If the "choice" is laissez-faire capitalism or absolute communism or dictatorship/kingdom or some-other-one-person (or no-person/group) in
charge sort of thing ... please select or propose your option.
I pick something sort of small "l" libertarian ideas.
Anything that prevents one size fits all sorts of options.
Minimal rules and powers that affect me in my home ... and then in my
"area" (close to home, neighborhood, city/two/county/state/country ... etc.
You?
Do we really need "that" much government involved in "family" stuff any
more? How much?
Do we really need government intervention in "marriage" any more?
It really is complicated ... after all, we had the KKK and everything
like that for a long time. We do have to have that taken care of. Hard
to choose how much to "tolerate" and how much to let go.
Wasn't the marriage (and children) deductions for income taxes
originally associated with husband/man working and wife/female staying
home and raising the family?
Just do away with it unless it is that way ... maybe allow two guys or
two girls to do if if one of them is a stay at home raising the
children. If the two (or three or whatever) don't have children, why
have it at all for them? Times have changed.
Complicated ... maybe each state might do it differently ... hummmmm.
No, we cannot have states doing ANYTHING differently. One or two of
them may get things "wrong". Maybe the Fed could only intervene when
someone in one of those crazy states does not want to live in that state
... wants to move out to a state that does things "right"/correctly ...
that might work ... wouldn't it?
Wow ... every person would have the option to live in whichever state
they wanted to ... no problem.
Still have those problems with man/woman/other definitions on the
national level.
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
If the "choice" is laissez-faire capitalism or absolute communism or
dictatorship/kingdom or some-other-one-person (or no-person/group) in
charge sort of thing ... please select or propose your option.
I pick something sort of small "l" libertarian ideas.
Anything that prevents one size fits all sorts of options.
Minimal rules and powers that affect me in my home ... and then in my
"area" (close to home, neighborhood, city/two/county/state/country ... etc. >>
You?
Do we really need "that" much government involved in "family" stuff any
more? How much?
Do we really need government intervention in "marriage" any more?
It really is complicated ... after all, we had the KKK and everything
like that for a long time. We do have to have that taken care of. Hard
to choose how much to "tolerate" and how much to let go.
Wasn't the marriage (and children) deductions for income taxes
originally associated with husband/man working and wife/female staying
home and raising the family?
Just do away with it unless it is that way ... maybe allow two guys or
two girls to do if if one of them is a stay at home raising the
children. If the two (or three or whatever) don't have children, why
have it at all for them? Times have changed.
Complicated ... maybe each state might do it differently ... hummmmm.
No, we cannot have states doing ANYTHING differently. One or two of
them may get things "wrong". Maybe the Fed could only intervene when
someone in one of those crazy states does not want to live in that state
... wants to move out to a state that does things "right"/correctly ...
that might work ... wouldn't it?
Wow ... every person would have the option to live in whichever state
they wanted to ... no problem.
Still have those problems with man/woman/other definitions on the
national level.
There is no reason for a same-sex marriage to not be legally recognized. That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
On 12/18/2022 12:38 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
If the "choice" is laissez-faire capitalism or absolute communism or
dictatorship/kingdom or some-other-one-person (or no-person/group) in
charge sort of thing ... please select or propose your option.
I pick something sort of small "l" libertarian ideas.
Anything that prevents one size fits all sorts of options.
Minimal rules and powers that affect me in my home ... and then in my
"area" (close to home, neighborhood, city/two/county/state/country ... etc.
You?
Do we really need "that" much government involved in "family" stuff any
more? How much?
Do we really need government intervention in "marriage" any more?
It really is complicated ... after all, we had the KKK and everything
like that for a long time. We do have to have that taken care of. Hard
to choose how much to "tolerate" and how much to let go.
Wasn't the marriage (and children) deductions for income taxes
originally associated with husband/man working and wife/female staying
home and raising the family?
Just do away with it unless it is that way ... maybe allow two guys or
two girls to do if if one of them is a stay at home raising the
children. If the two (or three or whatever) don't have children, why
have it at all for them? Times have changed.
Complicated ... maybe each state might do it differently ... hummmmm.
No, we cannot have states doing ANYTHING differently. One or two of
them may get things "wrong". Maybe the Fed could only intervene when
someone in one of those crazy states does not want to live in that state >> ... wants to move out to a state that does things "right"/correctly ...
that might work ... wouldn't it?
