My dad just posted this on facebook. Not a screencap.

TheHated · 14 days

"You are diverging into a drastically different issue altogether."

That is exactly my point! That should not be a possibility. Again using the right to vote as an example. The 15th is explicit in not denying the right to vote based on race. No subsequent court case could be used for something not explicitly stated such as denying voting rights based on gender. It took an entirely different amendment to achieve that... the 19th. If instead I asked "Where in the constitution does it say that people's right to vote can't be discriminated based on race?" You would easily say the 15th. It is clear cut...explicitly expressed. You wouldn't need any court cases to back it up. You couldn't answer my original question without "cheating", citing a court case. Me bringing up the railroad case illustrates how "cheating" has been used to produce bullshit i.e. corporations as people. I disagree with you and so does supreme court justice Scalia.

TheHated · 14 days

True, but they illustrate how the constitution prohibits discrimination (albeit voting) based on race or gender. There is nothing else in the document that prohibits discrimination on sex or sexual orientation. Women do not have equal rights under the constitution. Nor do gays.

TheHated · 14 days

You have presented a very compelling argument, but I feel as if you slithered your way out of my original question. You said "That's not how the constitution works", but it is. Just read the 15th and 19th. They are quite explicit. If it worked the way you say then the 14th would be enough and the 15th and 19th would be unnecessary.

I really hate to do this but...Antonin Scalia says the Constitution does not protect women or gay Americans from discrimination.

"You know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly, the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't." A. Scalia

Your argument isn't using the 14th on its own. You are using a subsequent case and that is a slippery slope my friend. Just look at how the 14th was abused by the subsequent Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case to make corporations people. Which is utter bullshit.

Personally I think that marriage is a religious ceremony and the Govt. has no place dictating religious ceremonies. Everyone should have the right to be miserable... gay or straight.

TheHated · 14 days

I don't think that is what the father was saying. Lets take the right to vote. 15th Amendment says that this right can't be denied based on color or creed. Notice how sex is absent. It wasn't until the 19th amendment that "sex" was added and women received the right to vote. The Op's father speaks about the constitution with a broad brush. What exactly is he citing that says that certain rights can't be denied based on sex or sexual orientation? Currently women don't have equal rights under the constitution. They have been trying since 1923 and the last time anyone spoke on it Regan was president. Sure there are laws on the books to address this issue, but it is NOT in the constitution. So again what is the OP's dad talking about?

TheHated · 14 days

Where in the constitution does it say that people can't be discriminated based on sex? Or sexual orientation?

baberim · 26 days

I would suggest reading "His needs Her needs" by Willard F. Harley Jr. Usually I'm not an advocate for those self improvement books, but this really helped out my marriage. My wife and I especially appreciated a concept he developed called the "love bank." A good read indeed.

suddenlyrich · 1 month

What if he withdraws it and then closed the account? He won't be overdrawn then. Dude take the money and move to South America.

wtfwkd · 2 months

Why didn't this hit the front page?

NateyC · 3 months

So this person cheating isn't in your social circle? If not religion then where do you get this notion that cheating is something of concern? Pulled this from infidelityfacts dot com. There have also been other studies on this subject.

Percentage of men who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they've had: 57%

Percentage of women who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they've had: 54%

Looks like majorities to me. I don't know what one calls it when facts and data are ignored but it is a characteristic of religion. It matters not that you and yours are atheists/agnostic. You appear to be adopting parts of religion and adding it to your "moral code."

