Are Republicans embarrased?

gonzojournals said:
How are all of you (supposedly adults with families and jobs) such atrocious spellers? I try to ignore as much as I can, but I find myself having trouble swallowing that Jarod isn't an illiterate middle-schooler.
Click to expand...
cuz normilly wen I tipe I can yous mi spel cheker but I don hav won hear.
 
nice to have a nanny thats for sure. This dad does morning duity weekend duity.. and still works over 40hours per week.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't know SF. I'm sure there are plenty of deadbeat dads out there that have their wages garnished for something that they do not want nor agreed to have.
Click to expand...
They agreed to have those kids. Whether they "wanted" them or not is beside the point. Playing adult lego games is certainly a sign they were willing to have kids.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't know SF. I'm sure there are plenty of deadbeat dads out there that have their wages garnished for something that they do not want nor agreed to have.
Click to expand...

That is bullshit. If the child is theirs, it is their responsibility. They had sex, most likely unprotected. That is taking an action... making a decision. If that decision results in a child, they are responsible.
 
Superfreak said:
That is bullshit. If the child is theirs, it is their responsibility. They had sex, most likely unprotected. That is taking an action... making a decision. If that decision results in a child, they are responsible.
Click to expand...


Relax folks. Just giving you a hard time.
 
Dungheap said:
Willing and wanting are two different things.
Click to expand...
Again, you said they never agreed to it. They certainly did. There is a sure sign of a social contract if there ever was one. They are paying for what they agreed to do. Again, whether they "wanted" it or not is irrelevant. If you note the originating post in this, it was "agreed to" or "wanted", both were not required.
 
They have never been garnished for not paying for something that they do not want nor agreed to have.
//

wrongo, just quit paying your taxes dude :D
 
Dungheap said:
Step back form the ledge man. CDS, you've got it bad. Hillary Clinton is running for president. How in the world is that "destroying the Democratic Party?" It seems fairly clear that a lot of Democrats support her campaign.
Click to expand...

You're way to casual about the affect the Clintons have had on the party, and will have if Hillary is elected.

Are you just not aware of it? I'm not being an alarmist at all, here. A Hillary Presidency will set the Democratic Party back a decade, perhaps 2.
 
Onceler said:
You're way to casual about the affect the Clintons have had on the party, and will have if Hillary is elected.

Are you just not aware of it? I'm not being an alarmist at all, here. A Hillary Presidency will set the Democratic Party back a decade, perhaps 2.
Click to expand...

Heck I thought them selecting Kerry already did that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top