cbsnews.com — Washington State governor Chris Gregoire on Monday signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state of Washington, expressing her pride that, going forward, same-sex couples "will no longer be treated as separate but equal" in Washington.
Feb 14, 2012 View in Crawl 4
h8f8kesFeb 14, 2012
I am so proud of my state for recognizing the rights of individuals to love whomever they please. I am also looking forward to voting on I-502 to decriminalize a naturally occuring substance:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/01/18/secretary-of-state-certifies-marijuana-decriminilization-initiative
ekdogFeb 14, 2012
Congratulations! You have good reason to be proud of your state. I'm ashamed of the voters in my home state of California, who voted to deny gay men and women their civil rights. To tell the truth, I'm glad I left the States over twenty years ago and moved to Spain. We do have our problems over here, but gays are allowed to marry. I can't imagine ever going back to live in a hypocritical, hate-filled, Bible-thumping cesspool of a nation like the USA. Just the thought of being around Teabaggers and the like turns my stomach.
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
right on right on good Sir!
kingfootFeb 14, 2012
Finally she does something right...
h8f8kesFeb 14, 2012
So glad she is out at the end of this term!
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
ya me too. And I voted for her. But sometimes its good to clean house.
glamour2012artFeb 14, 2012
lovely
HYIPBloggerFeb 15, 2012
That's a good thing. If nature created gays, we should all respect that, just like we should for everything else around us (if that matters, I am not gay)
falcon642Feb 14, 2012
Semantics and distraction, that is all this bill is about.
Washington's domestic partnership laws already gave gay couples ALL of the rights of straight couples. Literally the only thing that is changed by this law is the phrase "domestic partnership" is changed to the word "marriage". NOTHING ELSE CHANGES.
The reason Gregoire took this issue up now is to distract from the NASTY budget fight that is coming to the legislature.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 14, 2012
You are probably right. That doesn't mean that it is not a very good thing.
shark72Feb 14, 2012
The same issues were recently part of the Prop 8 appeal in California. The court ruled that "separate but equal" wasn't good enough; just the act of giving gays their own alternative "domestic partnership" -- according to the opinion -- was segregation, because the state would, at the same time, effectively be telling them what they *couldn't* have -- that is, marriage.
This has been played out before. Southern states argued that blacks shouldn't complain because they had their own drinking fountains that were every bit as nice as the whites -- but it was ultimately decided that the act of segregation itself -- not the quality of the drinking fountains or anything else -- was damaging in itself.
Words matter more than one might think; gay people are happy simply because they get to use the same term that straight people do, even though, as you've pointed out, all the other rights stay the same.
kingfootFeb 14, 2012
THIS. A MILLION TIMES THIS.
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
WRONG.... the reason she took it up is because she is not running for re-election. If she wasnt such a puss (HA) she'd have advocated it sooner.
courtassassinFeb 15, 2012
Good job!
chassupFeb 14, 2012
Good, all gay people move to Washington... I love it!
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
And all teabagger DOUCHES move to Idaho. Its already the Mississippi of the north.
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
Ah now, don't be so hard on Tea Baggers, they just want to be your friend.
concusionFeb 15, 2012
at least your upfront about how big of despicable human being you are. I'll give you that.
FrankLuskaFeb 14, 2012
Washington state ok's sex with the anus, next on the agenda, ban sex with vaginas.
h8f8kesFeb 14, 2012
That kind of intolerance is what gives conservatives a bad name. At least some conservatives get it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbmbdWK6338&feature=related
aristotle0dudeFeb 14, 2012
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance
The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tolerance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleration
Toleration is "the practice of deliberately allowing or permitting a thing of which one disapproves.
You are displaying the opposite of that which is intolerance.
Frank should be entitled to his opinion without others resorting to Ad Hominem attacks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingfootFeb 14, 2012
So why are you being intolerant of his post? Seems a bit hypocritical to tell him to be tolerant when you're not.
sbuckley00Feb 14, 2012
Exactly!
aristotle0dudeFeb 14, 2012
You are free to believe whatever you wish but I challenge you to use your intellect and challenge your preconceptions and use "Google" to figure out if you are right or wrong in your preconceived ideas.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaFeb 14, 2012
Exactly what, get a grip.
aristotle0dudeFeb 14, 2012
I'm pointing out that you made an ad hominem attack and that you were being intolerant of Frank's point of view.
Nowhere did I say that you did not have a right to think differently. You do seem to be confused and seem to think that "tolerance" equals agreement and intolerance equals having a different point of view than you have.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingfootFeb 14, 2012
I'm curious, what "preconceptions" do you think I have?
concusionFeb 15, 2012
how dare you kingfoot be intolerant of franks intolerant views. Its all right to be intolerant, but if your intolerant to intolerance, you crossed the line.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
@concusion, how dare you put words or thoughts into others minds, spreading disinformation,
If your smart enough to know, when someone states a fact, does not mean they agree or disagree, you just don't know s**t, or maybe you do.
elimgarakFeb 14, 2012
He is not displaying intolerance - he is actually being pretty polite to a bigot.
