Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 11-25-2019, 12:25 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I, too, am curious what it means to move to the right on gay rights.
Hmmmmmm......


STILL no answer.

Interesting.
  #202  
Old 11-25-2019, 12:33 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,675
Oh well. I'm not surprised.
  #203  
Old 11-25-2019, 06:12 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
The "No Quid Pro Quo" rule.

Unless it's octopus, in which case it's "squid pro quo".

I just hadta.
Breathed beat ya to it.

(Arc starts here.)
  #204  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:36 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,108
Oh, the quid/squid pun is a well-worn one, but when the opportunity arises...
  #205  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:45 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by 74westy View Post
You said "octopi" in a Greek restaurant? I bet they spit in your giros.
The correct plural in Greek is octopodes.
  #206  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:46 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
The correct plural in Greek is octopodes.
What's the correct plural in English?
  #207  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:52 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What's the correct plural in English?
Octopuses.
  #208  
Old 11-26-2019, 10:02 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What's the correct plural in English?
"Gi'us more of these, chop-chop ! There's a good lad, what."

Last edited by Kobal2; 11-26-2019 at 10:04 AM.
  #209  
Old 11-26-2019, 01:41 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I hate the argument that merely using speech somehow censors speech. That's only possible if it crosses into harassment (or they have some sort of authority and could ban you), not just because someone thinks you shouldn't have said what you said or wants you to go away.
I think it crosses into that threshold with some frequency.

Bans seem to be enforced on conservatives more than it is on liberals.

Quote:
I would hope this is something we could agree about, whether we're on the right or the left.
So you don't think this is a liberal echo chamber?
  #210  
Old 11-26-2019, 02:50 PM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 15,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post

So you don't think this is a liberal echo chamber?
You imply that all liberals say the same thing, which means you don't really read or understand what they post. You want to tow the conservative line so much, you can't answer their questions about why conservatives abandon their values as they support Trump. Fiscal responsibility? Vanished into a 14 trillion dollar debt. Accountability for one's actions? Discarded in favor of attributing their fuckups to manipulation by The Deep State. Respect of the DoJ and our armed forces? Squashed because Trump ignores their counsel out of spite. Regarding Russia as the enemy since the 50's? Tossed aside because they helped Trump win. These used to be considered conservative values.

Aren't Fox News forums conservative echo chambers?
  #211  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:02 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Bans seem to be enforced on conservatives more than it is on liberals.
Bans seem to be enforced on what people do, not what people are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So you don't think this is a liberal echo chamber?
I'm seeing a wide range of opinions on a wide range of subjects. If you don't feel that a certain segment of society has an adequate voice here, might I suggest you quit yer bitchin' and talk about whatever it is you want to talk about. The SDMB is under no obligation to artificially provide a balance just to make you feel better.
  #212  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:44 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Could you explain this? What gay rights do you oppose, and why?
I don't oppose any gay rights. I have move to the right on gay rights. A lot of that has to do with where I was on gay rights before the debate.

So here is my evolution on gay rights.

During the debates surrounding don't ask don't tell, I became convinced that there was no genuine concern about esprit de corp or any of that stuff when the politicians asked the military and the military said they could execute orders regardless of sexual orientation. Then they said, "well, that's the top brass, who cares what they think. Let's ask the officers and enlisted" Then the majority of officer and enlisted said the same thing (except the enlisted marines). Then all of a sudden enlisted marines were the "tip of the spear" and their opinions were the only ones that really counted.

Then I saw the debate where a gay service member was booed by the audience at a debate for being gay. On National TV. It was shameful.

Then I saw the debate on gay marriage and at first I thought we should just change the term marriage to Civil union for everyone. After all, what did the name matter. It's just semantics. But some people were not willing to deny themselves a title that they would deny others. Maybe the term marriage was important after all. Gays should have the right t6o be married and have their union be called a marriage.

Gays wanted to be married and it seemed at the time that it was not an imposition to anyone else if gays could get married so what business was it of theirs other than because they wanted to make life less fulfilling for gays.

Then they started suing churches. I didn't think that there was a line to be drawn on gay marriage until their rights butted up against the rights of others.
  #213  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:49 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
{...} Then they started suing churches. {...}
Cite?

Oven/under that the words 'Ocean' and 'Grove' are about to be important?


CMC fnord!

