The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
GOP vows to ban same-sex marriage by FireballMatt2006-11-19 12:55:59
  Santorum is such a pr*ck! by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 06:48:15
    What pisses me off the most about these @$$holes by NOLAWitch 2004-07-14 07:30:16
is that they refuse to acknowledge that their bigotry is based purely in their religion and that would mean violating the First Amendment.
[ Reply ]
      Wait, wait. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 07:36:16
        Yes, those are important, but the central jist by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 07:45:53
          Not disagreeing. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 07:48:43
            True that. They certainly have no credibility by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 07:52:00
              Just goes to show, IMO... by GigiNYC2004-07-14 12:14:11
        Santorum shows his religious colours... by Dshade2004-07-14 08:47:04
      Doesn't parse for me by DesertRat662004-07-14 08:21:51
        The problem is that the only... by Ravenlock2004-07-14 08:26:32
        Yes it DOES violate the First Amendment in by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 08:33:50
          Once again by DesertRat662004-07-14 09:21:28
            I told you why. by Ravenlock2006-11-19 12:55:59
              O.K. I'll ask another question by DesertRat662004-07-14 09:49:32
                No, because THAT would be establishing a by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 09:56:29
                  ummm by DesertRat662004-07-14 10:01:22
                    Re: the victim by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:14:30
                      And that is why by DesertRat662004-07-14 10:40:30
                    The difference being... by Naruki2004-07-14 11:27:05
                No, because we have a SECULAR by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:00:51
                  What secular reasoning? by DesertRat662004-07-14 10:09:36
                    We've had this debate before. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:15:04
                      I probably wasn't by DesertRat662006-11-19 12:55:59
                        Um, the First Commandment is: "Thou shalt have by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:29:46
                          LOL. Nicely done. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:32:53
                            If he hadn't posted it at least twice, I was going by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:35:44
                          My mistake by DesertRat662004-07-14 10:37:03
                            <Dorothy>Here's your oil can!</Dorothy> (n/t) by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:39:45
                              Man, when the tin man shows up, by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:40:52
                                Since you lost your stuffing, that makes you the by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:41:45
                                I dunno... by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:44:01
                                But the point of the movie was that they by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:46:24
                                ...Hunh. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:50:03
                        Lemme clarify. Hopefully this'll work. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:31:32
                          s/it's is/it's. Can't type to save my life today. (n/t) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:33:44
                            *gives Ravenlock's stuffing back* by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:36:47
                              Whew! We'll try it with that. Thanks! ;-) (n/t) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:38:21
                          Hitting the brakes and hitting them hard by DesertRat662006-11-19 12:55:59
                            NOLAwitch please read ^^^ (n/t) by DesertRat662004-07-14 11:27:06
                            Yes, it was my assumption... by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:33:52
                              By the way, by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:39:55
                                s/what where/was where. *Sigh* :-p (n/t) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:40:16
                                What tipped me off by DesertRat662004-07-14 11:46:34
                                Group hug. ;-) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:47:43
                              In that case by DesertRat662004-07-14 11:40:14
                                I agree, and I wonder too. ;-) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:40:56
                            My take... by Naruki2004-07-14 11:40:00
                              I assumed that "legal incidents thereof" by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:43:34
                                Support for that, though I don't... by Ravenlock2006-11-19 12:55:59
                              i guess that means then by gibuu2004-07-14 13:34:22
                            Those words "legal incidents" DO enable the by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 11:43:52
                              Now that I have read the ammendment by DesertRat662004-07-14 11:51:50
                                Elections should be easy enough: dump the by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 11:57:46
                                Problem is by DesertRat662004-07-14 12:02:09
                                I second the motion. All in favor say "Aye". (n/t by talon07202004-07-14 14:02:28
                RE: Concerning another question by Canoso2004-07-14 10:04:34
                  ...Women's lib "wasn't a big issue", by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:06:52
                    RE: by Canoso2004-07-14 10:11:04
                      *LART* Matthew Shepard. by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:13:19
                        RE: Matther Shepard by Canoso2004-07-14 10:16:11
                      Their persecution is worse than you seem to think. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:18:36
                        RE: by Canoso2004-07-14 10:32:18
                          On left or right by DesertRat662004-07-14 10:47:37
                            RE: Left/right by canoso2004-07-14 11:06:34
                              You're probably not that active because... by Naruki2004-07-14 12:07:54
                                RE: active by Canoso2004-07-15 09:27:09
                          Yeah, like one of my coworkers was going on and on by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:53:00
                            RE: Coworkers by canoso2004-07-14 11:03:17
                        What's worse than the Shepard case? by Naruki2004-07-14 12:05:12
                          Doh. Um, yeah. (n/t) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:08:50
                            I'm doing well on the ideas today. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:10:59
                    *hugs the stuffing out of Ravenlock* by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:11:20
                      Thanks. Can I have the stuffing back? by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:19:36
                  Wrong. by Naruki2004-07-14 11:42:39
            Dude, several UFies of mature intelligence have by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 09:41:35
              Maybe so by DesertRat662004-07-14 09:57:59
                Replied to that as well. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:01:46
            Its not denial of the 1st Amendment that makes by crash_2006-11-19 12:55:59
              All good points. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:58:49