Wow ... every person would have the option to live in whichever state
they wanted to ... no problem.
Still have those problems with man/woman/other definitions on the
national level.
.There is no reason for a same-sex marriage to not be legally recognized. That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
Why is "marriage" a government problem? Isn't marriage religious thing?.
If the "choice" is laissez-faire capitalism or absolute communism or dictatorship/kingdom or some-other-one-person (or no-person/group) in
charge sort of thing ... please select or propose your option.
I pick something sort of small "l" libertarian ideas.
Anything that prevents one size fits all sorts of options.
Minimal rules and powers that affect me in my home ... and then in my
"area" (close to home, neighborhood, city/two/county/state/country ... etc.
You?
Do we really need "that" much government involved in "family" stuff any
more? How much?
Do we really need government intervention in "marriage" any more?
It really is complicated ... after all, we had the KKK and everything
like that for a long time. We do have to have that taken care of. Hard
to choose how much to "tolerate" and how much to let go.
Wasn't the marriage (and children) deductions for income taxes
originally associated with husband/man working and wife/female staying
home and raising the family?
Just do away with it unless it is that way ... maybe allow two guys or
two girls to do if if one of them is a stay at home raising the
children. If the two (or three or whatever) don't have children, why
have it at all for them? Times have changed.
Complicated ... maybe each state might do it differently ... hummmmm.
No, we cannot have states doing ANYTHING differently. One or two of
them may get things "wrong". Maybe the Fed could only intervene when
someone in one of those crazy states does not want to live in that state
... wants to move out to a state that does things "right"/correctly ...
that might work ... wouldn't it?
Wow ... every person would have the option to live in whichever state
they wanted to ... no problem.
Still have those problems with man/woman/other definitions on the
national level.
On 12/18/2022 12:38 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
If the "choice" is laissez-faire capitalism or absolute communism or
dictatorship/kingdom or some-other-one-person (or no-person/group) in
charge sort of thing ... please select or propose your option.
I pick something sort of small "l" libertarian ideas.
Anything that prevents one size fits all sorts of options.
Minimal rules and powers that affect me in my home ... and then in my
"area" (close to home, neighborhood, city/two/county/state/country ... etc.
You?
Do we really need "that" much government involved in "family" stuff any
more? How much?
Do we really need government intervention in "marriage" any more?
It really is complicated ... after all, we had the KKK and everything
like that for a long time. We do have to have that taken care of. Hard
to choose how much to "tolerate" and how much to let go.
Wasn't the marriage (and children) deductions for income taxes
originally associated with husband/man working and wife/female staying
home and raising the family?
Just do away with it unless it is that way ... maybe allow two guys or
two girls to do if if one of them is a stay at home raising the
children. If the two (or three or whatever) don't have children, why
have it at all for them? Times have changed.
Complicated ... maybe each state might do it differently ... hummmmm.
No, we cannot have states doing ANYTHING differently. One or two of
them may get things "wrong". Maybe the Fed could only intervene when
someone in one of those crazy states does not want to live in that state >> ... wants to move out to a state that does things "right"/correctly ...
that might work ... wouldn't it?
Wow ... every person would have the option to live in whichever state
they wanted to ... no problem.
Still have those problems with man/woman/other definitions on the
national level.
There is no reason for a same-sex marriage to not be legally recognized. That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
What was the national reason for "recognizing" marriage in the first
place?
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:53:20 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/18/2022 12:38 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
If the "choice" is laissez-faire capitalism or absolute communism or
dictatorship/kingdom or some-other-one-person (or no-person/group) in
charge sort of thing ... please select or propose your option.
I pick something sort of small "l" libertarian ideas.
Anything that prevents one size fits all sorts of options.
Minimal rules and powers that affect me in my home ... and then in my
"area" (close to home, neighborhood, city/two/county/state/country ... etc.
You?
Do we really need "that" much government involved in "family" stuff any >> more? How much?
Do we really need government intervention in "marriage" any more?
It really is complicated ... after all, we had the KKK and everything
like that for a long time. We do have to have that taken care of. Hard >> to choose how much to "tolerate" and how much to let go.
Wasn't the marriage (and children) deductions for income taxes
originally associated with husband/man working and wife/female staying >> home and raising the family?