Last edited by crowmanyclouds; 11-26-2019 at 03:51 PM.
  #214  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:53 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
You imply that all liberals say the same thing, which means you don't really read or understand what they post. You want to tow the conservative line so much,
It's laughable that you think I'm a conservative.

Quote:
you can't answer their questions about why conservatives abandon their values as they support Trump.
Conservatives abandon all their principles in pursuit of conservative supreme court justices and as long as they think Trump can deliver more of them, they will keep supporting him.

Quote:
Fiscal responsibility? Vanished into a 14 trillion dollar debt.
The Republican party was never really in favor of fiscal responsibility, they just didn't like what the Democrats were spending money on. Just like the Democrats don't like what the Republicans spend money on. There was a time when Republicans would cut taxes and pay for those tax cuts with spending cuts. There was a time when Democrats were derisively called tax and spend Democrats because they would raise the revenue they intended to spend on social programs.

Now Republicans don't bother paying for tax cuts if cutting spending comes at a political cost. Democrats no longer try to raise taxes to pay for their spending if it comes at a political cost.

Neither side cares about a balanced budget (sure the Republicans want a balanced budget amendment but one that requires a supermajority to increase taxes)

[quote]Accountability for one's actions? Discarded in favor of attributing their fuckups to manipulation by The Deep State
Quote:
Respect of the DoJ and our armed forces? Squashed because Trump ignores their counsel out of spite. Regarding Russia as the enemy since the 50's? Tossed aside because they helped Trump win. These used to be considered conservative values.
Politicians are generally dishonest scumbags. This one more than most.

Quote:
Aren't Fox News forums conservative echo chambers?
I don't know. I assume they are.

This site didn't used to be an echo chamber. Now it is.
  #215  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:55 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Bans seem to be enforced on what people do, not what people are.
I'm seeing a wide range of opinions on a wide range of subjects. If you don't feel that a certain segment of society has an adequate voice here, might I suggest you quit yer bitchin' and talk about whatever it is you want to talk about. The SDMB is under no obligation to artificially provide a balance just to make you feel better.
There is a bias.

I talk about everything I want to talk about but as a moderate impartial observer, I see bias.

Liberals get away with behavior that gets conservatives banned. This can't have escaped your attention. Liberals are not held to particularly high standards of behavior relative to conservatives.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 11-26-2019 at 03:56 PM.
  #216  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:56 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
There is a bias.

I talk about everything I want to talk about but as a moderate impartial observer, I see bias.

Liberals get away with behavior that gets conservatives banned. This can't have escaped your attention. Liberals are not held to particularly high standards of behavior relative to conservatives.
Show your homework.
  #217  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:08 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
Cite?

Oven/under that the words 'Ocean' and 'Grove' are about to be important?


CMC fnord!
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/m...-hold-wedding/

Gay sue churches for other reasons outside of marriage as well.
  #218  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:12 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/m...-hold-wedding/

Gay sue churches for other reasons outside of marriage as well.
...oh noes!!!

The Gay sue churches!!!
  #219  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:15 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,183
A gay couple in another country sues a church in another country over five years ago, and this turned you away from gay rights?
The next time you do a last-minute Google search to justify something, put a little more effort into it and check the date of your cite.
  #220  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:16 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/m...-hold-wedding/

Gay sue churches for other reasons outside of marriage as well.
People sue about things all the time. Sometimes warranted, sometimes not. But why are your views on human rights so malleable? Oh boy, somebody filed a lawsuit I don't approve of therefore none of you like that person should have rights now? What?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #221  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:17 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
There is a bias.

I talk about everything I want to talk about but as a moderate impartial observer, I see bias.
"moderate" "impartial"

Can you tell us any of your moderate views? I know that you love guns and hate affirmative action. That's about all I've been able to glean, and those are not moderate positions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Liberals get away with behavior that gets conservatives banned. This can't have escaped your attention. Liberals are not held to particularly high standards of behavior relative to conservatives.
Cite? I don't see this at all. This appears to be more about your perception that what actually happens here.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 11-26-2019 at 04:19 PM.
  #222  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:32 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/m...-hold-wedding/

Gay sue churches for other reasons outside of marriage as well.
I strongly support same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights. I also strongly support religious freedom, and certainly don't think any church (whether a denomination or a specific congregation) should be forced to hold weddings for gay or lesbian couples, or indeed to hold weddings for anybody. As far as I'm concerned, the Church of the Blue-Eyed Aryan Christ should be able to refuse to solemnize interracial marriages without suffering any legal consequences ("legal" consequences as opposed to social consequences and general public opprobrium).

