He's not confused. He'd have go to school for another 5 years just to get to "confused".
Liberal mainlining of pedophilia continues
- Thread starter BPKY
- Start date
He's not confused. He'd have go to school for another 5 years just to get to "confused".
Lol.
Keeps posting the same redundant crap. What a revelation girls are putting off marriage, putting off having children longer.
No shite
Most definitely though.....dazed and confused but it is funny as all get out
I'll state it plainly one time for you SouthOaklyn4Life.....Nobody cares how sexual any young person is once they are married. BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. My 30 year old neighbors are on number 4. I expect you to get back to business so that Little Souf has a sibling and I have someone to pay FICA taxes!
.Now that is funny.I'll state it plainly one time for you SouthOaklyn4Life.....Nobody cares how sexual any young person is once they are married. BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. My 30 year old neighbors are on number 4. I expect you to get back to business so that Little Souf has a sibling and I have someone to pay FICA taxes!
Hey if we're lucky maybe a whole family of Soufs will be working for us and transferring their wealth...I will be voting for 10% or more...want that gravy train livin large
How many marriages prior to age 18 are there?I'll state it plainly one time for you SouthOaklyn4Life.....Nobody cares how sexual any young person is once they are married. BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. My 30 year old neighbors are on number 4. I expect you to get back to business so that Little Souf has a sibling and I have someone to pay FICA taxes!
Thanks
It was late and I wasn't going to take a lot of time with it. If someone can't see the difference between showing a film of sperm fertilizing an egg, and passing out condoms and bananas to the classroom, I really can't do much to help them.
You've done nothing to substantiate your opinion, as usual.
Your graph as a poor diversion... For the dimwits, like Paul.
I have no idea. Go find a graph. But there were a whole bunch of young folks getting married and having kids before and after WWII. It's only proper to send your man off with a bang.
So why did you claim teenage pregnancy was rising?
You made that claim. You were wrong.
I corrected you with data.
The end.
You are in full speed knucklehead mode and it is hilarious.
BPKY crushed you with the only graph relevant to his point and you are too obtuse to recognize it.
You are confused
Again
His point was married women are having less babies and unmarried 20-50 year olds are having kids are proof of increased teen pregnancy rates?
#dumb
Some of you need to state your points more explicitly, so that the point itself stops becoming a focus of the argument. Of course, for a few here, it is better to argue over the point rather than information at hand.
Yes, that's the point of his graph.
His point was that teen pregnancy rates are soaring- as I demonstrated with his quote you want to keep ignoring. The data disproved that.
Now he's shifting to increased sexual activity..which is simply NOT PROVABLE AT ALL.
which is his and your M.O.
Wrong
it was clear from his OP what he meant and he even GUMPED it down for you...
Run Forrest Run
Well, my son went to Gettysburg last weekend and when he got back he wouldn't shut up about the trip. All the things he learnied about the battlefields, how they saw so much on the course of a 10-mile hike, etc.
Amazingly, nothing of what he talked about had to be do with being buggered by adult leaders. Go figure.
Gettysburg is a wonderful learning experience. I asked NCPitt that question because it was ironic that he used Gettysburg as an example where the kids would learn about the Civil War and his opinion is that the Civil War was not necessary because the south would have ended slavery on their own.
there have been some pretty weird classroom incidents regarding, to put it charitably, fringe left-wing views on sexuality being taught to young children. but "mainlining" pedophilia? teaching 12 year olds about bondage and such is not appropriate at all, but it isn't "mainlining" pedophilia.
True, but the hyperbole was meant to illustrate that the left is in the process of mainlining pedophilia just like it has now effectively mainlined homosexuality. This is how it starts. Get 'em young"."
To liberals, disagreement with their perversions and immoralities equates to sadness.
no, paranoid delusions = sadness to me.
I don't have the energy to care what people do in their personal lives.
You clearly do.
Must be empowering to play moral police on behalf of Jebus.
Pure made-up BS.
There is no one on here more libertarian than I am. That means I couldn't care less what you or anyone else does in their private lives.
That's what I don't get. SoufOaklin4Life has a PhD. He holds down a responsible job. He's apparently writing some kind of book/study. He doesn't seem to be totally daft.
Yet he doesn't notice the difference between legislating a public policy decision and what someone chooses to do in private.
You do understand the challenge went to the courts Because a private issue BECAME Public policy issues in multiple states, right?
The states overstepped, and got slapped down.
North Carolina ratified amendment one defining marriage, which ncpitt voted in support of- the opposite of libertarianism.
Passing those bans in legislation created the path for the judiciary to rule.
Hope that clarifies for you.
I didn't vote for anything to change their private behavior...because I don't care.
But you did vote in regards to the private behavior of a man and women as recognized by the state.
You're really stretching here. I hope you realize that such a vote is certainly not a Libertarian act. It's giving the government more authority to tell people what they can or can't do. So just like Republicans who don't practice what they preach, you do the same thing as a "Libertarian".
No, I didn't. By definition, state sanctioning of marriage is a PUBLIC act.
Neither vote for or against banning gay marriage was a libertarian vote. As I keep repeating, I wasn't given a libertarian choice of taking government out the equation entirely. If I had voted "no", I still would have been doing exactly as you stated - "giving government more authority to tell people what they can...do".
Government was and is deeply involved in marriage and I exercised the only choice I was given to manage government's role.
As opposed to SCOTUS forcing THEIR point of view on LOTS of groups??? They have no right to force states to act on this bad decision. Hopefully, all 50 will ignore it and follow the wishes of their voters.
Sure they do... because they did.
I look forward to seeing what happens to the first moronic state that refuses to accept the decision.
Latest posts
-
-
Redshirt Diaries presented by Cedarbrook Golf Course - June 4th- Latest: Pub_PaulZeise