Just do away with it unless it is that way ... maybe allow two guys or >> two girls to do if if one of them is a stay at home raising the
children. If the two (or three or whatever) don't have children, why
have it at all for them? Times have changed.
Complicated ... maybe each state might do it differently ... hummmmm.
No, we cannot have states doing ANYTHING differently. One or two of
them may get things "wrong". Maybe the Fed could only intervene when
someone in one of those crazy states does not want to live in that state >> ... wants to move out to a state that does things "right"/correctly ... >> that might work ... wouldn't it?
Wow ... every person would have the option to live in whichever state
they wanted to ... no problem.
Still have those problems with man/woman/other definitions on the
national level.
~ Why is "marriage" a government problem? Isn't marriage religious thing?There is no reason for a same-sex marriage to not be legally recognized. That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
What was the national reason for "recognizing" marriage in the firstFor inheritance and child support/responsibility reasons, mostly. I think, in the past, at least in some areas, a blood test was required to get a marriage license. To screen for STDs?
place?
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 2:54:02 AM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:53:20 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/18/2022 12:38 PM, risky biz wrote:~ Why is "marriage" a government problem? Isn't marriage religious thing? >>> What was the national reason for "recognizing" marriage in the first
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
If the "choice" is laissez-faire capitalism or absolute communism or >>>>> dictatorship/kingdom or some-other-one-person (or no-person/group) in >>>>> charge sort of thing ... please select or propose your option.
I pick something sort of small "l" libertarian ideas.
Anything that prevents one size fits all sorts of options.
Minimal rules and powers that affect me in my home ... and then in my >>>>> "area" (close to home, neighborhood, city/two/county/state/country ... etc.
You?
Do we really need "that" much government involved in "family" stuff any >>>>> more? How much?
Do we really need government intervention in "marriage" any more?
It really is complicated ... after all, we had the KKK and everything >>>>> like that for a long time. We do have to have that taken care of. Hard >>>>> to choose how much to "tolerate" and how much to let go.
Wasn't the marriage (and children) deductions for income taxes
originally associated with husband/man working and wife/female staying >>>>> home and raising the family?
Just do away with it unless it is that way ... maybe allow two guys or >>>>> two girls to do if if one of them is a stay at home raising the
children. If the two (or three or whatever) don't have children, why >>>>> have it at all for them? Times have changed.
Complicated ... maybe each state might do it differently ... hummmmm. >>>>> No, we cannot have states doing ANYTHING differently. One or two of
them may get things "wrong". Maybe the Fed could only intervene when >>>>> someone in one of those crazy states does not want to live in that state >>>>> ... wants to move out to a state that does things "right"/correctly ... >>>>> that might work ... wouldn't it?
Wow ... every person would have the option to live in whichever state >>>>> they wanted to ... no problem.
Still have those problems with man/woman/other definitions on the
national level.
There is no reason for a same-sex marriage to not be legally recognized. That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
place?For inheritance and child support/responsibility reasons, mostly. I think, in the past, at least in some areas, a blood test was required to get a marriage license. To screen for STDs?
I know it was in Texas in the 80s. But not any more
On 12/19/2022 10:18 AM, BTSinAustin wrote:
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 2:54:02 AM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:53:20 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/18/2022 12:38 PM, risky biz wrote:~ Why is "marriage" a government problem? Isn't marriage religious thing? >>> What was the national reason for "recognizing" marriage in the first
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
If the "choice" is laissez-faire capitalism or absolute communism or >>>>> dictatorship/kingdom or some-other-one-person (or no-person/group) in >>>>> charge sort of thing ... please select or propose your option.
I pick something sort of small "l" libertarian ideas.
Anything that prevents one size fits all sorts of options.
Minimal rules and powers that affect me in my home ... and then in my >>>>> "area" (close to home, neighborhood, city/two/county/state/country ... etc.
You?
Do we really need "that" much government involved in "family" stuff any >>>>> more? How much?
Do we really need government intervention in "marriage" any more?
It really is complicated ... after all, we had the KKK and everything >>>>> like that for a long time. We do have to have that taken care of. Hard >>>>> to choose how much to "tolerate" and how much to let go.
Wasn't the marriage (and children) deductions for income taxes
originally associated with husband/man working and wife/female staying >>>>> home and raising the family?