But I do have to point out that the lawsuit linked to here involved the Church of England, which is of course still the Established Church in England. I think maybe if you're gonna be the "Established Church" of a country, then that country has a right to demand that you serve all of that country's citizens. My preferred solution, of course--and IANA Englishman--would be to dis-establish the Church of England (and any other such religious establishments) as saying that a particular religious denomination must "serve all of a country's citizens" is kind of absurd: Must the Church of England be equally open to polytheists or atheists as it is to Anglicans? But then, why should England's UK citizens who are Catholics, Christian "dissenters", Jews, Muslims, polytheists, or atheists have to put up with their country having an "Established Church" that they don't belong to and whose beliefs they may--strongly--reject?
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #223  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:39 PM
begbert2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
This site didn't used to be an echo chamber. Now it is.
For this site to be a liberal echo chamber, the liberals would all have to agree with one another in lockstep. Generally speaking we don't agree with one another in lockstep on most topics, but you're correct that we're all in general agreement about the fact that Trump being obviously evil and such, and so on those subjects we may indeed sound like an echo chamber. Particularly if a person isn't really reading for comprehension, since we actually can disagree quite vociferously on the details. So I should amend myself to say, if you're not really reading for comprehension then we can sound like an echo chamber.
  #224  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:48 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I think it crosses into that threshold with some frequency.

Bans seem to be enforced on conservatives more than it is on liberals.

So you don't think this is a liberal echo chamber?
Banning isn't the problem being discussed here, though. None of the posters being praised have been banned. They're supposedly brave for posting here despite all the liberals "shouting them down," and somehow fighting against censorship.

And while I personally don't think there is a liberal echo chamber, I'm treating that as a given in replying to you. Even if there is a liberal echo chamber, can we not agree that that speech does not in any way censor your speech? That even if everyone tells you that you are wrong or says they don't want you here, they are not censoring you?

I loathe this idea that people speaking out against you is somehow a form of censorship. It is a new conservative argument that I abhor. When they say things against liberals, it's free speech. When a liberal says things against conservatives, it is censoring conservative free speech.

It's dumb and I hate it.

Last edited by BigT; 11-26-2019 at 05:48 PM.
  #225  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:50 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Banning isn't the problem being discussed here, though. None of the posters being praised have been banned. They're supposedly brave for posting here despite all the liberals "shouting them down," and somehow fighting against censorship.

And while I personally don't think there is a liberal echo chamber, I'm treating that as a given in replying to you. Even if there is a liberal echo chamber, can we not agree that that speech does not in any way censor your speech? That even if everyone tells you that you are wrong or says they don't want you here, they are not censoring you?

I loathe this idea that people speaking out against you is somehow a form of censorship. It is a new conservative argument that I abhor. When they say things against liberals, it's free speech. When a liberal says things against conservatives, it is censoring conservative free speech.

It's dumb and I hate it.
That’s not what is being said BigT.
  #226  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:03 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
That’s not what is being said BigT.
I find your explanation of what is being said . . . lacking.

CMC fnord!
  #227  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:06 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
I find your explanation of what is being said . . . lacking.

CMC fnord!
Well, it would fall on the ears of the people who hear no evil and thus is an exercise in futility that I usually have the energy to pointlessly engage in when I’m at the computer. But not on a mobile device.

Last edited by octopus; 11-26-2019 at 06:06 PM.
  #228  
Old 11-27-2019, 06:25 AM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 15,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
It's laughable that you think I'm a conservative.



Conservatives abandon all their principles in pursuit of conservative supreme court justices and as long as they think Trump can deliver more of them, they will keep supporting him.


This site didn't used to be an echo chamber. Now it is.
So you deny being a conservative, and you agree with and support all my talking points. Guess what? You're now a member of the liberal echo chamber!
  #229  
Old 11-27-2019, 08:13 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I didn't think that there was a line to be drawn on gay marriage until their rights butted up against the rights of others.
So now you DO think there is a line to be drawn?

Still having trouble with what "moved to the right on gay rights" means.

