Thursday, February 11, 2016
Saturday, August 09, 2014
Someone Else Wrote This - but I think it is important to spread.
This is not to be confused with a religious ceremony recognized by your church -- e.g. a Wedding, "holy matrimony" -- which generally has no legal validity with the state.
You can be married (Justice of the Peace) without a church wedding. As long as you registered a Marriage License, the state will recognize your marriage, but your church might not. The state is free to say who can be married -- but it is not free to dictate the beliefs of your church (or anyone else's), including who is allowed to have a wedding ceremony in your church.
And you can have a wedding at your church without bothering to register the marriage with the state. (It's called a Marriage License, not a Wedding License.) Your church will recognize your marriage, but the state might not. Your church is free to say who can have a wedding in your church -- but it is not free to dictate who the state will allow to be married, or to tell other churches to recognize the marriage.
They're entirely separate things.
Monday, August 04, 2014
Ode to Fox
I pay a lot every month for their internet "Service" - and expect to get the advertised "Blazing Fast" 24/7 365 High-Speed Internet Service.
For the last 10 days I've had maybe a total of 20 min. of EXCRUCIATINGLY SLOW internet connectivity. Web pages taking 1-2 minutes to load. "Customer Service" having been outsourced to Bangaladesh or Pakistan or "Fuckyoucustomerstan", where "Suzie" and "Chris" and "Jessie" and "David" and ... yes.... "RINGO" are just Ever so happy to help... thankyouverymuch
Lie, after Lie after LIE about when they will fix it. Sat home all day Sunday waiting for their technician - who was never actually SCHEDULED - despite "Chris" and "Suzie" claiming that I'd get calls to confirm and that a tech would be by between "3 and 5 pm"
FUCK YOU, COMCAST
I'll be looking for a different internet provider shortly. Anyone got any recommendations?
Thursday, March 20, 2014
FRED PHELPS IS DEAD! DANCE IN THE STREETS! FRED PHELPS IS DEAD!!!! ONE DOWN, SEVERAL MORE TO GO!!! DANCE IN THE STREETS!!!!!
CELEBRATE!!!! FRED PHELPS IS DEAD!!!! DANCE IN THE STREETS, SCREAM "YAHOOO!!!!" OUT YOUR CAR WINDOWS!!!
THANK GOD FOR DEAD PHELPS AND ROPERS! FRED PHELPS IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PARTY ON!!!PARTY ON!!!PARTY ON!!!PARTY ON!!!PARTY ON!!!PARTY ON!!!
FRED PHELPS IS ROTTING IN HELL!!! CELEBRATE!!! HOPEFULLY HE'S BEING BUGGERED BY DEAMONS AS I TYPE!!!
FRED PHELPS IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!
GOD HATES WESTBORO BAPTISTS!!!!
THANK GOD FOR DEAD PHELPS AND ROPERS!
Got a bit excited there... LOL
Monday, October 14, 2013
The name of the game is "Bagger Baiting". The point of the game is to troll "Tea Party" baggers into mouth-frothing idiocy. While many of them start off in this state - it is seriously fun to poke and prod their fellowbaggers along to join them.
There are a few rules:
1) No cussing. Cussing requires use of the "Swear Jar" - proceeds go to me.
2) You must present totally TRUTHFUL, legitimate arguments, and be prepared to slap down a link to a neutral news site to back yourself up.
3) As soon as one of them plays the "n" word card(nazi), you must be prepared to immediately invoke Godwin's Law.
4) Under no circumstances should you ever allow yourself to be provoked to breaking Godwin's Law.
5) Remember, Free Republic, Foxnews, and other bagger sites are NOT legitimate links, and such needs to be emphasized.
6) The use of foul language, name-calling or causing the invocation of Godwin's Law automatically constitutes a "win" for you. Take a shot - or chug a beer - or just LYFWAO.
A lot of these baggers are actually corporate shills, spewing TeapubliChristofascistEvangeliban talking points for the glorious recompense of $0.05 per post. They're easy targets, as they really don't have much more than their original talking-point as ammuntion, so they will fall for the Godwin gambit - or be forced to contribute to YOUR swear jar.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Why I prefer the "dark side"
When we take it to the point where a person with dark skin is automatically considered to be a danger, a threat - evil, so to speak, isn't that just pulling the fabric a bit too taut? Similar to the restriction against boiling a calf in it's mother's milk being taken to the point of making tasty, tasty cheeseburgers a sin?
Darkness is where we heal, during sleep. Darkness is cozy. Darkness is cooler than the harsh, scalding rays of afternoon. The coolness of darkness can be mitigated by adding another layer of clothing - but you can only take off so much in the heat of the day before you become a "sex offender" in the eyes of the law.
Fetuses gestate in the darkness of the womb. Gently rocking in a warm, dark place with the comforting beat of the mother's heart... they cry when the light hits their newborn eyes.
In these hot hot hot hot hot summer days, I am always looking forward to sundown, when the temperature plummets and I can curl up with a book and relax - in the comfort of the darkness, away from the noise, and bustle and glare of the light.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Shooty Shooty Bang Bang
I do not believe that we as a country need to BAN all guns. I don't think that everyone should be forced to turn in their guns. In a perfect world there would be no need for guns. This is not a perfect world.
But I do think that we have a problem with the 2nd amendment, and I think that it needs to be ammended.