Just do away with it unless it is that way ... maybe allow two guys or >>>>> two girls to do if if one of them is a stay at home raising the
children. If the two (or three or whatever) don't have children, why >>>>> have it at all for them? Times have changed.
Complicated ... maybe each state might do it differently ... hummmmm. >>>>> No, we cannot have states doing ANYTHING differently. One or two of >>>>> them may get things "wrong". Maybe the Fed could only intervene when >>>>> someone in one of those crazy states does not want to live in that state
... wants to move out to a state that does things "right"/correctly ... >>>>> that might work ... wouldn't it?
Wow ... every person would have the option to live in whichever state >>>>> they wanted to ... no problem.
Still have those problems with man/woman/other definitions on the
national level.
There is no reason for a same-sex marriage to not be legally recognized. That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
place?For inheritance and child support/responsibility reasons, mostly. I think, in the past, at least in some areas, a blood test was required to get a marriage license. To screen for STDs?
I know it was in Texas in the 80s. But not any more
but you are correct, the "old"
laws do not work when you can redefine "words" like "male" and "female"
into whatever you want them to mean.
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 8:24:23 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/19/2022 10:18 AM, BTSinAustin wrote:
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 2:54:02 AM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:53:20 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/18/2022 12:38 PM, risky biz wrote:~ Why is "marriage" a government problem? Isn't marriage religious thing? >>>>> What was the national reason for "recognizing" marriage in the first >>>>> place?
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> If the "choice" is laissez-faire capitalism or absolute communism or >>>>>>> dictatorship/kingdom or some-other-one-person (or no-person/group) in >>>>>>> charge sort of thing ... please select or propose your option.
I pick something sort of small "l" libertarian ideas.
Anything that prevents one size fits all sorts of options.
Minimal rules and powers that affect me in my home ... and then in my >>>>>>> "area" (close to home, neighborhood, city/two/county/state/country ... etc.
You?
Do we really need "that" much government involved in "family" stuff any >>>>>>> more? How much?
Do we really need government intervention in "marriage" any more? >>>>>>>
It really is complicated ... after all, we had the KKK and everything >>>>>>> like that for a long time. We do have to have that taken care of. Hard >>>>>>> to choose how much to "tolerate" and how much to let go.
Wasn't the marriage (and children) deductions for income taxes
originally associated with husband/man working and wife/female staying >>>>>>> home and raising the family?
Just do away with it unless it is that way ... maybe allow two guys or >>>>>>> two girls to do if if one of them is a stay at home raising the
children. If the two (or three or whatever) don't have children, why >>>>>>> have it at all for them? Times have changed.
Complicated ... maybe each state might do it differently ... hummmmm. >>>>>>> No, we cannot have states doing ANYTHING differently. One or two of >>>>>>> them may get things "wrong". Maybe the Fed could only intervene when >>>>>>> someone in one of those crazy states does not want to live in that state
... wants to move out to a state that does things "right"/correctly ... >>>>>>> that might work ... wouldn't it?
Wow ... every person would have the option to live in whichever state >>>>>>> they wanted to ... no problem.
Still have those problems with man/woman/other definitions on the >>>>>>> national level.
There is no reason for a same-sex marriage to not be legally recognized. That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
For inheritance and child support/responsibility reasons, mostly. I think, in the past, at least in some areas, a blood test was required to get a marriage license. To screen for STDs?
I know it was in Texas in the 80s. But not any more
~ I was referring to "federal" stuff ...
What 'federal stuff'?
but you are correct, the "old"
laws do not work when you can redefine "words" like "male" and "female"
into whatever you want them to mean.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
Name one.
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ Name one.That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?Is "gender identification" a "right of privacy"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)?
[Or "female" or "neuter"?]
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:Is "gender identification" a "right of privacy"?
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)?
[Or "female" or "neuter"?]
All the definitions have meaning relating to the context in which they were made. Do you have an all encompassing definition of "male?"
On 12/20/2022 10:40 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:Is "gender identification" a "right of privacy"?
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)?
[Or "female" or "neuter"?]
All the definitions have meaning relating to the context in which they were made. Do you have an all encompassing definition of "male?"Dick and Jane
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 10:40 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:Dick and Jane
On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:Is "gender identification" a "right of privacy"?
