Missing Person wrote:Time to bus Cruz, clearly.Epignosis wrote:You know you're a Mafia addict when a headline like this has you scratching your head for a while.

Moderator: Community Team
Missing Person wrote:Time to bus Cruz, clearly.Epignosis wrote:You know you're a Mafia addict when a headline like this has you scratching your head for a while.
Those are kind words, and I appreciate them.TinyBubbles wrote:Epignosis although I don't know personally, I know how painful it is to lose a friend. I'm so sorry about Gavin. Hope you will be alright.
you're very welcome <3Epignosis wrote:Those are kind words, and I appreciate them.TinyBubbles wrote:Epignosis although I don't know personally, I know how painful it is to lose a friend. I'm so sorry about Gavin. Hope you will be alright.
Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:33 pm Just how many days of "let's yeet them tomorrow" can a mafioso survive?
The answer: all of them, if you are a marmot.
I know, right? What a match. I'm pleased. Well done, Wawrinka!Ricochet wrote:STAN
This was the definition of a tournament and especially match of his life for him. If a quarter of his Australian Open success last year was attributed to Nadal succumbing to injuries (although that's still quack, because he had to beat Djokovic to get in that final in the first place, plus he did almost nothing wrong in that final either), this time you can't take absolutely anything from this victory, it had everything. Nerves under control, rise to the occasion, fighting spirit, outrageous tennis.MovingPictures07 wrote:I know, right? What a match. I'm pleased. Well done, Wawrinka!Ricochet wrote:STAN
DARSH!Ricochet wrote:STAN
Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:33 pm Just how many days of "let's yeet them tomorrow" can a mafioso survive?
The answer: all of them, if you are a marmot.
Although I am a lawyer, I'm not convinced that how well I can lie is a good selling point.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:get 'em Golden. provide a link to Death and Taxes in your resume.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
WELL YOU CAN'T HAVE ITnutella wrote:SHIT THAT'S COOL I WANT IT
I am also very happy for all the people who wish to be married but could not before.A Person wrote:GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY MARRIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE
Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:33 pm Just how many days of "let's yeet them tomorrow" can a mafioso survive?
The answer: all of them, if you are a marmot.
I don't know about marriage, but I know that there are plenty of Americans who are in love with themselves.Ricochet wrote:Can I marry myself anywhere in America? I'm clearly my best and only possible match.
Epignosis wrote:Frankly, I'm pissed off about how little this ruling affects me.
Au fromage?Ricochet wrote:I had an omelette for breakfast today.
But of course.Golden wrote:Au fromage?Ricochet wrote:I had an omelette for breakfast today.
Wouldn't you rather lose kilograms instead?Ricochet wrote:But of course.Golden wrote:Au fromage?Ricochet wrote:I had an omelette for breakfast today.
And with juicy bacon on the side.
Yeah I'm not gonna lose those pounds anytime soon.
Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:33 pm Just how many days of "let's yeet them tomorrow" can a mafioso survive?
The answer: all of them, if you are a marmot.
I have yet to read the SCOTUS opinions and dissents on the issue but I will in due time (yeah, I'm that big of a nerd). As a social quasi-libertarian, I see nothing wrong with the way the court ruled through the lens of the 14th Amendment. What I am curious to learn is how the majority spoke to religious freedom in their decision. Pundits were pondering whether a court ruling in favor of putting same-sex marriage validity under the umbrella of the 14h Amendment would also speak to protecting the freedom of denominations to excise their religious beliefs and decline to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds. If they don't extend the same level of protections as many state courts did, I can imagine a scenario where the tax-exempt statuses of religious institutions (not just Christian churches mind you) are threatened over discrimination.S~V~S wrote:Epignosis wrote:Frankly, I'm pissed off about how little this ruling affects me.![]()
I had an argument with my Great Uncle (who is a VERY OLD MAN) a while back about this. He got all in my face about it, how pastors & priests would be forced to perform weddings for people against their conscience.
Um, Uncle, I said. Catholic priests have been not marrying people for YEARS because it went against their beliefs. Can't get a Catholic wedding if divorced, can't get a Catholic wedding if marrying a non-Catholic. And iirc, it is the same for Orthodox. No one tried to FORCE Father Whazzizname to do the wedding for my husband and I (he was my husbands priest) when he refused becasue I was not a Catholic. Why do people think it will be otherwise now?
