|
Register | Forum Rules | Members List | Today's Posts | Search | Bookmark & Share |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
almost everything
|
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Sorry, I almost forgot :
- The 90s (of course).
__________________
I want to hide in an opium sunrise... |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
the time between the alarm clock going off and my getting into work, its never that bad once you get started.
hangovers working all week and still being skint out at the end of it people who only like one genre of music people who'v never done a days work but still moan about "imigrants taking all our jobs" morisey, and the smith's by proxy saturday night prime time TV ie xfactor, pop stars, strictly come dancing, dancing on ice, maria, etc bad films being made from good computer games, and bad computer games being made from good filims glasgow rangers orange men |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
So what colour of men do you like. Or do you mean you don't like orangemen?
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
these are the orange men of which i speak. anyone else who likes spending their spare time getting dressed up like this and marching i hold in equal contempt
Last edited by rhythmic delivery; 10-20-2008 at 06:25 PM. |
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
So what are your feelings about the Knights of Columbus? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
forgive my spelling mistake, i've always been shit at spelling and gramer. the nights of columbus, i've heard off them but i actualy don't know anything about them.
|
#58
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The Knights of Columbus are Catholic and they too like to dress up although I can't say whether or not they go marching around in the same manner as the Orangemen. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
well i dont know anything about them so i wont say i hate them but judging by what litle i do know, ie waht you just told me. their probabbly knob heads to. but aswell as the orange order their's a group called the ancient order of hibernians who are just like the orange order but catholic i think they are dickheads to, they aren't very popular at all. although in their favour i will say this, at least they don't insist trying to marching through areas where no one wants them, so i hate them slightly less than i do the orange order.
Last edited by rhythmic delivery; 10-20-2008 at 07:05 PM. |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, I could never understand why the Orangemen were so provocative in their marches in Ulster. There was absolutely no need to go marching through the Catholic areas.
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
its beacause for years catholics where second class citizens, and the march's where basicaly a way expressing this. and alot of the orangemen now still concider catholics second class citizens. so when they say they just want to follow their traditonal route, really what they mean is, Fuck you, we'll march where we want. you have no right to try and stop us.
|
#62
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
I want to hide in an opium sunrise... |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
The ladyboy69 forums
__________________
- I hate being braver than the guys I date. - Yes, it's me in the avatar Blog: http://laughriotgirl.wordpress.com/ |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
_██_ (ಠ_ృ) I say they seem to be letting all SORTS of riff raff into the internet these days! |
#65
|
||||
|
||||
Okay, like BlueRaven88 above, I'll bite.
What exactly do you hate about the Labyboy69 forums? |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
I think it's telling that trans*women don't post there except to advertise... that should give a clue as to the atmosphere. The general tone of the conversations are examples of everything I write about on my blog about shitty men.
For example, they call the walk from a Thai LB bar to their hotel "the walk of shame" and advise each other to have the girl walk ahead of them/behind them (must make her feel swell). They talk about finding non-bar LBs and then treating them with the same level of respect they show for the P4P gals (none) and wonder why LBs act "crazy" when they see them later. They call their LBs dudes, blokes, etc.. and still go to the greatest lengths to maintain their heterosexuality. They diss gals for having ANY "mannish" feature, are hyper critical of the gals in the scene and are just plain wanks. I have no doubt that guys from here frequent there, but any group that would give our Hank crap for calling them out on the ill-informed crap they believe to be LB gospel can't be at all good. *shrug* I honestly have nothing positive to say about it. Makes me appreciate this place more.. seriously.
__________________
- I hate being braver than the guys I date. - Yes, it's me in the avatar Blog: http://laughriotgirl.wordpress.com/ |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Bionca,
well said and seems to be so true. Thanks for saying it. You are a beautiful person, inside and out. |
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
for both you and Bionca. |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
I hate hatemongers, narrow-minded people, those who need to label anyone they come across. Hypocrits, people who want to impose their standards or ideas on others. I hate dishonest or mean people.
__________________
RIP Anna Alexandre, 1980 - 2007
|
#70
|
||||
|
||||
- Sequels.