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)? >>>> [Or "female" or "neuter"?]
All the definitions have meaning relating to the context in which they were made. Do you have an all encompassing definition of "male?"
Typical pickle avoidance gibberish.
On 12/20/2022 11:13 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 10:40 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:Dick and Jane
On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:Is "gender identification" a "right of privacy"?
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)? >>>> [Or "female" or "neuter"?]
All the definitions have meaning relating to the context in which they were made. Do you have an all encompassing definition of "male?"
Typical pickle avoidance gibberish.Maybe you really did not "get it". Always possible.
What is your definition of "male" in some situation that you can develop yourself.
When you finish that ... try "female" in the same situation.
I can only assume you don't have the definition that you were attempting to mock others for not having.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:42:22 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
I can only assume you don't have the definition that you were attempting to mock others for not having.
I can only assume you're a faggot. A maggot, and a faggot.
On 12/20/2022 11:48 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:42:22 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
I can only assume you don't have the definition that you were attempting to mock others for not having.
I can only assume you're a faggot. A maggot, and a faggot.In this modern world, he can indeed choose to be a faggot if he wants to.
If it quacks like a faggot and all that.
On 12/20/2022 12:11 PM, BillB wrote:
I can only assume you're a faggot. A maggot, and a faggot.And if you had a dick, you would be a man.
I can only assume you're a faggot. A maggot, and a faggot.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:48:33 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 12:11 PM, BillB wrote:
I can only assume you're a faggot. A maggot, and a faggot.And if you had a dick, you would be a man.
https://theconversation.com/can-a-woman-have-a-penis-how-to-understand-disagreements-about-gender-recognition-101991
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conversation/
On 12/20/2022 12:52 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:48:33 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 12:11 PM, BillB wrote:
I can only assume you're a faggot. A maggot, and a faggot.And if you had a dick, you would be a man.
https://theconversation.com/can-a-woman-have-a-penis-how-to-understand-disagreements-about-gender-recognition-101991
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conversation/Leave it to you to find a good example of possible bias in your choice.
[Apparently, you do not have a dick. Sorry, (), maybe we should leave
you alone ... even more than you are.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 11:04:17 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 12:52 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:48:33 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 12:11 PM, BillB wrote:
I can only assume you're a faggot. A maggot, and a faggot.And if you had a dick, you would be a man.
https://theconversation.com/can-a-woman-have-a-penis-how-to-understand-disagreements-about-gender-recognition-101991
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conversation/Leave it to you to find a good example of possible bias in your choice.
[Apparently, you do not have a dick. Sorry, (), maybe we should leaveIt seems you are the biased one. I go with the preponderance of expert opinion every time.
you alone ... even more than you are.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 12:15:20 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 11:04:17 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 12:52 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:48:33 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 12:11 PM, BillB wrote:
I can only assume you're a faggot. A maggot, and a faggot.And if you had a dick, you would be a man.
https://theconversation.com/can-a-woman-have-a-penis-how-to-understand-disagreements-about-gender-recognition-101991
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conversation/Leave it to you to find a good example of possible bias in your choice.
[Apparently, you do not have a dick. Sorry, (), maybe we should leaveIt seems you are the biased one. I go with the preponderance of expert opinion every time.
you alone ... even more than you are.
.
He goes (trolls) for whatever gets him attention...
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ Name one.That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)?
[Or "female" or "neuter"?]
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:07:36 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 11:48 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:42:22 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
I can only assume you don't have the definition that you were attempting to mock others for not having.
I can only assume you're a faggot. A maggot, and a faggot.In this modern world, he can indeed choose to be a faggot if he wants to.
If it quacks like a faggot and all that.
On 12/20/2022 10:40 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:Is "gender identification" a "right of privacy"?
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)?
[Or "female" or "neuter"?]
All the definitions have meaning relating to the context in which they were made. Do you have an all encompassing definition of "male?"
On 12/20/2022 11:13 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 10:40 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:Dick and Jane
On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:Is "gender identification" a "right of privacy"?
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)? >>>> [Or "female" or "neuter"?]
All the definitions have meaning relating to the context in which they were made. Do you have an all encompassing definition of "male?"
Typical pickle avoidance gibberish.Maybe you really did not "get it". Always possible.
yourself.
