Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

[jmervyn]

Like this?

Or this?

The second is actually a link, but with a dummy URL, so clicking on it probably won't lead to anywhere.

Why did you say I was the one talking about tags? It was Steve!

Boy, who coulda guessed that would happen? It's almost as if somebody was trying to manufacture a crisis in order to push their own agenda.

It's really getting very funny now. When even stalwart Lefty Bob Woodward says you're a lying sack of it? Isn't that like losing Vietnam or something?

[jmervyn]

Ok, here's the rest.

I know I've been light on details, but whatever impression you got, it was wrong.

No, it wasn't, but you clearly did take my point. Plus, while I was deliberately offensive in my phrasing, I was looking for the reaction rather than actually calling you a horrible person. Honest.

It used to be that our seniors would live their lives in the same home, rather than in the warm-storage areas of the desert SouthWest or Florida. The entire mindset has changed regarding what families are, to the point that elder generations no longer presume that the self-centered progeny will take care of them once incapacitated. You're saying that you wouldn't force your Grandfather to do anything, but is the "distant third option" really an option? I honestly doubt it is.

There's no way my Father wants to move in with me, but rather he wants me to move my whole family in with him (Hell on Earth). That's basically what my Mother wants as well, and her house is a 2-bedroom. Selfishness is hand-in-hand with the "nuclear family" structure, and generational families are simply not the American norm any longer. You can still see it with some Chinese, Indian, or Mexican families - Grandma comes to visit for eight months and treats the missus like re-fried shyte - but for the bulk of American and many Western families, that's not even a concern nowadays.

Are you saying if it was legal you'd get *** married? I don't believe you. I don't think you married for money either. I think you're goading me into making a Jmerv is a closet *** joke, but it's so subtle, I don't know what to make of this. So assuming you're not saying you're going to rush out and get *** married, exactly how would you "support" the law? What would that look like?

Wow, I know I'm a good mind fecker, but I really didn't know I was THAT good!

On a more serious note, I meant that not only would I not believe or support some weird protest behavior (you once alleged that I would), but that I wouldn't tread queer parents any differently (not that I do now) if it became legal. THAT part I would hope you believe me on. Plus, if polygamy was part of the bargain, I don't know that I'd be at all upset about having two Mrs. Mervs (not that I could afford the prospect) because that's essentially already allowed when Saudis visit the U.S. Worse, actually, because sometimes their "wives" try to escape and are forcibly repatriated.

You know damned well what I meant.

Eh, not really. I'm equating it to the legalization issues in Oregon and Washington, which you probably want to deny are legitimate. Federal vs. state is *NOT* a dodge. The Feds simply don't have the right to do this, and the reason I'm calling you fascist is because you're insisting that theirs MUST be the force involved.

Straight couples can't sue for not being allowed to use churches, why would gays suddenly be able to? it's not a protected status thing.

Jesus, but you're thick sometimes. By making queers a protected class, which is what you insist be done at a Federal level, that's precisely the result. It becomes a civil rights issue when there's no way it should be; queers are behavioral "choice" rather than racial or gender characteristic, which also accounts for the fabricated claims about genetic predisposition. Consider it this way - naturally transgender individuals would be the only ones who have such a leg to stand on, so to speak, and they're not the ones causing the problem.

Furthermore, I provided examples of this already playing out in EXACTLY THE FECKIN' MANNER I SAID IT WILL, and all you can do is whine, 'uh-uh, that won't happen'.

[Glurin]

the "or this" one. I usually put the link on the next line, and not in the text like JM always does.

YOu can't just quote and see how you do it either, it shows up blue in the quote box.

The formula is this without the spaces.

[ URL = h t t p://w w w.siteyouarelinkingto.c o m ]Text you want people to see.[ / U R L ]

[Stevinator]

Ok, here's the rest.
No, it wasn't, but you clearly did take my point. Plus, while I was deliberately offensive in my phrasing, I was looking for the reaction rather than actually calling you a horrible person. Honest.

It used to be that our seniors would live their lives in the same home, rather than in the warm-storage areas of the desert SouthWest or Florida. The entire mindset has changed regarding what families are, to the point that elder generations no longer presume that the self-centered progeny will take care of them once incapacitated. You're saying that you wouldn't force your Grandfather to do anything, but is the "distant third option" really an option? I honestly doubt it is.

There's no way my Father wants to move in with me, but rather he wants me to move my whole family in with him (Hell on Earth). That's basically what my Mother wants as well, and her house is a 2-bedroom. Selfishness is hand-in-hand with the "nuclear family" structure, and generational families are simply not the American norm any longer. You can still see it with some Chinese, Indian, or Mexican families - Grandma comes to visit for eight months and treats the missus like re-fried shyte - but for the bulk of American and many Western families, that's not even a concern nowadays.

Well, up until her fall, they were happy living in their house, and my parent's in theirs and my bro and I in mine. We usually would convene at my parents'. Since the fall, it's all gone crazy.

There's no way we'd move into the grandparent's house and I don't think Grandpa would even like that. He'd never move to my parents' because that would be like admitting he needed us. I don't think he would have even considered moving if G-ma hadn't fallen. As an update from this weekend, there's no available apartments, so he's back at his place, and we're taking turns driving him to see Gma everyday.

Anyway, the point of the whole thing is no stupid law like *** marriage or any of that BS is going to change how I feel about my family.

Wow, I know I'm a good mind fecker, but I really didn't know I was THAT good!

I truly thought you were trying to lead me into that. It just felt like a big set up. I'm not biting.