__________________
I want to hide in an opium sunrise... |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
going to the bank link and finding out i have no money in my account.
that feeling you get after a heavy night out when you can't remember getting home, and you think "oh shit what did i do" five o clcok on a friday when know you have to work the saturday when my work boots are still a bit wet when i put them on in the morning simon cowell |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
LB-69 is primarily a forum connected with a porn-site, and the topic is overwhelmingly all about prostitution. And for some, I guess, that's as far as they will ever get in their attraction to trans-women. Peace be upon them - they'll never learn or realize the deeper aspects anyways... they have to rush back to their little cisgendered wives once the "fun" is over... But a forum is, inevitably, what the content-creators make it to be. Here we seem to be having two completely separate discussions going on. One like on LB-69 (though the users here appear to be less "experienced" than the ol'-timer Thailand-tourists at LB-69). Another with a much more (to me, at least) interesting and luckily ongoing debate about being both trans-woman and trans-lover. We have even managed to have a non-trans debate going on in another thread, and I can honestly say that I have never really found a forum where the tone is so relaxed and nice even though we may disagree on certain points. So I too like this forum a lot.
__________________
- I cherish the fact that the girls I date are braver than I Last edited by hankhavelock; 10-26-2008 at 07:15 AM. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Chocolate News" with David Alan Grier. Very black nationalist oriented show. One segment of the show he seemed to be berating "white America" for not voting for Obama, speaking to the portions of "white America" didn't want to vote him because he's black. He failed to point any fingers in the other direction, though.
Voting FOR Obama only because he is black, (which he seemed to imply) is just as ignorant or racist as voting AGAINST him for being black (which he berated people for). It should have been about the issues, with race being a non factor. I think racial nationalism in general is retarded, but could you imagine a white nationalist version of this? There would be riots. I don't mind jokes about "white" people. I can laugh at myself with no problem. I mind when there is bitching and moaning when it's reversed even a quarter in the other direction. I don't think black nationalism is any more "progressive" than white nationalism. Difference is you'll find fewer "progressive" white people who follow white nationalist politics. Both groups often support separatism and extreme views, whether it's calling non white races "mud races" and thinking they are superior or whether it's exaggerating "white privilege" and blaming everything on white people. While there are still racial issues to be fought, the fact that we have a black president should be an indicator of how far we have come. A lot of what is complained about now is class, NOT race issues, as there are more successful black people now than ever in the nation and there are many brokeass white folk. Last edited by ziggybabie; 11-06-2008 at 06:08 PM. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
I hate :
Narrow minded people Fakes Religious extremists (of whatever conviction) Racists People who think they have a monopoly on the truth My untrustworthy bladder control |
#75
|
||||
|
||||
I hate that Proposition 8 passed. It's a sad day when hate and intolerance win over equality.
|
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Ironically, Obama winning the election is what CAUSED Prop 8 to pass. For those unaware of what Proposition 8 even is, just a quick explanation. On election day, here in California we got to vote on whether same-sex marriages should be allowed OR whether the State Constitution should be amended to legally ban them. Prop 8 was created by those who favor a "traditional family" viewpoint. So if you voted "Yes" on Prop 8, it meant you were in favor of marriage being ONLY between a man and a woman. And if you voted "No", then you were in favor of same-sex marriages being allowed. And, in an election shocker given how Liberal California is thought to be (given that California has such a major pro-gay city like San Francisco or there is Hollywood, which is also very influential and pro-gay), Prop 8 ended up passing. Californians gave the thumbs DOWN to same-sex marriage and voted to make them illegal now. So, what does this have to do with Obama? Well, therein lies the irony... Obama's campaign brought out a total flood of minorities to vote for him. Something like 94% of the Black community voted for him, and he won the Latino/Hispanic vote too. HOWEVER when those same minorities got to the voting booth, they overwhelmingly voted FOR Proposition 8. In fact, Blacks voted by a whopping margin of 75% or so against same-sex marriage. So, ironically the very same minorities who flooded out in massive numbers to vote for Obama...who felt his election would be a sign of greater tolerance in America...turned right around and gave the finger to the Gay community, who felt those same minority groups would actually be their biggest supporters. And sure enough it was the vote of the minority groups that tipped the balance on Prop 8. In other words, if they hadn't shown up in such numbers to vote for Obama, then ironically Prop 8 would not have passed and same-sex marriage would have remained legal in California. Next up: some really messy court battles! |
#77
|
||||
|
||||
According to the news reports that I have heard and read the legality of the marriages of a lot of gays are now in question. Would this be the messy court battles that you are alluding to?
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
CreativeMind, you read my mind, lol.
