Back off. Saddam Hussein is dangerous when he’s jealous.
But I can be the friend and understanding partner that Saddam can never be!
Also, I collect hummels.
Or hummers, I forget which one.
Rand Paul in an interview with CNBC today about vaccinating children says that, “the state doesn’t own your children, parents own the children.”
My. Who knew we still had child slavery in this country?
Isn’t that kinda implied racism? Like, you say some guy’s got a big cock, aren’t you suggesting that he’s black, or Texan?
Everything’s bigger in Texas, including the huge lies they tell about the size of their penises.
What did the drill sergeant say, “Only two kinds come from Texas …”
Didn’t he say, “parents own children, it’s an issue of freedom.” I thought it was a bit amusing to use child ownership to illustrate freedom.
I shouldn’t have to vaccinate my slaves if I don’t want to, because freedom!
Wait a minute, we own* them?*
Well…nothing down on approved credit only, but given the monthly costs it sounds about right.
I’m hoping they start to appreciate soon though.
I think he did, but apparently I couldn’t resolve the cognitive dissonance between owning children and being free.
You’re not gay, you just have “same sex attraction”.
A couple of weeks ago, my Facebook feed filled up with protests against this TLC special called “My Husband’s Not Gay” so I just had to watch it.
It was kind of a hoot from the opening logo on, the title graphics started with
My Husband’s Gay and then an animated “NOT” bumped it’s way into the frame
It was about a group of Mormon guys who aren’t gay because they married women - they just ogle men constantly, fantasize about hot guys and talk constantly about wanting to have sex with men but they aren’t gay because they don’t have actually sex with men - or sort of don’t ( at least one of them admitted he used to date men and there were veiled references to a sleep-over party where “things got out of control” ) but I’m sure they all repented. And they aren’t gay because they married women - my favorite line - from an unmarried SSA guy being set up on a blind date with a woman “Did you tell her I’m totally into dudes?”
I’m having trouble posting links at the momement but I’m sure it’s googleable.
No, just black. 
That would explain the Church’s doth-protest-too-much (wide) stance, according to this study abstract:
Wait a minute, we own* them?*
[/QUOTE]
Not anymore - I sold mine for scientific experimentation.
:smack: Ooh, mannnn! You missed out on the big bucks!
I can do links now - I just can’t figure out how to link when I’m using my mobile devices.
http://morningafter.gawker.com/why-you-should-watch-the-straight-married-gays-of-my-hu-1678557796
There’s a scene in which the four guys play basketball and two of them ogle a guy on the opposing team. On the sidelines, they discuss the “danger scale,” which allows them to numerically designate how triggered they are by their attraction to another man (1 is “you notice, you look,” while 4 is “you’re requiring restraint”). When Jeff places the object of his lust at 2.5, Pret tells him, “I’d go higher than that.” “That’s some danger,” Jeff responds. “That’s why basketball’s been fun,” replies Pret.
*The show is peppered with winking moments that reveal the underlying absurdity of their situation (“I don’t feel like I fit the mold of guys that are attracted to other men by other then my deep and abiding love for Broadway show tunes and my attraction to other males. Those are the things that are kind of gay about me,” says the single guy, Tom). *
Most of the objections to this show were based on the presumption that it promoted reparative therapy and the idea that sexuality could be changed. Most of that was written by people that didn’t actually watch it. What I took away from it was that you can’t change no matter how hard you try.
Between this story and the above-noted anti-vaxxer statements, it would seem that “GOP” stands for “Guardians Of Pestilence”:
Yeah, sometimes conservatives forget nuance. There are some things the government is supposed to do. What intelligent people do is decide what the standard for justifying government action is and stick to it as a principle.
Everyone should look up the concept of “strict scrutiny”. In jurisprudence it applies only to laws that infringe constitutional rights, but it’s not a bad standard to use to judge any law or regulation. Employees washing hands clearly meets that standard.
I wonder if there are any conservatives who are pro-choice, but not because they don’t think an embryo is a person, but because they think “It’s my kid, I own it. So I should be allowed to kill it!”
Here’s some Georgia stupidity: “Let’s have our school distribute Bibles to kids, even though the school district’s attorney has told us that doing so has been found unconstitutional on many occasions in other districts.” I am not sure the school board member advocating this is a Republican, but it’s definitely a Republican idea by now.