So I am not getting the "it is an attack on my beliefs" argument, if religious officiants have always dictated who they would and would not marry for religious reasons. So, a gay person could not sue the Westboro Baptists for refusing to perform a Gay Wedding, because it clearly violates their doctrine. So I am not sure what Huckabee and his ilk are screaming about, acting as if Gay Marriage is a second spear stuck in Jesus' side.
I'm sorry you have such negative views about a faith that I myself follow. I can agree that there are plenty of people professing a faith that looks and sounds almost nothing like what I believe in. I'd love to talk to you via PM about it if you like.Golden wrote:It's hard for me to post on this subject without a giant diatribe about how ill Christianity is (certainly the part of Christianity which makes all the noise and gets all the press), so I will leave it at this...
Congratulations USA, glad you caught up.
I wasn't going to omment on this decision, but I will now.G-Man wrote:I have yet to read the SCOTUS opinions and dissents on the issue but I will in due time (yeah, I'm that big of a nerd). As a social quasi-libertarian, I see nothing wrong with the way the court ruled through the lens of the 14th Amendment. What I am curious to learn is how the majority spoke to religious freedom in their decision. Pundits were pondering whether a court ruling in favor of putting same-sex marriage validity under the umbrella of the 14h Amendment would also speak to protecting the freedom of denominations to excise their religious beliefs and decline to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds. If they don't extend the same level of protections as many state courts did, I can imagine a scenario where the tax-exempt statuses of religious institutions (not just Christian churches mind you) are threatened over discrimination.S~V~S wrote:Epignosis wrote:Frankly, I'm pissed off about how little this ruling affects me.![]()
I had an argument with my Great Uncle (who is a VERY OLD MAN) a while back about this. He got all in my face about it, how pastors & priests would be forced to perform weddings for people against their conscience.
Um, Uncle, I said. Catholic priests have been not marrying people for YEARS because it went against their beliefs. Can't get a Catholic wedding if divorced, can't get a Catholic wedding if marrying a non-Catholic. And iirc, it is the same for Orthodox. No one tried to FORCE Father Whazzizname to do the wedding for my husband and I (he was my husbands priest) when he refused becasue I was not a Catholic. Why do people think it will be otherwise now?
So I am not getting the "it is an attack on my beliefs" argument, if religious officiants have always dictated who they would and would not marry for religious reasons. So, a gay person could not sue the Westboro Baptists for refusing to perform a Gay Wedding, because it clearly violates their doctrine. So I am not sure what Huckabee and his ilk are screaming about, acting as if Gay Marriage is a second spear stuck in Jesus' side.
The crux of the argument is similar to what the Boy Scouts of America faced years ago over openly gay Scout Masters- religious institutions retain their right to preach what they want regarding homosexuality but their stance on the issue may disqualify them from tax-exempt status. As someone who belongs to a denomination that is still torn over this issue, I'd hate to see my church lose tax exempt status and likely have to shut its doors because of an issue that isn't even preached on from the pulpit. Converting a church to a taxable entity is an expensive nightmare and involves a lot of red tape, new regulations, and all sorts of headaches and pitfalls that will probably bury most small to mid-sized churches.
I'm sorry you have such negative views about a faith that I myself follow. I can agree that there are plenty of people professing a faith that looks and sounds almost nothing like what I believe in. I'd love to talk to you via PM about it if you like.Golden wrote:It's hard for me to post on this subject without a giant diatribe about how ill Christianity is (certainly the part of Christianity which makes all the noise and gets all the press), so I will leave it at this...
Congratulations USA, glad you caught up.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
Only if you pay for her coffee and ask to do it again sometime.Ricochet wrote:I have a date on Thursday. Or, coffee or something.
Does asking and going to coffee with a girl count as a date?
I'll definitely do the first, but I'll have to check the vibe to see if the latter is worth asking.G-Man wrote:Only if you pay for her coffee and ask to do it again sometime.Ricochet wrote:I have a date on Thursday. Or, coffee or something.
Does asking and going to coffee with a girl count as a date?