NateyC · 3 months

How old are you? I've been around the sun more than a few times now and it's been long enough to know that a great majority of people cheat on their spouses. It's natural and you only think otherwise because you've been brainwashed by religion to think. Sure your image of your dad has been shattered but thats not because he's cheating on your mom. It's because he's dishonest. If he were doing it right you wouldn't think his infidelity was a big deal. You should be more upset at him for pretending he's something he's isn't and not because of where he sticks his dick.

smallmember5 · 3 months

If you're really that small you should ask each girl to try anal. A vibrator on her clit and your tiny penis up her rectum.

translucent · 3 months

up vote for balls looking like an exposed human brain

translucent · 3 months

Yeah...ocean water and vagina don't mix. Years ago I was smashing this local chick on a beach in Japan. It seemed like a good/romantic idea at the time. Rather than completely disrobe I just pulled my underwear/pants down and around one leg. Her bottoms were at torso level. Me, not being a two pump chump, was there laying pipe long enough for the tide to start coming in. Every time a wave retreated towards the ocean it would try to take my clothes with it. So I had to maneuver my ankle/foot to keep them secured. Eventually the tide made it to chest level and went after her bottoms. So I reached out like Stretch Armstrong and pulled them back from the jaws of the ocean and held them tightly. Her eyes were rolling in the back of her head so she saw none of this and I, being the true cocksmith that I am, didn’t make her aware of anything because I don’t want to pause her pleasure. After each wave the clothes become heavier and harder to keep tethered to my foot. Did I mention that ocean water and vagina don’t mix? She’s wet, but not regular pussy juice wet. She’s salt water wet and it’s making it harder for me to climax. So there I was laying this chick down, my clothes hooked around my right foot; her clothes clinched firmly in my left hand, in a tug of war match with the Pacific Ocean who wants to take them away. Then...... it started pouring down rain, but this chick was loving it so I didn’t stop. I just turned it up a notch and started to beat the pussy up. Eventually I reached ejaculation and splattered her insides with my baby batter. We got up and put on our soaking wet clothes and walked back to our cabin. It was good that it rained because we had an excuse to tell everyone why we were wet. I’m sure in her mind it was one of those ultimate experiences she won’t ever forget and neither will I for that matter, but for different reasons. In the end though it was worth it!

TL;DR Had sex on the beach; Ocean tried to steal our clothes; Beat the pussy up; Made a creampie; Got rained on and walked home soaked. “Baby batter” “pussy juice” and “Stretch Armstrong” inside!

JakobVirgil · 3 months

Probably the more substantive point.

JakobVirgil · 3 months

I can't remember which debate it was, but he said he won't be releasing them. The reason he gave was primarily because he was embarrassed at how much he makes.

mugensenshi · 3 months

I second the motion!

mugensenshi · 3 months

nah I wasn't...I promise

mugensenshi · 3 months

My wife asked me the same thing and I couldn't come up with an answer. Some other link got me there. Honestly I don't remember how I got there. You know how it is on the web. You go to check your email and the next thing you know several hours have passed and you're reading about oral sex on Wikipedia.

mugensenshi · 3 months

That's the spirit.

DrMichaelHam · 4 months

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but I've never seen Russell Simmons or Steve Jobs in a suit. And anyone who judged them by their wardrobe would be judging them inappropriately. Kinda like how Boyden did Thomas Jefferson...thinking he was a dirty farmer instead of the author of the declaration of independence and then V. President. Psychology has failed here....history may be a better topic of study.

DrMichaelHam · 4 months

"And anyone who dismisses a person based on their attire, probably shouldn't be voting anyway."

Don't know if you're defending or denying my argument.

DrMichaelHam · 4 months

I'm not too sure about this one. Intellectuals know that clothes don't make the man. We've all read Hans C. Andersen's "The emperors new clothes" haven't we? Such tactics only work on silly naive people and I don't think such persons will readily adopt his views. Only 41% of the people of voting age in Nevada decided to do so. Which means there's roughly over a million "new" voters. Voters who probably elected not to vote because they don't trust a guy in a suit. Not discounting the current active voters, but they aren't making enough noise to have these congress members shaking in their boots.

filmfiend999 · 4 months

If lower income people would buy stocks instead of lottery tickets then they'd pay the same 15% capital gains tax as higher income people. I don't support Romney in any way, I think he's a total ass burger, but the media spins it like he's paying 15% on $200M every year. We hear about that $300K he got for speeches, but I doubt he paid the capital gains rate on that income. Don't hate....

mugensenshi

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login