When you finish that ... try "female" in the same situation.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 12:27:32 PM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 12:15:20 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 11:04:17 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 12:52 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:48:33 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 12:11 PM, BillB wrote:
I can only assume you're a faggot. A maggot, and a faggot.And if you had a dick, you would be a man.
https://theconversation.com/can-a-woman-have-a-penis-how-to-understand-disagreements-about-gender-recognition-101991
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conversation/Leave it to you to find a good example of possible bias in your choice.
[Apparently, you do not have a dick. Sorry, (), maybe we should leave you alone ... even more than you are.It seems you are the biased one. I go with the preponderance of expert opinion every time.
.
He goes (trolls) for whatever gets him attention...
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:30:38 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 11:13 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 10:40 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:Dick and Jane
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:Is "gender identification" a "right of privacy"?
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)?
[Or "female" or "neuter"?]
All the definitions have meaning relating to the context in which they were made. Do you have an all encompassing definition of "male?"
Typical pickle avoidance gibberish.Maybe you really did not "get it". Always possible.
What is your definition of "male" in some situation that you can develop yourself.
When you finish that ... try "female" in the same situation.You gave up that easy? I can only assume you don't have the definition that you were attempting to mock others for not having.
To restrain the power of the state over the People.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:30:38 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 11:13 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 10:40 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:Dick and Jane
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:Is "gender identification" a "right of privacy"?
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)?
[Or "female" or "neuter"?]
All the definitions have meaning relating to the context in which they were made. Do you have an all encompassing definition of "male?"
Typical pickle avoidance gibberish.Maybe you really did not "get it". Always possible.
What is your definition of "male" in some situation that you can develop yourself.
Actually, he's mocking you for not accepting the established definitions.When you finish that ... try "female" in the same situation.You gave up that easy? I can only assume you don't have the definition that you were attempting to mock others for not having.
Picke's side is established: it's up to you to defend your rejection of established definitions.; Otherwise, you have nothing, just gobblygoop.
There are books known as "The Classics." They're established and listed; or "defined."
These books are mostly written by white Europeans and ancient philosophers and historians.
If AOC and "The Squad" attempt to redefine The Classics, with a list of all-black writers, can they "prove it." Can they change the established definition?
You seem to think that you can redefine terms like, "male," as easily as blithering a gobbly-quip; so this should be any easy one for you.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:55:07 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
To restrain the power of the state over the People.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 4:01:25 PM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:55:07 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ How can you restrain a power that the State does not specifically hold?To restrain the power of the state over the People.
ALL states have power over their subjects. That's why it's vital to define those powers and that's what our Constiution did. A Constitution which remains revolutionary almost 250 years after it's establishment.
On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 12:04:17 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 4:01:25 PM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:55:07 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ How can you restrain a power that the State does not specifically hold?To restrain the power of the state over the People.
ALL states have power over their subjects. That's why it's vital to define those powers and that's what our Constiution did. A Constitution which remains revolutionary almost 250 years after it's establishment.
Tell that to Russians or Chinese who get murdered for saying something their state's dictator doesn't like.
On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 6:37:28 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
Tell that to Russians or Chinese who get murdered for saying something their state's dictator doesn't like.No, you tell it to them. I'm afraid of those mutherfuckers.
On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 7:29:28 PM UTC-8, Paul Popinjay wrote:
On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 6:37:28 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
Tell that to Russians or Chinese who get murdered for saying something their state's dictator doesn't like.No, you tell it to them. I'm afraid of those mutherfuckers.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 2:34:07 PM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:30:38 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 11:13 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 10:40 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:Dick and Jane
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:Is "gender identification" a "right of privacy"?
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)?
[Or "female" or "neuter"?]
All the definitions have meaning relating to the context in which they were made. Do you have an all encompassing definition of "male?"
Typical pickle avoidance gibberish.Maybe you really did not "get it". Always possible.
What is your definition of "male" in some situation that you can develop
yourself.
Actually, he's mocking you for not accepting the established definitions.When you finish that ... try "female" in the same situation.You gave up that easy? I can only assume you don't have the definition that you were attempting to mock others for not having.
Picke's side is established: it's up to you to defend your rejection of established definitions.; Otherwise, you have nothing, just gobblygoop.
There are books known as "The Classics." They're established and listed; or "defined."
These books are mostly written by white Europeans and ancient philosophers and historians.
