What about Kasich?

[UncleBuck]

I am not hiding from him. It is called ignore for a reason. He does not provide any worthwhile input and it is tiring arguing with his endless chants of Racist!! I can understand why you and him would be cool though, you both have the same victim mentality.

you say racist stuff, cry about how unfair it is when i call you out on your racist bullshit, and then claim that other people are playing the victim?

maybe try looking in the mirror.

 

[6ohMax]

Unclebuck is always mad .


nothing new

 

[ThickStemz]

democrats never tried to put a constitutional ban on gay marriage, dumbass.

here is him speaking out against it in 2006 in fact.

why are you always so wrong and stupid?

Because changing the form the law took which outlawed gay marriage to one that was feasibly legal would be such a bad thing...

Democrats, we'll lie about being bigots and make our discrimination take illegal forms.

Republicans, we'll slowly come around on issues but try to make them legal with respect to the form they take...

Learned something new tonight Bucky, Obama is a HOMOFAUXBE

 

[ThickStemz]

Since being bigoted politician wasn't bad a decade ago, what exactly is the cutoff? Two decades ago? Maybe 5 or 6 decades ago? Where exactly do you draw the line?

Ya know that is a good point.

But you don't look good when you criticize someone for thinking something you thought a couple years ago. It isn't like some new evidence came out. We don't know anything more now than we did then.

Republican politicians are lagging, but most of the regular people I know in my day to day are conservatives or Republicans and most don't give a fuck about gay marriage, they're fine with it. In a few years it will be a non issue.

 

[UncleBuck]

you don't look good when you criticize someone for thinking something you thought a couple years ago

that would almost be true, except for the fact that you keep trying to ignore: democrats did not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

you even tried to say "virtually all politicians" supported it, when only 21 republicans even co-sponsored the bill.

endlessly lying, as you do, is a very loser thing to do.

but then again, you are a loser.

 

[ThickStemz]

that would almost be true, except for the fact that you keep trying to ignore: democrats did not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

you even tried to say "virtually all politicians" supported it, when only 21 republicans even co-sponsored the bill.

endlessly lying, as you do, is a very loser thing to do.

but then again, you are a loser.

No, I meant virtually all politicians (R & D) supported the ban on same sex marriage. Ive not made any comments about a constitutional amendment about that, only you have.

Go back as recently as 2010 or 2008 at the latest and even Obama had to be a HomoFAUXbe.

 

[testiclees]

Because changing the form the law took which outlawed gay marriage to one that was feasibly legal would be such a bad thing...

Democrats, we'll lie about being bigots and make our discrimination take illegal forms.

Republicans, we'll slowly come around on issues but try to make them legal with respect to the form they take...

Learned something new tonight Bucky, Obama is a HOMOFAUXBE

You haven't learned shit since failing your ged you cave dwelling critter.


Bro you are so ridiculously full of shit. Your arguments sound like another fucking isolated, angry, stoner nit wit.
You're the simpleton who praises trump because "he made it". You got all fanboy with a boner over some asshole's ability to be a successful con man. Your judgment and character = weasel

Here's another gem from your Sean Insanity stool collection"Nope... becuase we all know democrats have numerous dead people and illegal aliens voting for them. They're king of voter fraud." LOL you smell like Benghazi shit

Another turd you coughed up "So a little bit of racism from trump doesn't really bother me."

GTFOH with the juvenile, witless, nonsense.

 

[UncleBuck]

No, I meant virtually all politicians (R & D) supported the ban on same sex marriage.

you can't retroactively change your argument just because you were proven to be not only wrong, but incredibly wrong.

well, i guess you can try, but it makes you look even weaker and dumber than you already look when you do that.

 

[ThickStemz]

you can't retroactively change your argument just because you were proven to be not only wrong, but incredibly wrong.

well, i guess you can try, but it makes you look even weaker and dumber than you already look when you do that.

That was never what I said. If you misunderstood it because you ran off on an amendment tangent that isn't my fault and isn't retroactively changing it.

go back and look and what I'm saying is much more consistent with that statement "virtually all politicians supported it" was not talking about the amendment that I had not mentioned, but was instead talking about just a general ban on same sex marriage that had always been in place, and that all politicians had indeed supported until about 08/10.

You're the one retroactively trying to change an argument.

 

[bearkat42]

I am not hiding from him. It is called ignore for a reason. He does not provide any worthwhile input and it is tiring arguing with his endless chants of Racist!! I can understand why you and him would be cool though, you both have the same victim mentality.

You're ignoring people, but I'm playing the victim?

