likely to do it themselves later, and that's something that is not acceptable.
You liberals were all gung-ho about legalizing marijuana in Colorado, now every day we hear news from Colorado about minors, young children, sometimes as young as third grade, dying from drugs. There are consequences for your wreckless "freedom" to screw everything around.
Vicente
2014 Apr 24, 3:12am
Never saw any there (on campue) and only heard about them being in the area below North Ave near that old dorm there. That would have been 1983-1988
Techwood Dorms, that's where I lived! Junior's Grill was on North Avenue right around the corner at the time. Plenty of homeless along the Varsity axis there. Also pretty common in Home Park, where I ended up later. Used to see them wandering campus all the time though, going through the dumpsters and recycling bins for aluminum. Most people just didn't "see" them because they didn't want to, and also because they tended to loop around in the early morning hours.
Dan8267
2014 Apr 24, 3:20am
Pretend you are playing chess, not checkers....take your statement out to it's logical conclusion.
if one is married, and one is not getting sex, then one is likely to seek out of wedlock sexual affairs.
Thus the proliferation of AIDS continues.
If you think that single gay men have fewer sexual partners than married gay men, you are crazy.
Once again, marriage, including same-sex marriages, discourages the spread of sexual transmitted diseases including AIDS.
Of course, your not being sincere. If AIDS and other sexual transmitted diseases did not exist or where cured by medical science like smallpox was, would you then have no objections to same-sex marriage or gay sex?
Oh, and it's 'uttered'.
Ooo, a spelling mistake. You got me there. Of course, using that to imply anything of significance is stupid.
Why limit your analysis to "christian definitions"?
Why indeed. Mormons defined marriage as between a man and many wives, so polygamy should be legal if we go by religious definitions. Think I can't find a religion in which men were allowed to marry? I doubt I'd have to look farther than ancient Greece.
And hell, why can't I or anyone else start up their own religion. The gays are free to start their own religion that defines marriage as between two people of the same sex. Then we have to outlaw straight marriage, right?
#1: Same sex marriage is not monogamous
Statistics taken from the liberal bastion of society, your alma mater..
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17951664/ns/health-sexual_health/t/many-
cheat-thrill-more-stay-true-love/
are, estimating that 44 percent of married men and 36 percent of married women are unfaithful., the survey found.
You do realize that the article is talking about heterosexual marriages, right?
Numerous studies have confirmed the obvious, the percentage of infidelity ranked most to least are: male-male, male-female, female-female. And the difference between lesbian fidelity and straight fidelity is far, far greater than between straight fidelity and gay male fidelity.
In other words, it is maleness, not gayness, that causes cheating. Lesbians have a far lower rate of infidelity than any other pairing. If were defining marriage based on fidelity ratings, then clearly marriage should be defined as a coupling between one woman and one other woman.
You're playing chess; I'm playing Raumschach.
Dan8267
2014 Apr 24, 3:28am
Equality of rights does not mean same thing as equality of outcome.
Straw Man argument. No one has ever suggested that, and outcome has nothing to do with marriage equality. Marriage equality is about equality of rights. That's exactly what it's about.
Marriage is same for everyone, we don't need to have additional rules for people who play by the rules not acceptable in society.
1. Marriage should be defined the same for everyone, and it should not include gender any more than it includes race.
2. Marriage equality decreases the number of rules in our society, simplifies both legislation and legal compliance for businesses, and reduces the cost of compliance.
3. Society does not hold opinions. People do. And the majority of people support marriage equality and this percentage is steadily growing as old bigots die off and new people come of age. The inevitable trend is towards near 100% acceptance of marriage equality.
4. The rights of individuals should trump the tyranny of the majority. So making the case that most people don't want something isn't a good argument anyway. When Islam becomes the dominant religion in the United States, and at the rate its growing it will, do you want Sharia Law forced upon you because the predominant Islamic society has accepted those rules?
5. The bottom line is that you are trying to use the state's monopoly on violence to force your religion upon others. Just remember, if you set that kind of precedent, its inevitable it will be used against you and your religion. There's a reason why separate church and state.
Y
2014 Apr 24, 3:31am
Study #2
A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine revealed what was described as a “magnum order†of difference in the lifetime rate of infidelity among heterosexual couples, as compared to the rate of infidelity among homosexual couples. See researcher's comments at OrthodoxyToday.org.
Based on statistics from this study, which were mention in Parade magazine's article by M. Clements, entitled “Sex in America Today: A New National Survey Reveals How our Attitudes are Changing,†(Parade, August 7, 1994, pp. 4–6.), researchers concluded:
. . . even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage. .