If AOC and "The Squad" attempt to redefine The Classics, with a list of all-black writers, can they "prove it." Can they change the established definition?
You seem to think that you can redefine terms like, "male," as easily as blithering a gobbly-quip; so this should be any easy one for you.So-called "accepted definitions" don't always withstand the scrutiny of advancing knowledge. That's one of the reasons the English language is always evolving.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:00:12 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 2:34:07 PM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:So-called "accepted definitions" don't always withstand the scrutiny of advancing knowledge. That's one of the reasons the English language is always evolving.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:30:38 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:Actually, he's mocking you for not accepting the established definitions. >>>
On 12/20/2022 11:13 AM, BillB wrote:You gave up that easy? I can only assume you don't have the definition that you were attempting to mock others for not having.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/20/2022 10:40 AM, BillB wrote:Maybe you really did not "get it". Always possible.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:Dick and Jane
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:Is "gender identification" a "right of privacy"?
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)?
[Or "female" or "neuter"?]
All the definitions have meaning relating to the context in which they were made. Do you have an all encompassing definition of "male?"
Typical pickle avoidance gibberish.
What is your definition of "male" in some situation that you can develop >>>>> yourself.
When you finish that ... try "female" in the same situation.
Picke's side is established: it's up to you to defend your rejection of established definitions.; Otherwise, you have nothing, just gobblygoop.
There are books known as "The Classics." They're established and listed; or "defined."
These books are mostly written by white Europeans and ancient philosophers and historians.
If AOC and "The Squad" attempt to redefine The Classics, with a list of all-black writers, can they "prove it." Can they change the established definition?
You seem to think that you can redefine terms like, "male," as easily as blithering a gobbly-quip; so this should be any easy one for you.
You mean like Pluto no longer being defined as a "planet."
The scientists behind that declaration have to prove it.
What scrutiny of advancing knowledge would change "the Classics" to no longer being defined as "The Classics?"
Are you going dodge this, again?
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 10:40 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:Is "gender identification" a "right of privacy"?
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)? >>>> [Or "female" or "neuter"?]
All the definitions have meaning relating to the context in which they were made. Do you have an all encompassing definition of "male?"
~ Dick and Jane
Dicks are definitely male.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:30:38 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/20/2022 11:13 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:Maybe you really did not "get it". Always possible.
On 12/20/2022 10:40 AM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 12/20/2022 10:18 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:Dick and Jane
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:Is "gender identification" a "right of privacy"?
On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>>>~ Name one.
That is a violation of several personal Constitutional rights which no several state has the right to violate.
The right to privacy, an unenumerated right enshrined by the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.
Why even have a "Bill of Rights"?
Does the word "male" have any meaning at all (scientific or otherwise)? >>>>>> [Or "female" or "neuter"?]
All the definitions have meaning relating to the context in which they were made. Do you have an all encompassing definition of "male?"
Typical pickle avoidance gibberish.
~ What is your definition of "male" in some situation that you can develop
yourself.
When you finish that ... try "female" in the same situation.
You're wandering all over the place. Gender dysphoria is a scientific fact. That doesn't mean youth sports have to be twisted beyond recognition nor that public accomodations should host organizations promoting confusion of children about it.
On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 10:15:37 PM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 7:29:28 PM UTC-8, Paul Popinjay wrote:
On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 6:37:28 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ Any thoughts on Treasure Lounge by Konami? Or is it hopeless?Tell that to Russians or Chinese who get murdered for saying something their state's dictator doesn't like.No, you tell it to them. I'm afraid of those mutherfuckers.
Do you mean Treasure Chest? 4 needed seems to be a tossup, lucky if you break even, especially on the lowest denomination and I've gotten really screwed on the higher denominations, too. But you can get a good pay sometimes starting with 4 needed and Idid have a good win recently starting with 4 needed. I can't remember how much of a win. Probably around $150 or a little higher and I think it was the $1.50 denomination. It's one of those you have to play on their terms even when the likelihood leans
I had a good win on Three Little Piggies recently, too. The blue pig is the key with at least 19 free games and the yellow bonus pig getting fat, too. But I'll go with blue and red, also, not expecting as much return. Obviously all three going to bonusat once is primo if they're nice and fat.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:46:26 |
| Calls: | 12,104 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,104 |