 

[UncleBuck]

That was never what I said. If you misunderstood it because you ran off on an amendment tangent that isn't my fault and isn't retroactively changing it.

tangent? that was the first comment made about kasich the bigot in this thread. it was the next one i made. you were responding directly to that comment.

if your defense of yourself is that you don't respond to facts and just live in your own made-up reality, then i guess i can believe you.

 

[ThickStemz]

neither supported a constitutional amendment.

oh, and obama was for marriage equality.

actually, being a bigot is kind of a big deal.



denying equal protection of the law to people because of their sexuality is no one's duty.

and you should be thankful for that, you worthless telemarketing loser.

What you call a big deal was something virtually every politician did a decade or less ago. Obama may have said things supporting gay marriage but it was in his first term when he officially changed his stance to pro gay marriage.

And there you can see me clearly using your language... "big deal" in refrence to being a bigot.

Bigotry had been defined as opposing equal rights for homosexuals with respect to marriage, particularly.

So you see... I'm clearly not saying that all politicians supported the ammendment.
Hyper-credulous fool.

 

[Rob Roy]

neither supported a constitutional amendment.

oh, and obama was for marriage equality.

actually, being a bigot is kind of a big deal.



denying equal protection of the law to people because of their sexuality is no one's duty.

and you should be thankful for that, you worthless telemarketing loser.

Except you use the wrong term. It's not "equal protection", it's equality of servitude and compliance with a coercion based edict.

When gay people are "allowed" to be married, that really means they now have to get government permission to marry. Nobody should have to ask anyone for "permission" to define their personal realtionships, other than the people WITHIN the relationship.

Government permission to marry is the problem in the first place, it is incongruous and oxymoronic to use the terminology as if it means "protection and equality" in a positive way.

 

[UncleBuck]

Except you use the wrong term. It's not "equal protection", it's equality of servitude and compliance with a coercion based edict.

When gay people are "allowed" to be married, that really means they now have to get government permission to marry. Nobody should have to ask anyone for "permission" to define their personal realtionships, other than the people WITHIN the relationship.

Government permission to marry is the problem in the first place, it is incongruous and oxymoronic to use the terminology as if it means "protection and equality" in a positive way.

it's not asking permission because they can't refuse you. you simply fill out the form and boom, marriage license granted.

 

[Rob Roy]

it's not asking permission because they can't refuse you. you simply fill out the form and boom, marriage license granted.

Until and UNLESS you fill out the REQUIRED form....are they married?

The question, isn't whether "the government" can refuse you (they have in the past) . The question is can people refuse them?

 

[UncleBuck]

Until and UNLESS you fill out the REQUIRED form....are they married?

The question, isn't whether "the government" can refuse you (they have in the past) . The question is can people refuse them?

in many cases, you are declared to be legally married even without filling out a form, simply by living together long enough.

maybe you should chase your persecution bunnies elsewhere.

 

[Rob Roy]

in many cases, you are declared to be legally married even without filling out a form, simply by living together long enough.

maybe you should chase your persecution bunnies elsewhere.

Nice sidestep.



Sometimes the persecution bunny gets caught, and eaten.

 

[Blunted 4 lyfe]

I'm not sure to your question...

But I got another one for you...

What do you think of a man like unclebuck here praising a man to have the courage of his convictions to LIE about his own personal opinion to go along with the crowd and be a huge bigot to a portion of America?

I mean really! He is acting like lying to the American people is a good thing, and its an even better thing because he pretended to be a bigot in his lie...

Cowardly lying half black liberals, profiles in courage,

HOMOFAUXBIC, lol

No lie was as big as the one Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld made to the Anerican people that got us into 2 wars and killed thousands put that in your bowl and smoke it!

B4L

 

[ThickStemz]

Nice sidestep.



Sometimes the persecution bunny gets caught, and eaten.

View attachment 3627573

Notice how he shut up when I defeated his argument with his own words just before he and you started on this topic?

He's a light weight. He's just really good at throwing so much shit against the wall that you simply can't clean all of it off.

 

[Rob Roy]

Notice how he shut up when I defeated his argument with his own words just before he and you started on this topic?

He's a light weight. He's just really good at throwing so much shit against the wall that you simply can't clean all of it off.

He also has some racist tendencies. He once told me I should "thank a black person" (alive today) for the work of long ago dead black people.

That came from his idea that based solely on similarity of race with dead people, people alive today should somehow be thanked for work other people did. From his racist slip up, it's easy to infer that he judges people not as individuals, rather on their race.

He does have a history of failing to clean up after himself too.