They shouldn't get married? They shouldn't sue churches? What?
  #230  
Old 11-28-2019, 02:49 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
So now you DO think there is a line to be drawn?

Still having trouble with what "moved to the right on gay rights" means.

They shouldn't get married? They shouldn't sue churches? What?
So lets' find out WHAT rights of his they abutted or impinged or whatever.
  #231  
Old 11-28-2019, 03:19 PM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
I strongly support same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights. I also strongly support religious freedom, and certainly don't think any church (whether a denomination or a specific congregation) should be forced to hold weddings for gay or lesbian couples, or indeed to hold weddings for anybody. As far as I'm concerned, the Church of the Blue-Eyed Aryan Christ should be able to refuse to solemnize interracial marriages without suffering any legal consequences ("legal" consequences as opposed to social consequences and general public opprobrium).

But I do have to point out that the lawsuit linked to here involved the Church of England, which is of course still the Established Church in England. I think maybe if you're gonna be the "Established Church" of a country, then that country has a right to demand that you serve all of that country's citizens. My preferred solution, of course--and IANA Englishman--would be to dis-establish the Church of England (and any other such religious establishments) as saying that a particular religious denomination must "serve all of a country's citizens" is kind of absurd: Must the Church of England be equally open to polytheists or atheists as it is to Anglicans? But then, why should England's UK citizens who are Catholics, Christian "dissenters", Jews, Muslims, polytheists, or atheists have to put up with their country having an "Established Church" that they don't belong to and whose beliefs they may--strongly--reject?
I suppose that makes you an advocate of disestablishmentarianism (BOY, that’s probably the longest word there is!) ()

On a more serious note, one might question whether people in GB/UK are more correctly labeled as “citizens” or as “subjects”.
  #232  
Old 11-28-2019, 03:23 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
(BOY, that’s probably the longest word there is!)
Only if you aren't an anti-antidisestablishmentarianist.

Last edited by Kobal2; 11-28-2019 at 03:25 PM.
  #233  
Old 11-28-2019, 03:26 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,215
Jesus loves atheists. Fond of agnostics, but really, what more could you expect?
  #234  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:42 AM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Jesus loves atheists. Fond of agnostics, but really, what more could you expect?
Well he SURE didn't think much of the "organized religion" guys, the self proclaimed "holy" men, the "do as I say" guys, the Pharisees, the "enforcers of rules for everybody else".
But I'm STILL waiting to see Damuri Ajashi etc say somethng...

What rights does he think LBGTQ should be ALLOWED to have, and how ANYthing they do or want to do affects HIS rights or freedoms in ANY way.

Still waiting.

Just what is the meaning of "moved to the right"??

Last edited by SteveG1; 11-29-2019 at 10:43 AM.
  #235  
Old 11-29-2019, 11:48 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
I suppose that makes you an advocate of disestablishmentarianism (BOY, that’s probably the longest word there is!) ()

On a more serious note, one might question whether people in GB/UK are more correctly labeled as “citizens” or as “subjects”.
One might question it only if one does not bother to look it up. As of 1949, British citizens are British citizens. British subjects constitute a different category of people who are not citizens. In fact, there are several categories of British nationality: British citizens, British Overseas Territories citizens, British Overseas citizens, British Nationals (Overseas), British subjects, and British protected persons.
  #236  
Old 11-29-2019, 01:24 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
One might question it only if one does not bother to look it up. As of 1949, British citizens are British citizens. British subjects constitute a different category of people who are not citizens. In fact, there are several categories of British nationality: British citizens, British Overseas Territories citizens, British Overseas citizens, British Nationals (Overseas), British subjects, and British protected persons.
The U.S. got a small piece of that action - there are U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals, the latter being people born on American Samoa and Swains Island or have a parent who is. These are U.S. possessions but "nationals" cannot vote in U.S. elections or hold office.
  #237  
Old 12-01-2019, 10:22 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/m...-hold-wedding/

Gay sue churches for other reasons outside of marriage as well.
The delivery service should have stamped "DUMB SHIT ENCLOSED" on the box you came in.
  #238  
Old 12-01-2019, 01:09 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,703
The Libertarian Republic? The fucking Libertarian Republic?

Ummmm, OK. So it's a right wing propaganda rag.

I prefer to get my "facts" from The Onion or the Babylon Bee or the Weekly World News.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017