I was just going to comment and write the EXACT same thing you had written. I didn't ever believe Obama was going to be this sort of messiah for the GLBT. He masqueraded around as progressive and liberal, but his following is mostly socially moderate. Although, we didn't really have any other options, did we? |
#79
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The court cases that is being talked about is that civil rights groups are filing lawsuits to overturn the proposition with the argument that amending the constitution this way goes against the equal protection clause of the constitution. Which these groups are claiming is more than an amendment but a total revision of the interpretation of the constitution. I live in a really conservative part of Orange County California and it was just absolutely depressing to see the hysteria over Yes on 8 over here. There were frequent rallies at major intersections with almost all Yes on 8 and there was an endless supply of there stupid yellow and blue signs, some making arrogant claims such as "Yes on 8 = Free Speech." Everyday reminding me that people out there are ready to hate you for any difference you might have. |
#80
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Well, Ila, that's part of what I was referring to, and then ocinteeni posted a great answer which is correct. The courts are expected to rule that anyone who got married before Prop 8 passed should still have their marriages honored since the rule in law is that you can't legally grant a "right" to someone and then turn right around and take it away from them. But basically, here's where things stand... Some of the people who backed Prop 8 -- the more moderate faction -- are willing to say: "Okay, we won and it's law now. But to be fair over a very emotional issue, we're willing to let the marriages that already took place stand. We just want it understood that from now on there will be no more marriages. So, those of you who got it done, congrats. The rest of you, forget it." Meanwhile, others that backed Prop 8 -- the real hard liners -- are arguing that the whole POINT of Prop 8 is that the California Supreme Court was wrong from the very beginning. That the Court over-reached when it legislated from the bench and it ruled that same-sex marriages should now be legal. So, these hard liners have an even more aggressive view: IF Prop 8 is now the law...and IF it's now the will of the people by vote...and IF the court was wrong to begin with...then why shouldn't all of the marriages be revoked? Why should the state recognize any of them since those wedding licenses were issued on debatable legal ground to begin with? And finally, there's the Gay community itself which is out staging large and emotional protests. Right now, they've targeted Mormon Temples as rallying points and are protesting outside them (since the Mormon Church was one of the biggest financial supporters of Prop 8). But now the more vocal activists want to expand those protests and target Catholic and Protestant churches too. They also want to target businesses and even the homes of private citizens who made donations. Their opinion is IF you backed Prop 8, then you deserve to be exposed or publicly humiliated and you deserve to have protesters outside your home or business -- all of which could turn this even angrier and uglier. And last but not least, some -- such as Melissa Etheridge, who made the news just yesterday over this -- are out advocating that the Gay community should refuse to pay any taxes. After all, why give the government any of your money if it's going to treat you like a second class citizen? And since the economy is on such shaky grounds and since California in particular is SO broke that its actually bankrupt, they want to make their point where it will hurt the most -- in State's pocketbook. Although frankly, that's a no-win stance since Higher Courts already have a long, long, LONG track record of setting down legal rulings that as an American citizen you have every right to protest, but you still HAVE to pay your taxes no matter what. |
#81
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And yes, this is the OTHER part of what I meant by "messy court battles." Those who supported same-sex marriage...who are FURIOUS that Prop 8 passed...now view this as an outright battle to the death. They see this as the true Civil Rights battle of the 21st century. So, regardless of state court rulings or popular votes or whatever, they want to find some way...any way...to get this heard before the Supreme Court (in Washington). Their view: this all boils down to basic human rights. It all comes down to the right for every person to have a wedding ceremony and marry the person you love, regardless of your sexual orientation. Except that's where it gets even more tangle now. And sorry about babbling on here, but since this is a global forum, this explanation is for those who live outside the United States... Basically, the Gay community is still screwed because most people think America is a democracy. But it's not. And even most Americans believe that you can take any case all the way up to the Supreme Court to have your day in court, to get your case heard. But you can't. The truth is America is NOT a democracy. Legally, the United States is a REPUBLIC. And what that means is each and every state...all 50 of them...actually have legal rights to self-determination that supersedes Federal law out of Washington, DC. And in this case, the Supreme Court (in Washington) actually does NOT have the authority to override the will and the vote of the California people for passing Prop 8. The Supreme Court can NOT overrule Californians for choosing to amend their own State Constitution. As for what ocinteeni described about her own area (Orange County) that's the other weird thing that's going on in California now. It's amazing to see all these different pocket areas where people have suddenly popped up and said: "Sorry, I can't go along with this. I think I'm a nice person. I don't think I'm a bigot. But I just can't accept same-sex marriage. I don't see it as a civil rights issue. Marriage as a RELIGIOUS concept and government has no right to legislate religion." And that's where support for same-sex marriage (even in a state as Liberal as California) starts to crumble. As I noted before, the thing that shocked the Gay community on Election Day was that 70-75% of the African-American community...as well as a majority of the Latino/Hispanic community...both of whom turned out in HUGE numbers to support Obama...turned right around and voted FOR Prop 8. And in all the exit polls, that's just what they said: this wasn't a civil rights issue, it was a religious one. So, in a weird plot twist that no one saw coming, the ONE group that the Gay community thought it could count on the most (namey African-Americans given what they went through historically to achieve equality) is now one of their BIGGEST road blocks. Overwhelmingly Black and Hispanic voters, which are also the two largest growing voting blocks in California, said "no" to same-sex marriage based on their more traditional religious beliefs. So, now things are getting even MORE heated here, as I said before, as the Gay community starts to target churches for their protest rallies. And that's because the Election Day polls revealed another interesting thing: basically, people believe that even IF same-sex marriage was allowed, a church should still have the right to turn down a same-sex couple's request to be married there. In other words, people overwhelmingly feel that a church's congregation should still get the final say on "what" happens at their own church. They should still get to say: "Fine, you can get married. But WE get to decide whether or not you do it in OUR church." And that's a whole other wacky thing that's going on. I actually have neighbors and friends that are gay who -- yes, believe it or not -- voted for Prop 8. Why? Because aside from being Gay, they're also deeply religious and that was ultimately their final view, too. Namely, they felt that Gay activists should NOT be able to dictate to their churches what ceremonies should be held on their church's property. In the end, they voted to protect their churches and voted against their fellow gays. So now, the whole thing is just one giant mess. Everyone is arguing from a different perspective and Prop 8 which was designed to simplify things ("Marriage is a man and a woman. Boom! We're done! Next topic!") has only created all sorts of new emotional rifts and even pitted people who thought they would be allies against each another. So, like I said before, this is going to become a giant series of court battles now, with lots of yelling and screaming, I'm sure... |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Orgasm headaches. What the fuck is that for?
|
#83
|
||||
|
||||
Hating those things are somewhat contradictory. I would argue some one who makes a comment like "i hate my country being over run by arabs indians and muslims" is stupid and you claim to hate stupid people, so it seems like you hate yourself. Don't let yourself be miserable over hatred towards some racial or religious group, you're better than that, every person on this earth is better than that.
|
#84
|
||||
|
||||
to Creative Mind, first just want to clear things up because you referred to me as a her, I'm a guy. Secondly, I would argue that a Federal supreme court law would override state legislation, if I remember correctly there were federal level supreme court rulings that overturned state legislation in regards to the black civil rights movements when blacks had the right to vote essentially taken away from them again after the 13th amendment was passed. Also in the time period of Jim Crow Laws where the idea was "seperate but equal," I beleive supreme court rulings ultimately changed the legality of those particular state legislations.
|
#85
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And my big apologies for the mistaken reference! I was typing fast and didn't even catch that, so sorry again.... As for this question that you're bringing up -- namely, who technically outranks who and whose legal judgment supersedes who -- you're basically right BECAUSE of the example you're citing. In short, the Supreme Court (in Washington) can't step in and overrule the California State Supreme Court or the toss out the will of the California voters IF this is perceived as state ballot measure. IF this is seen as an issue that the people of the state should have every right to self-determine for themselves. On the other hand, the Supreme Court could step in IF the case was truly framed...and IF the Supreme Court agreed to hear it...AS an actual civil rights issue. Much like you said, THAT is something you could take all the way to the top IF the Supreme Court bought into the argument that same-sex marriage is somehow, in some way, analogous to something like the Black civil rights movement. But that's the big question here. As I pointed out in my post, those in the gay community certainly feel that way. And yet the reason that Prop 8 won in California...and similar amendments won in other states on Election Day by even WIDER margins of support...is because many people don't feel this is a civil rights issue. Polls show that a majority of Americans feel that so long as same-sex couples have civil unions readily available to them, they have no right to bitch. Simply because a civil union will ultiimately safeguard and protect their legal rights. In other words, as you often hear this phrased, same-sex couples can be together...they can get married...they just can't use the WORD "married" in describing themselves. Which to many makes the whole debate seem rather silly at times -- well, that is until people from either side start whipping out their long list of reasons why that one simple word, marriage, carries SO much weight and importance. To those in the gay community, "marriage" signifies a more clearly defined legal status and ensures them full-on rights. And it gives them a greater emotional satisfaction because now they feel as though their relationship is a validated part of society. On the other hand, those against same-sex marriage argue that civil unions DO give same-sex couples the same legal rights as a married couple, so what are we fighting about? Stop bitching about the word "marriage" and move on. They argue that even as a word "marriage" is based on religion, so that takes it out of the legal arena. Or taking this a step further, they argue it's not right for the Vatican and the Catholic Church to say "Same-sex marriage is wrong. We don't allow this in our church. This goes against the very principles that makes us Catholics" only to have the U.S. government step in and say "Well, we've decided that we're going to now TELL YOU how you have to run your churches and THIS is what you'll have to believe in from now on." So like I said, it ALL comes down to the million dollar question: Do you think same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue...or do you think it's splitting hairs over a word, that the same legal rights are already available in a civil union, at which point this really is a religious debate or a sexual orientation debate which the government has no business sticking its nose into? And that's why each side is now desperately fighting to "frame" the entire argument in a certain way. Because whoever wins THAT fight will ultimately determine WHICH court (State vs. Federal) gets to hear these issues and rule on them... |
#86
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by ila; 11-09-2008 at 02:15 PM. |
#87
|
||||
|
||||
I personally beleive it will be shown that civil unions are not equal to marriage. And I beleive it is more than just the gay community wanting to be accepted. I can't say this with certainty but I beleive civil unions can not cross state lines, meaning if a gay couple were to get a civil union in california if they go to another state which doesn't have civil unions they would not be guaranteed the same rights. The only way to get the full rights everywhere is to be married which I believe is protected on a federal level.
I also heard those same arguments of "well they can have civil unions so it's the same thing but they just cant use the word marriage." But the thing is the government decided to give people these rights using that particular word, "marriage." So the gay community unfortunately has to use that vocabulary in legislation to gain full rights in this country, which is what is making the conservative religious right so angry. If the government decided to call it "salty balls" I'm sure the gay community would be going about getting their rights through that vocabulary, so I truly beleive it isn't just a matter of wanting the recognition of society and being accepted. That should come secondary, they simply just don't want to be second class citizens with second class rights. |
#88
|
||||
|
||||
Back to the theme of this thread.
I hate winter. More specifically I hate snow. I hate shovelling it, driving in it, watching it fall, walking in it. I hate blowing snow and blizzards. I hate anything to do with snow. I also hate freezing rain and ice on the roads. Strangely enough I don't mind the cold. It can be -40 degrees and it doesn't bother me. Now if we could only have winter without the snow I'd be happy. |
#89
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Actually, you have the right idea -- but reversed. Generally speaking, a "marriage" is viewed as a religious bonding, but a "marriage" does NOT necessarily have to be respected or honored by a state. For example (as we saw in the news a while back), you could have a group of people who are part of a wacky religious compound cult...they feel they are a "legitimate" religion since in America they have every right to practice whatever they want (hey, you can worship a tiki doll on your shelf and it's technically your own religion)... ...And yet that same cult could say they believe 50-year old guys should marry 16-year old girls to have kids and keep the cult clan going. So, in an instance like that, the cult can go ahead and perform their own "religious" ceremony in their own "church" -- and thus in their eyes they see it as a valid "marriage." However, the BIG question is: did the state recognize that church as a valid religious entity to begin with? Also, laws vary from state to state regarding the age of consent and that too could negate the marriage. Not to mention, once you crossed state lines with your underage teenage cult bride, not only would the marriage NOT be recognized, but given the age of the girl the police might arrest you. On the other hand...a civil union, as defined by law, is performed by a state-recognized and state-sanctioned appointee. Thus, in the eyes of the government, it is fully legal, binding, and transferable across state lines. Basically, as someone noted on a legal web site: States are free to pass whatever laws they want to enforce upon their own state as long as it is Constitutional and not in violation of pre-existing Federal law. However, it has always been the law that IF a state has no law regarding a particular activity (for example gay marriage) then it will legally recognize the legitimacy of the other state's law. Long story short, Article V1 of the United States Constitution -- which is commonly known as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" -- addresses the fact that states within the United States have to respect "the public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. In other words, a civil union -- since it was performed by an appointed state or municipal official -- would actually be more legally recognized across state lines than a marriage. In fact, here's another example of how wacky and tangled this gets. In Rhode Island, the State Supreme Court ruled that the state's family court had an all-new problem. They lacked the authority to grant a divorce for same-sex couples. Why? Because Rhode Island doesn't recognize same-sex marriages to begin with. As a result, that left a same-sex couple seeking a divorce without any options UNLESS unless they actually packed their bags and moved back to neighboring Massachusetts where they got married to begin with. To be honest, perhaps it seems as if I misspoke before, so let me clarify something. The Gay community wants to use the word "marriage" not just for social acceptance, but also for some very real legal reasons. That's because much like Rhode Island realized it had a funky loophole on its hands and suddenly found themselves saying: "Huh, what do you know? We never thought about that!" you have the same thing happening with all sorts of other issues, across the board and state to state. For example, in one of the most commonly cited things, you could be a same-sex couple that is united in a civil union, but then you get a new job and suddenly discover that your health insurance has forms that specifically use the word "marriage" -- which means that now you're in a legal bind where the heath provider won't give your significant other coverage because they don't technically view them as a legal "spouse." It's things like that...the way that we define certain terms on the ledgers...that has made this such a contentious issue. Also, there's a whole other tangent we haven't even gotten into, where the Gay community wants same-sex marriage defined as a civil rights issue because then by law they could force any church where they dreamed of exchanging their vows into letting them use that property, otherwise they could sue for a violation of civil rights. So, there's that as well. That goes back to something I mentioned in my other post, where a section of the Gay community voted FOR Prop 8 because they felt they were actually protecting the rights of their own local parishes. And again, as a term, "marriage" can be a wacky thing. For example, in Texas if you live with someone and (1) literally just SAY that you're married (I mean simply turn to one another and say "Yep, we're married!") and then (2) go out amongst your friends and simply SAY "Yep! She's my husband/wife!" and then finally (3) file a joint tax return, then congratulations -- without ever going through a church ceremony OR going to town hall for a civil union, you're now married. You can now claim to be "common law spouses" and ask the state to mail you a marriage certificate. So, the whole thing is a legal web all it's own, and I didn't mean to make light of what the Gay community is fighting for in my other post, ocinteeni. To that end you're right and I'm sorry if it seemed that I misspoke. This isn't ONLY about social recognition. The whole debate of marriage, same-sex marriage, and civil unions clearly has a crap load of legal arguments that still need to be ironed out and settled... |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
hate stupid people and Sony
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
To love is better than to hate!
|
#92
|
||||
|
||||
At the moment this computer, the second time it's crashed this morning..
As for the rest! Pretty much the same as everyone else I should imagine. Racists Bigots Ignorance/rudeness Self importance Bullying Z-List celebs who think the world owes them a living Tabloid newspapers Political spin (exactly how thick do they think we are!) Phew!! There was something cathartic about writing that.. :D |
#93
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
ohh..but why hate when you can LOVE!
__________________
cum dress me in cute lingerie
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
I hate hate
|
#95
|
||||
|
||||
With all this hating going on,I'm surprised there aren't more suicides. To hate merely means to either correct yourself or leave what bothers you alone(that's why god gave us knobs,dials and legs). But if hate comes a knockin at your door, whack it with a pan. Try spending time watching, listening or participating in things that might offer a lighter and beneficial side of yourself. Ignore the hate, and ignore it even more if it persists. p.s. pills work
|
#96
|
||||
|
||||
What do I hate?
Liberals, hippies, anyone who follows a trend just because it's popular, stoners, any seafood(wreaks havoc on my tummy), liver, vain reality shows and other similar shit, welfare bums, mattresses and being without a soulmate(very lonely)
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#97
|
||||
|
||||
OK.
P.S: I would LOVE to dress you in cute lingerie.
__________________
I want to hide in an opium sunrise... |
#98
|
||||
|
||||
now we're taking!!
enough hate! let's all just love and be what we really want to be
__________________
cum dress me in cute lingerie
|
#99
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showthread.php?t=2557
__________________
I want to hide in an opium sunrise... |
#100
|
||||
|
||||
I hate getting old......
I hate getting old and I know that there's nothing I can do about it.
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do U Like Christmas Or Hate? | LuvAmy | General Discussion | 19 | 09-14-2009 08:20 PM |
Hate to do this as my first thread but who is this? | GHawk | ID help needed | 5 | 03-30-2009 05:11 AM |