                I didn't say that it doesn't violate by crash_2004-07-14 11:21:45
                  Okay, yay. :-) (n/t) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:22:13
              Wow. Well done. by BloodyViking2004-07-14 11:12:56
              Very well stated (n/t) by plblark2004-07-14 11:56:26
              Well, how would you and nin_man feel... by Naruki2004-07-14 12:10:55
                What the heck would we be doing in Utah? by nin_man2004-07-14 12:17:47
                You have a good point by crash_2004-07-14 12:22:47
                  Those states are required by federal law by Naruki2004-07-14 12:29:27
                    I guess problem solved then by crash_2004-07-14 12:51:44
                      I think that's how it goes... by Naruki2004-07-14 13:03:56
                        related to my other post... by gibuu2004-07-14 13:44:42
                          Article IV by NOLAWitch2006-11-19 12:55:59
                            thanks by gibuu2004-07-14 14:09:43
                              No by Matthewdba2004-07-14 16:17:44
                            Now that is a Supreme Court case by crash_2004-07-14 19:55:08
        Um, Sorry. The proposed amendment does violate by talon07202004-07-14 09:11:52
          That someone of DesertRat66's intelligence by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 09:19:47
            I can see his point. by BloodyViking2004-07-14 10:31:01
              It does impose a religious act: marginalizing and by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:33:39
                Ding. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:35:31
                How is that religious? by BloodyViking2004-07-14 10:47:52
                  No, but you have to be religious... by Ravenlock2004-07-14 10:55:07
                    What about by Matthewdba2004-07-14 11:04:19
                      That was why I used "valid", as well. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:18:34
                        I'm not familiar with arguments for by Matthewdba2004-07-14 11:33:23
                          Wrong quote placement. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:37:51
                            Amendment 22 by Matthewdba2004-07-14 11:51:34
                              Well, I can't shoot you down, by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:57:50
                              As Ravenlock indicated... by Naruki2004-07-14 12:19:25
                      For starters, it's a lie. by Naruki2004-07-14 12:13:55
                        On your first paragraph by Matthewdba2004-07-14 12:22:05
                          Invalid arguments are ignored. by Naruki2004-07-14 12:31:02
                    Irrelevant. by BloodyViking2004-07-14 11:08:16
                      ...Interesting. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:16:59
                        No. by BloodyViking2004-07-14 11:49:15
                          Fair enough. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:53:40
                            Hey now, by BloodyViking2004-07-14 12:01:19
                              Okay by me. :-) (n/t) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:01:58
                      But that's precisely what they are arguing. by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 11:29:15
                        In fact it has been listed as a sacrament by Matthewdba2004-07-14 11:41:30
                        Clearly, they are wrong. by BloodyViking2004-07-14 11:55:18
                          See my point about circumcision. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 11:58:31
                          If you define marriage solely according to the by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 12:06:56
                            But the dispute and the amendment by BloodyViking2004-07-14 12:51:16
                              Well, now I gotta drag it out again. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:54:57
                                Wouldn't happen. by BloodyViking2004-07-14 13:14:03
                                By your logic... by Naruki2004-07-14 16:01:15
                  They are using their religion to justify their by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 10:55:50
                    But that is different by BloodyViking2004-07-14 11:04:07
                      Then use Slippery Slope argument. by Naruki2004-07-14 12:27:47
                        Is the dogma the basis for the law by BloodyViking2004-07-14 12:33:16
                          A bit off all of the above, don't you think? (n/t) by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 12:35:39
                            s/off/of (n/t) by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 12:35:50
                          What NOLA said. by Naruki2004-07-14 13:03:02
          My take on it by Matthewdba2004-07-14 11:13:50
      What gets me... by GigiNYC2004-07-14 09:21:41
        I must once again post... by Ravenlock2006-11-19 12:55:59
          That IS good by DesertRat662004-07-14 12:06:56
            I've forwarded it to my best friend by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:09:49
          Thanks, Ravenlock...! by GigiNYC2004-07-14 12:12:43
            He did not tolerate... by righty2004-07-14 12:16:09
              He did not tolerate the behavior. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:18:23
                Love is more than being tolerant by righty2004-07-14 12:21:41
                  Love is also understanding the difference between by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 12:26:42
                    Hang on - righty hasn't yet said... by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:29:39
                      The only vitriol has been directed at Santorum by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 12:33:16
                        *Shrug* I'm not saying they're not. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:36:48
                    Behaviors we are born with... by righty2004-07-14 12:41:26
                      ...Getting closer to the edge, here. (n/t) by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:42:59
                      Nice dodge of my question. I'll wager you by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 12:44:53
                        ....keep your sinning..... by righty2004-07-14 12:51:16
                          Swell, but that doesn't address whether you by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 12:57:48
                            Never mind. You're crystal clear elsewhere. (n/t) by NOLAWitch2004-07-14 13:01:30
                            Sin vs Unclean by righty2004-07-14 13:05:09
                              Everyone is free to continue in their error? by Ravenlock2004-07-14 15:13:14
                                Actually I have by Matthewdba2004-07-14 16:07:45
                                See, here's the thing. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 18:13:15
                                I see your point by Matthewdba2004-07-14 19:44:43
                                *Smile* Good. You shouldn't know how. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 20:26:24
                      If you want to clarify your position, by Ravenlock2006-11-19 12:55:59
                        Clarify my position??? by righty2004-07-14 12:56:33
                          Yup. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 13:00:46
                            Assumption... by righty2004-07-14 13:15:43
                              However... by GigiNYC2004-07-14 14:05:57
                                Thank you - that is largely how I would have... by Ravenlock2004-07-14 14:48:59
                  Hrm. Okay, fair enough. by Ravenlock2004-07-14 12:28:06
              Rebuttal... by GigiNYC2004-07-14 13:47:55
                And it's not like being a tax-collector is a sin by SaleGamine2004-07-14 23:52:27

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)