Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pocahontas Wants Reparations for Gays

Collapse

Google Ads

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by FuqMizzou View Post
    Let me guess, PBS thinks that being gay is a choice... Otherwise wouldn't it be God's fault for creating them?
    There's still scientific debate as to whether it's a choice

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by PBS View Post
      There's still scientific debate as to whether it's a choice

      Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
      I highly doubt it, I've never met a guy who was nailing chicks and then went "You know what, fuck god I want to nail a big hairy, furry dude". You can usually tell most of them are wired just a little differently.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by PBS View Post
        There's still scientific debate as to whether it's a choice

        Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
        Link?

        Comment


        • #34
          This makes more sense than getting rid of student loan debt, to be honest.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by FuqMizzou View Post

            I highly doubt it, I've never met a guy who was nailing chicks and then went "You know what, fuck god I want to nail a big hairy, furry dude". You can usually tell most of them are wired just a little differently.
            Are they wired any differently than pedophiles, fatties, furries, etc...? That's why this debate always cracks me up. It makes me ask this question to myself. Is attraction a mental disorder? I mean, there are so many fetishes, bodytypes, etc...that define what is attractive to some people and not others. You even have people that are attracted to inanimate objects, though I think that actually carries a mental disorder classification. At what point do your sexual preferences reach disorder? My opinion, when it comes to sex, we're all fucking nuts and I'm cool with you doing anything consensually that makes you happy. Except touching kids, fuck those people, I'd volunteer to put a bullet in every one of their heads.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

              Are they wired any differently than pedophiles, fatties, furries, etc...? That's why this debate always cracks me up. It makes me ask this question to myself. Is attraction a mental disorder? I mean, there are so many fetishes, bodytypes, etc...that define what is attractive to some people and not others. You even have people that are attracted to inanimate objects, though I think that actually carries a mental disorder classification. At what point do your sexual preferences reach disorder? My opinion, when it comes to sex, we're all fucking nuts and I'm cool with you doing anything consensually that makes you happy. Except touching kids, fuck those people, I'd volunteer to put a bullet in every one of their heads.

              Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post
              Here's what I've been able to find out about this. No one in her family supports her accusations of rape. She's claimed the rapes started when she was 12, 13, or 14 depending on whichd article you want to use. The uncle was acquitted of rape, but the court records are sealed so why he was acquitted I couldn't say. Those are the facts I've found, though I wouldn't call a 4 minute Google search as "extensive research", which I never claimed. Thanks for proving my accusation of you putting words in peoples mouths btw.
              I also speculated that perhaps the story wasn't what she was saying. I speculated on that because, based on my experiences with family courts, that the odds were heavily stacked to her benefit regarding custody and visitation. I believed, and still do, that there is a lot more to this decision than "Alabama is a backwoods state practicing sharia law" as the articles talking about this are claiming.



              No, you won't.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by md21 View Post





                No, you won't.
                Well you see, the thing is...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by md21 View Post





                  No, you won't.
                  I see you've fallen into the trap of misrepresentation. Why can't people on the left have honest discussions.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ibleed View Post

                    Pretty much at this point, the dems will promise reparations of some kind to everyone that isn't a old white christian straight man.

                    Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if one of these yo-yo's promised Millennials reparations of some sort.
                    Give it a few more months

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

                      I'm cool with you doing anything consensually that makes you happy.
                      As long as you get to call them lispy sprites, amirite?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post
                        I can't wait for the Catholic Church, Germany, Poland, Denmark, etc pay for what they did to my ancestors.
                        Depending on the timeframe, those institutions no longer exist. Except the church of course, which should honestly owe every nickel they have to the millions of people that were molested as kids by priests and subsequently told to hush up about it.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          An add to this, Warren faces the dilemma of being an "explainer in chief"

                          https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...cession-227214

                          I kind of hate that Warren is probably going to have to pander more and more and dumb it down to get through a primary and most certainly the general.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by DPR View Post
                            An add to this, Warren faces the dilemma of being an "explainer in chief"

                            https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...cession-227214

                            I kind of hate that Warren is probably going to have to pander more and more and dumb it down to get through a primary and most certainly the general.

                            When she talks about things like the financial crisis I actually think she’s pretty great. The fact that it’s profitable to initiate a mortgage and just sell it off is insane. The fact that nothing has changed in that regard is insane.
                            There’s no risk to the initiator.

                            The banking system, and the ability for businesses and consumers to borrow, is the most crucial aspect of our economy...and because of that it needs to be highly regulated.


                            When she panders I think she sucks. Being leftist Trump like isn’t going to win. Pandering on the left is harder to because the right is really just a few large groups of people whereas the left targets lots of less populous groupers.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DPR View Post
                              This is what she said:



                              If you actually knew what happened to gay couples come tax season who were denied the ability to marry, you'd understand there is nothing controversial about this at all.




                              Huh? Tulsi probably won't go for this because she's a bit of a homophobe but Tulsi absolutely supports most of the same things Warren supporters. Policy-wise, they aren't that different.
                              They paid the same taxes I do as a single person? Boo hoo. I’m sick of everyone and their brother begging for free shit and claiming oppression as the justification.

                              Oh, and stop lying about people. Tulsi Gabbard has one of the best voting records in Congress when it comes to LGBT issues. If that’s being homophobic, then I don’t know what the hell support looks like.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by tOSUfanboi2 View Post

                                They paid the same taxes I do as a single person? Boo hoo. I’m sick of everyone and their brother begging for free shit and claiming oppression as the justification.
                                It's not free shit. They were overtaxed on the basis of discrimination. You can argue the past is the past and move on and that's fine. But I wouldn't call this free shit. It's a tax refund on overpayment if the laws were applied equally to them previously.

                                As I said, I think this is something that the GOP could have proposed to win over gay couples after opposing gay marriage. Republicans love giving back money to people that overpaid their taxes.

                                Oh, and stop lying about people. Tulsi Gabbard has one of the best voting records in Congress when it comes to LGBT issues. If that’s being homophobic, then I don’t know what the hell support looks like.
                                I haven't looked at her voting record on LGBT issues but I can't imagine there have been that many votes that were relevant over the past few years.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X