No need to reinforce the notion that you look like the banjo playing kid in Deliverence.

You have the rat teeth, the receding baldness and the sneer you have posted in every pic here on Cbid. For a guy that wants to claim everyone is fat...you're no picture of health with that pot belly of yours.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Be careful Vikki...the ban hammer is over your head.

Use the ignore function Mr. Get Along.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Expectations Jade.... Expectations.
Anything you post is taken as a "liberal" view... So you need to be better than the others.

Ewok is .... Ewok. Later when I criticize tail for calling Nancy pelosi ugly and un-fkable he isn't going to point to ewoks post and say liberals say the same thing.... He doesn't consider ewok to be representing the liberal view point.

victor809 wrote:

SO MUCH HATE from such a small little man.

Keep on believing the lies you tell rat face.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

meh......I'm mostly here for the lol's and to continue my seduction of teedubbya.

JadeRose wrote:

I am very disappointed in the Supreme Court. I never knew Leonardo DaVinci baked cakes. To consider decorating a cake to be artistic freedom is patently absurd. At the same time refusing to serve someone at a restaurant is equally absurd. Is this artistic freedom also? Common sense dictates that if a business serves all customers.

I do not care what the law says. At one time the law said it was legal to own African Americans and they were chattel. It was the law, but it sure as hell wasn't right. Nor does the protected group concept fly with me. The constitution states all men are created equal. That pretty much says it all.

Speyside wrote:

Damn, victor rampaging today, battling all comers (except for Ewok, nobody wants to battle Ewok, he 9 fingers that sh1t better than anyone) ...

This message has been brought to you by Abilify.

bgz wrote:

Back at the ranch...

So the baker (who, to protect the innocent I'll in the future refer to as Sara Lee) who has no problem baking detailed custom-made opposite sex couple wedding cakes refuses to bake one for a gay couple. 
And the Supreme Court agrees with Sara, 7-2. 
Ok. Then the court makes a post-decision fancy statement about the importance of equal rights for gays and lesbians and blah blah blah, and rejects the claim that store owners have broad religious liberty and rights to turn away customers because of their sexual orientation.


Leave it to the S.C. to make things crystal  clear.


Clearly if they were a black opposite sex couple they'd be guaranteed their fancy cake. Now. But it sure took some doing to get there. 

 How about a mixed race opposite sex couple? Is there wiggle room for Sara there? Pastor?

 Or a Muslim couple wanting the figure of the bride on the cake to be wearing a hijab and the groom a white throbe? We good Sara?


Gets tricky. Too many very disturbing variations. What about opposite sex couples, man and beast?

http://www.mindblowing-facts.org/2013/11/10-unbelievable-people-who-married-animals/ 

I'd want to see THAT cake!


I think the one thing everyone can agree on is we can't agree on everything.
And if we as a collective can't come to an agreement, who better than the individual behind the counter to make the call. 


It's inevitable. SOMEONE'S gonna have their rights protected and someone's gonna be pissed.

Turning Huckabee away is pretty harmless and just purely symbolic compared to the treatment Waters feels the immigrants are receiving.

Even if you disagree with her, it's undeniable, missing dinner and missing mommy are well, pretty different.

HuckFinn wrote:

I call him the orange moron.
I've probably made fun of his hair.
I believe I also pointed out he was probably a lot fatter than his Dr claimed.

I admit I occasionally make fun of a politicians looks... I laughed when people pointed out mcconnel looks like a turtle.

But I specifically don't do it to female politicians because we have too many years of history of valuing women solely by their looks. Falling back on appearance when criticizing female politicians is a cheap and easy attack and shows a lack of creativity.

We don't care if a male politician is attractive (even if we mock his orangeness or vanity weave of hair)... But people like to post about how attractive their sides female talking heads are compared to the other side... Or how attractive their sides female congresspeople are compared to the other side. Which means they are still valuing female appearance for a job which does not require men to be attractive.

Society has a double standard in place. That will lead to inconsistencies. When people stop pretending a female politician's appearance is somehow relevant then I'll probably stop criticizing people for being lazy and falling back on that attack.

victor809 wrote:

So you can't make fun of a woman's looks. But you can a mans.

You do realize that you're being sexist. Don't you?

Sure, there's a double standard. We all know it.
Unlike the left, I won't deny it (Samantha Bee anyone?).
But to come out and say it's OK to make fun of someone's looks as long as they have a Y chromosome?

Gotta admit.
I can live with that.

tailgater wrote:

I guess it's OK to discriminate against Muslims...at least according to SCOTUS...so it's the law of the land...will have to read the opinion to see how narrowly constructed is that permissible discrimination...


I do see some irony in this thread...guys who've never been the victim of discrimination...debating about what's acceptable or not when acting on one's prejudices...

delta1 wrote: