Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - foldedintobeauty

31
Main / Re: girls gone wild
Mar 21, 2008, 11:07 AM




I like your new picture, Typhonblue. You look kind of mysterious.


Hey thanks.

It's the absense of the touque.


are you a hot chick?


Wow.  Proof again...

proof of what?



mmmm, she's hawt! your girlfriend? lucky dog, you!
32
Main / Re: girls gone wild
Mar 21, 2008, 11:06 AM


i think rusty has been shrooming too much. typhon i can't tell if you're male or female, but you're still hot in it.


Right now my avatar is a sphinx cat.

It bears no resemblance to me aside from the large ears and hairlessness.


those Egyptian cats are awful looking. they look sick with disease. never liked them. anyway, i can SEE your picture changed.
33

look , Ive stopped with the personal insults of my own accord
I suggest you do the same


or what? are you going to beat me up?
34
i'm not here to win a popularity contest
35

Here...do some youtubing...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fag+hag&search_type=

Each and every one produced by gays....you really should do some work on expanding your venacular vocabulary before you accuse people of things.


and learn how to spell veRnacular
36

Here...do some youtubing...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fag+hag&search_type=

Each and every one produced by gays....you really should do some work on expanding your venacular vocabulary before you accuse people of things.


i KNOW what it means. fag is homophobic. fag hag. fag. it's still a stupid phrase. there is nothing WRONG with hanging out with homosexuals, either.
37
Main / Re: Another False Allegation of Rape
Mar 21, 2008, 10:57 AM




who said i wasn't concerned for the men? if a friend, brother, son, or husband of mine were falsely accused i'd be livid


How about for just regular old injustice?  Like let's say you had a friend who had a "worthless" husband, and couldn't find any other way to arrange so he couldn't see his kids....


you lost me on that last part


Sheesh, are you serious?  Ok, let me explain:  The female friend of yours has a "worthless" husband who she wants to get rid of, but the only way she can find to do so is to file a false allegation of rape against him.

Get it now?


got it got it. thanks. just wanted to MAKE SURE. didn't want to MISINTERPRET anything.
yea, that's fucked up. end of story.
38


no. he used a homophobic slur and i called him out on it, then he tries to cover his ass by implying he MIGHT be gay. fucking lame.


I think any gay man with brains can see you're no friend to men and since gay men are still men--despite feminism's insistance that they are actually women--they can probably make the logical connection that you are no friend to gay men either.

Fag hag is a slur on women.


fag is a homophobic slur, directed at them or not. i don't see gay men as women. i love the gays, though.
39

you threw the first stone FIB...............................after that anything goes



yea and i don't care.........

were you not the one who called children fuck trophies? oh yea, now u remember. you=assclown
40





Quote
hahahaha



These are the adults responsible for leading by example.

Very sobering.


who are you, the moral police? stfu


Have you ever considered that your penchant for conflict may have something to do with the extreme situations in your personal life?


oh, i've always been feisty. i'm irish


I'm Irish too -- almost 100%.

You know, the Irish are much better known for our verbal abilities than for simply rattling off childish rantings.  If you're so proud of your Irish roots, you should consider that, rather than behaving like the shanty Irish who drink green beer and never read Joyce.

Really -- you should go back and read your posts.  You sound like a spoiled 14 year old.


i'm not PROUD to be irish. watch george carlin http://www.every10mins.com/video/2823_new_george_carlin_pride.html
i know what i sound like on here and i know i'm annoying! i don't care and i never have. i say whatever the fuck i want on the internet. i'm paying for it so lay off. i think i've had green beer once and james joyce is awesome.
41

so you reply with more name calling
now who is the dumbass FIB?


lololol did you not just type all that shit up there? bahahaha. rusty trailertrash
42


i'm gay! great excuse


For not being a homophobe?

Well... I really think that's being a bit disingenous there...

I mean, he could be gay and a homophobe, but at that point I think he's the one who suffers most so it sort of renders the whole issue mute.


no. he used a homophobic slur and i called him out on it, then he tries to cover his ass by implying he MIGHT be gay. fucking lame.
43

look whore, I didnt start shit with you.......................you  called me out of my name and I didnt even respond.........................then you insulted me again
but I might do like willie D and just let a hoe be a hoe


D.U.M.B.A.S.S.

44

Quote
...and there are mothers in prison who don't get favors, EITHER.


Hogwash!  You don't know what you're talking about.  In my state of California (and that is still a part of America) women prisoners routinely, under color of law, get favors men prisoners don't get.  The misandrist State of California is currently being sued for denying male prisoners parenting services they are abundantly giving to women prisoners.  Just read the part in bold if this is too lengthy a reading assignment for you:

Quote
In CDC's responses to First Set of Request for Admissions, CDC admits:[26] 

        "Penal Code Sections 1174 through 1174.9 employ gender classifications" (at 6:10-15);

        "Penal Code Sections 1174 through 1174.9 allow women but not men to participate in the program established by said statutes" (at 6:17-26);

        "You implement Penal Code Sections 1147 through 1174.9 according to the gender classifications therein" (at 6:28-7:7);

        "In your implementation of Penal Code Sections 1174 through 1174.9, you allow women to participate in the program established therein" (at 7:8-18);

        "In your implementation of Penal Code Sections 1174 through 1174.9, you do not allow men to participate in the programs established therein" (at 7:20-27);

        "A parenting woman with an established history of substance abuse who has one or more children under six years old can meet the criteria for participation in the program established by Penal Code Sections 1174 through 1174.9" (at 3:23-4:1);

        "A parenting man with an established history of substance abuse who has one or more children under six years old cannot meet the criteria for participation in the program established by Penal Code Sections 1174 through 1174.9" (at 4:3-7);

        "Women can meet the criteria for participation in the program established by Penal Code Sections 1174 through 1174.9" (at 4:9-14);

        "Men cannot meet the criteria for participation in the program established by Penal Code Sections 1174 through 1174.9" (at 4:16-19);

        "Currently, there are women participating in the program established by Penal Code Sections 1174 through 1174.9" (at 4:26-5:2);

        "Currently there are women who meet the criteria for participation in the program established by Penal Code Sections 1174 through 1174.9" (at 5:4-11);

        "Currently, there are no men who meet the criteria for participation in the program established by Penal Code Sections 3410 through 3424, because said statutes require that a person be a woman in order to participate in said program" (at 5:20-26);

        "In determining who is eligible to participate in the program established by Penal Code Sections 1174 through 1174.9, you consider women but not men, because said statutes only provide a program for women but not for men" (at 5:28-6:8);

        "Penal Code Sections 3410 through 3424 employ gender classifications" (at 11:1-7);

        "Penal Code Sections 3410 through 3424 allow women but not men to participate in the program established by said statutes" (at 11:9-18);

        "You implement Penal Code Sections 3410 through 3424 according to the gender classifications therein" (at 11:20-27);

        "In your implementation of Penal Code Sections 3410 through 3424, you allow women to participate in the program established therein" (at 12:1-12);

        "In your implementation of Penal Code Sections 3410 through 34324, you do not allow men to participate in the program established therein" (at 12:13-24);

        "A parenting women with an established history of substance abuse who has one or more children under six years old can meet the criteria for participation in the program established by Penal Code Sections 3410 through 3424" (at 8:14-20);

        "A parenting man with an established history of substance abuse who has one or more children under six years old cannot meet the criteria for participation in the



program established by Penal Code Sections 3410 through 3424" (at 8:22-26);

        "Women can meet the criteria for participation in the program established by Penal Code Sections 3410 through 3424" (at 8:28-9:5);

        "Men cannot meet the criteria for participation in the program established by Penal Code Sections 3410 through 3424" (at 9:7-10);

        "Currently, there are no men who meet the criteria for participation in the program established by Penal Code Sections 3410 through 3424, because said statutes require that a person be a women in order to participate in said program" (at 10:11-17); and

        "In determining who is eligible to participate in the program established by Penal Code Sections 3410 through 3424, you consider women but not men, because said statutes only provide a program for women but not for men" (at 10:19-27).

(Emphasis added.) 

Therefore, California and CDC admit they implement said statutes according to the gender classifications therein, i.e., in a gender-discriminatory manner.  Said classifications are presumed invalid and subject to strict scrutiny, and California and CDC must prove the  classifications, and their implementation of the same, meet strict scrutiny.  Respondents cannot meet this burden.





link, pls.

and laws can be interpreted differently. california may be lenient to mothers, but not all states.

side note: i'm against the war on drugs.
45


homophobes in here, i see.

she has every right to sue that man


How do you know I'm not gay?.....propaganda enters ear....brain atrophies...knee jerks...


i'm gay! great excuse