First off, the biggest problem I see is that everyone and his 3rd cousin twice removed with a clubfoot believes that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution outlines a GOD GIVEN RIGHT to own whatever firearm they desire. That anyone, and everyone, has a RIGHT to have a weapon.
However, just as we all know that an automobile, or a chainsaw, or any other sharp, pointy, heavy, or otherwise dangerous piece of equipment should be kept out of the hands of those who are incompetent to operate them safely (me!!) - but for the damned 2nd ammendment, guns fall into that category as well.
Yes. We need to educate people on the safe use/handling of firearms. In fact, I need to get some education on that myself. Not that I will EVER purchase or otherwise own a firearm, but should I encounter one that I need to move, or transport or take away from a child, I want to know the correct way to do so.
Now, I'm almost 57 years old. In 57 years I have NEVER ONCE needed a gun. Maybe I'm just unbelievably lucky - but I don't think so. I think that a lot of people who think they NEED a gun, are actually people who just WANT a gun - for whatever reason. Maybe they WANT it to shoot at targets. I'm ok with that. Maybe they are farmers/ranchers who WANT it to keep varmints from their crops/livestock. I'm ok with that. Maybe they are sportsmen who WANT to hunt and eat their kills. I'm ok with that. Maybe they WANT it because they live in a very crime-ridden neighborhood with few law enforcement officers and think they need it to protect their homes (don't get me started on stupidity like concealed-carry and stand-your-ground bullshit). I don't like it, but I'm ok with that.
I am NOT ok with those who want to own guns as penis-extenders or penis-replacements (women) - who think owning/carrying a gun makes them badass, macho, sexually attractive. I'm NOT ok with people who think they need a gun in case someone is elected to public office whom they do not like/agree with (or has the wrong-color skin), so they can "water the tree of liberty".
In my mind and opinion, both those kinds of people are just as mentally disturbed as Adam Lanza or James Holmes. I don't WANT an army of George Zimmerman clones shooting up my neighborhood because of their racial prejudices and Rambo-Wannabe-ism.
Now, the NRA and their dupes will parrot bumper-sticker-phrases like "If we criminalize guns, then only criminals will have guns" or "Maybe we should ban all cars", or "Everyone talks about doing something about guns - how about doing something about mental health instead"? Nobody has ever been able to tell me what should be done about mental health, however.
Suggesting limiting gun ownership to those who have passed a qualifiying psych exam turns ordinarily sane people into rabid, mouth-foaming Ted Nugent fans, clinging to their rifles and screaming epithets.
And to that end - I think we need to repeal the 2nd amendment. I think it needs to be REPLACED with something that acknowledges that while there ARE some reasons to own a gun - not everyone is suited for owning one. We don't allow blind people to drive cars. We don't allow people to drive who haven't been trained to do so! We should not allow mentally disturbed people to own guns - or to live in places where guns are accessible. (See Adam Lanza)
Gun ownership needs to be like a driver's license - a PRIVILEGE, not a "Right". Something a responsible gun owner, just like a responsible driver, never needs to worry about having revoked. No, this won't eliminate gun violence. It will not eliminate gun-handling stupidity. BUT... It may make some gun owner be just that TINY bit more careful. It might keep a firearm out of the hands of the next mass-murderer. It might keep some well-intentioned but not-trained person from blowing up their kid because they don't know how to handle a firearm safely.
Ok, Piston... ZW... Billy... Roger... Go ahead and slam me. This is MY opinion - and I'm sure you'll come back with at least one or more of the talking-points I've already mentioned. Just be sure to give YOUR solution, if you're going to slam mine, k?
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
Little Flaps of Skin
Virginity. At least Female virginity. Male Virginity is entirely different. But female? A tiny flap of skin - often ruptured inadvertently through exercise, horseback riding, etc. A tiny flap of skin that somehow represents a woman's "chastity" or "purity". I guess we can forget the fact that she might could have been giving blowjobs to the entire NFL lineup and all the sportscasters - as long as that tiny flap of skin is "intact", she's pure as the driven snow - men will blow themselves up for Allah to get to her...
The worth of a woman has for centuries hinged on this tiny flap of skin. Never mind if she is as stupid as a box of rocks, if she has a face like a peach-stone. It matters not - if she is a "virgin", her worth is secured. Of course, there are oodles of men out there who are more than eager to reduce that value - but when one succeeds, it is not the MALE who is blamed for the reduction in her value (as one would expect, since if one damages the goods of some shop-owner, one is expected to make-good on the reduced value) - no - it is the FEMALE who is automatically at fault.
And then there is the foreskin. A tiny flap of skin on the end of a man's most priceless treasure, that which he worships with all his heart, and all his mind, and all his soul. That which a vast majority of the population has created their "god" in the image of. A god, no less, who has decided that removing this tiny flap of skin will prove the devotion of the man who does so to the deity he has created. Not everyone agrees. There are even groups now who are trying to forbid the removal of this tiny flap of skin - calling it "mutilation".
Now, there are those who claim that removal of this little flap is done for cosmetic reasons only. There are those who claim it is religiously based (see above). There are also those who claim it is for reasons of health and hygiene. There are debates on the issue.
I've seen both kinds - cut and uncut. Honestly, I have no preference. They're all just silly little willies to me, and hardly worth the extreme adoration given said members by their owners. So much for cosmetics.
The religious thing is between the family and their deity, IMNSHO. If they really do believe that offering up a little flapoid of skin off the end of their kid's johnson is going to bring him closer to god... well... weird god, is all I can say.