Y
2014 Apr 24, 3:32am
Study #3
In a study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollack found that
"few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.â€
Dan8267
2014 Apr 24, 3:33am
You liberals were all gung-ho about legalizing marijuana in Colorado, now every day we hear news from Colorado about minors, young children, sometimes as young as third grade, dying from drugs. There are consequences for your wreckless "freedom" to screw everything around.
I call bullshit. Show me one case when a child, hell anyone, has died from marijuana overdose.
I call double bullshit. I can give you millions of cases when children have died from alcohol poisoning. Following your logic, alcohol should be illegal.
I call triple bullshit. I can give a plethora of cases where innocent men, women, and children have been slaughtered by the police in the war on drugs.
I call quadruple bullshit. A person smoking pot does not infringe upon your rights. A person having consensual sex with another person, regardless of that person's gender, does not infringe upon your rights. You conservatives claim to be for small government and against the nanny state, but in reality you conservatives are the most vocal advocates of big government and the nanny state. If you really believed that government that governs least governs best, then you would be against any laws except those that prevent the infringement of other people's rights.
I call quintuple bullshit. Even if gays and lesbians can't marry, they are still going to have sex. In fact, even more of it with even more partners because they aren't allowed to marry. Marriage encourages monogamy. Single life certainly doesn't.
And you certainly cannot outlaw freedom of sex in this country. It's too ingrain in our economy and society. You can't even eliminate sex in advertising and you think you can use the violence of the state to keep people from having consensual sex? You're delusional.
Y
2014 Apr 24, 3:33am
Pollack concluded:
“Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of ‘committed’ typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.â€
Y
2014 Apr 24, 3:36am
My goal is to save lives by discouraging behavior which can lead to an unnecessary early death and wasted life.
If AIDS and other sexual transmitted diseases did not exist or where cured by medical science like smallpox was, would you then have no objections to same-sex marriage or gay sex?
Dan8267
2014 Apr 24, 3:40am
My goal is to save lives by discouraging behavior which can lead to an unnecessary early death and wasted life.
Then discourage people from voting Republican. They start wars that kill millions of people. They support a warfare industry that destabilizes the world and creates conflict in order to maintain revenue streams.
And advocate a 90% cut in warfare spending. Starve the war machine and fewer people will experience an unnecessary early death and wasted life.
Also, demand a ban to pollution starting with coal power plants. Pollution kills more people than anything else. Just think of all the miscarriages caused by pollution. Consider them forced abortions.
And demand a complete government takeover of the health insurance industry. Private health insurance drastically lowers both the quality and length of life in our country.
Y
2014 Apr 24, 3:41am
While highlighting one's spelling mistakes has little impact on the argument, from time to time it does provide insight into one's mental capacities and reluctance to acknowledge minor details which may or may not influence the debate at hand.
Oh, and it's 'uttered'.
Ooo, a spelling mistake. You got me there. Of course, using that to imply anything of significance is stupid.
Y
2014 Apr 24, 3:42am
Greece doesn't count, as no other country has that abundance of olive oil....
Think I can't find a religion in which men were allowed to marry? I doubt I'd have to look farther than ancient Greece.
Y
2014 Apr 24, 3:44am
You just pulled that one out your ass.....
Any cursory google search will show the exact opposite of what you state below. See my other posts for details.
Dan8267 says
Numerous studies have confirmed the obvious, the percentage of infidelity ranked most to least are: male-male, male-female, female-female.
curious2
2014 Apr 24, 4:03am
Dan, the Jackass Crab is trolling again. MrEd/SoftShell/Paralithodes is a delusional loser in Texas whom most people wouldn't even spit on IRL, because it would be a waste of spit. The pseudo-scientific dross in the comments above is copied and pasted from a blog on examiner.com, and the references on that page don't even have working links to the purported sources, only to more garbage by the same blogger. Even Wikipedia doesn't consider Examiner blogs to be reliable, and even examiner.com doesn't stand behind them, despite publishing them:
The blog in question was written by a self-styled "infidelity expert" and links to her now-defunct website, www.NationalInfiddelity.com. But that isn't even the point. Trolls troll in order to get attention. The groups they insult are merely collateral damage.
« First « Previous Comments 16 - 55 of 115 Next » Last » Search these comments
I mean you guys talk about inequality, and Socialism to care for the old, poor and sick, you want all of those things. Just as long as a middle aged white guy and baby boomers pay for it.
...and just NOT in YOUR "Good School Districts".
It cramps your style.
And NOBODY gets NUTTIN'! Unless it came from taxmoney from the old white guys and boomers. And then you'll only get enough to keep you poor. Now don't go getting too comfortable either.
The Liberals needs you broke, hungry, stupid and pissed off at the fat old white guys.