On a more serious note, I meant that not only would I not believe or support some weird protest behavior (you once alleged that I would), but that I wouldn't tread queer parents any differently (not that I do now) if it became legal. THAT part I would hope you believe me on.

i do. in fact I don't think anything would change in your life at all except we'd be arguing about something else on the intarwebs.

Plus, if polygamy was part of the bargain, I don't know that I'd be at all upset about having two Mrs. Mervs (not that I could afford the prospect) because that's essentially already allowed when Saudis visit the U.S. Worse, actually, because sometimes their "wives" try to escape and are forcibly repatriated.

i don't think anyone is asking for that. At least not very many. Again, this wouldn't affect me, since I apparently can't even attract 1 mrs. stevinator.

No seriously, i don't remember them being this crazy last time I was single for any length.

Eh, not really. I'm equating it to the legalization issues in Oregon and Washington, which you probably want to deny are legitimate. Federal vs. state is *NOT* a dodge. The Feds simply don't have the right to do this, and the reason I'm calling you fascist is because you're insisting that theirs MUST be the force involved.

As long as there are federal benefits, at some point the feds have to recognize it. even if it only counts in states where it's legal. I understand your point.

Yes, that would be the solution then, to make it legal. I still think it should be legal everywhere, but if the feds just said, we count anyone as married if they're legally married in their home state, then the states can figure it out from there.

The feds should also recognize civil unions, which are essentially the same.

Jesus, but you're thick sometimes. By making queers a protected class, which is what you insist be done at a Federal level, that's precisely the result. It becomes a civil rights issue when there's no way it should be; queers are behavioral "choice" rather than racial or gender characteristic, which also accounts for the fabricated claims about genetic predisposition. Consider it this way - naturally transgender individuals would be the only ones who have such a leg to stand on, so to speak, and they're not the ones causing the problem.

I get that you think it's the same, but it's not and the above would avoid what you're worried about.

Furthermore, I provided examples of this already playing out in EXACTLY THE FECKIN' MANNER I SAID IT WILL, and all you can do is whine, 'uh-uh, that won't happen'.

again separate issue. If i was a judge i'd throw the cake lawsuit out. Both the *** wedding one and the naked lady one.

[Stevinator]

The formula is this without the spaces.

[ URL = h t t p://w w w.siteyouarelinkingto.c o m ]Text you want people to see.[ / U R L ]

orange text

orange text

EDIT: thanks! I think i missed the closed bracket after the url. Old dog new tricks and whatnot.

[BobCox2]

orange text



EDIT: thanks! I think i missed the closed bracket after the url. Old dog new tricks and whatnot.

Add it to the Skillz thread.

That gold text display should help out big with the search for Mrs Stevinator.



have you considered getting all your *** friends to fix you up?

[sorry could not resist]

Spend less time on-line arguing with jmrvyn to improve your chances would be my advice.

[jmervyn]

There's no way we'd move into the grandparent's house and I don't think Grandpa would even like that. He'd never move to my parents' because that would be like admitting he needed us. I don't think he would have even considered moving if G-ma hadn't fallen. As an update from this weekend, there's no available apartments, so he's back at his place, and we're taking turns driving him to see Gma everyday.

My original point being that the law DOES and HAS changed family structure, and in remarkably short order at that. We could discuss welfare mothers if you like, but I was pointing at the destruction of the multi-generational family unit since I knew you would have a frame of reference.

Anyway, the point of the whole thing is no stupid law like *** marriage or any of that BS is going to change how I feel about my family.

It did, and has. That's why I brought it up. In the past, you would have thought it obscene, heartless and wicked to put your Gran in a home with a bunch of complete strangers rather than scheduling in-home care; now you may feel a little uncomfortable (GUILTY! ASHAMED!) when I tweak you about it but that will pass.

It just felt like a big set up. I'm not biting.

That's not what he said.

i don't think anyone is asking for that. At least not very many.

There's certainly more support than there is for queer marriage, yet the laws remain harshly punitive.

I understand your point.

Finally. My stance is to remove the Federal benefits, not create a Federal protected class. That laughably stupid claim that you lot trot out about hospital visitation rights - ReALLY? I'd love to see how many hospitals still would try to take that stance, and be willing to have the litigious snot beaten out of them in court... hopefully you can find the arseholes that do, so I know where I'd never want to be incarcerated hospitalized.

The feds should also recognize civil unions, which are essentially the same.

That's the avenue I have previously endorsed, AKA common-law marriage. However, that doesn't carry the same capacity of litigious damage that the 'marriage' argument does, which is why that's not the avenue of attack. The attack remains centered on forcing the religious rite to be treated as a civil rights problem - and that's why I argue against it (and your fascistic "Federalist" mentality) so vehemently.

I get that you think it's the same, but it's not and the above would avoid what you're worried about.

Your ignorance and gullibility doesn't make it true, I've provided support to show that you're an idiot, and you just ignore the truth of the matter. That's why I'm so abusive. Truth be told, you WON'T be able to prove your claim, not because you can't prove the negative, but because you're trying to assert that lawsuits won't be filed when they already have been.

again separate issue. If i was a judge i'd throw the cake lawsuit out. Both the *** wedding one and the naked lady one.

The preponderance of judges in the system are ACLU-style activists. Which reinforces my suspicions, as always.

I imagine you never conceived of the idea that your beloved Progressives would support warrant-less police surprise searches of your domicile "just in case" you have firearms? Under the surface of every drippy Leftist "Liberal" is a Totalitarian screaming to get out.

[Dredd]

Too personal, guys. Please tamp down on the emotions in the other political threads as well.