FrankLuskaFeb 14, 2012
Since you clearly don't know what you talking about, i will help the less informed
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
What i stated was fact and forecast, i NEVER said i was for or against it. So you, the mind reader have failed. When will people stop ASSUMING facts not in evidence.
See comment below, Childish Name Caller.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sbuckley00Feb 14, 2012
next on the agenda, ban sex with vaginas <=== this is a FACT NOW??? what are you a complete moron? It is certainly not fact and why would they want to ban sex with vaginas? That made up conclusion does not even make sense and has nothing do with allowing gay marriage.
FrankLuskaFeb 14, 2012
@sbuckley00, What about the part of "see comment below" about forecasting, what a moron you are, you can't read.
LMAO, and who wrote that for you, you mother, clearly, if you can't read, you surely can't write. Grow Up, Get out of your childish world.
elimgarakFeb 15, 2012
You did not state any facts and your forecast was based upon the asinine supposition that everybody would have to have anal sex now. That's pretty much the position of many anti-gay bigots.
So your joke - if that's what it was - fell extremely flat, and sounded like you were anti-gay.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
@elimgarak, So, you do everything that is legal to do, do you drink a 1/5 of liquor in your home because it's legal? Do you take 15 baths a day because it legal?
I NEVER said that anyone or everyone would do anything, another conclusion on your part with any facts in evidence.
The first is fact, the second is sarcasm which i thought would be clear to any rational thinking person.
I am not for or against Gay's. My personal opinion is it seems pretty gross to me, but i would never try to pass a law forbidding or condoning the act. Nor should such laws exist between women and men.
If one would like to achieve marriage, this should be done between them and the religion they subscribe too. If they are atheist, then they can't believe in marriage, since this is a holy union.
Mother nature has spoken loud and clear that there is only one natural way to procreate, any other way to live is ones personal opinion and choice.
FrankLuskaFeb 14, 2012
That maybe true, sure glad i am not a conservative. I stated fact, fore-casted the future. I did not say i was against it, i thing it's kinda gross, but hey, to each their own.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
Alright Frank.... If you were a GAY BEE, would you have sex with me (im a dude, btw) for a $100.000?
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
I take it the bury is your version of no?
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
Maybe want to see a doctor about the hallucinations of me digging you down, and yes, i am digging you down now, 12:17 CST
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
No, i just dugg you down right now, 12:11 CST.
And no, why would anyone want to have sex with you, for any price, i surely don't need the money, but i am sure you will find someone. Well maybe not, and yes, i thought you might be Gay from your remarks the other day about wanting to stick your penis into another man.
Anything else, sweetie.
pc25Feb 15, 2012
it's kuppajava and his normal banter.
chilidogsFeb 14, 2012
First of all, there are plenty of gay people who don't engage in anal sex while there are also plenty of hetero couples that do; second, anal sex is rad; third, the idea that extending rights to one person necessarily takes rights away from another is so deeply, childishly stupid that I just feel sorry for you.
aristotle0dudeFeb 14, 2012
I feel sorry for you because you felt the need to attack someone personally with name calling rather that challenging them with a proper rebuttal.
Forgetting that you seem oblivious to how disgusting the concept of a penis becoming covered in feces is, you might want to educate yourself about the health risks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Health_risks
But you go ahead and continue to believe whatever you wish.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtownFeb 14, 2012
"But you go ahead and continue to believe whatever you wish."
That is the attitude you SHOULD have. There are PLENTY of things I think are disgusting but I'm not gonna cry for the government to ban it. People have the right to make their own decisions.
Secondly, this is about gay marriage, not sex. Gay people can already have sex without getting married so legalizing gay marriage changes nothing in regards to that. This is about gays getting equal rights and privileges as straight couples get.
aristotle0dudeFeb 14, 2012
Right, so gay people really don't need gay marriage to be gay. I happen to have a different understanding of what marriage is. You seem to think that it is something invented by states and governments whereas I see marriage as something that preceded civilization itself and that it is not something a single state has the right to change especially without a vote by the "people". The government is supposed to "serve" the people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtownFeb 14, 2012
During much of recorded history, marriage was mostly polygamous or at least allowed mistresses or concubines; not really the kind of marriage that we think of today.
And the government IS serving the people here; specifically homosexual people, who are the minority. If the "people" of this country got to decide everything through vote, African Americans and women would have little to no rights. The government needs to protect the rights of all its citizens. Right now gay couples have less rights than straight couples, and allowing gay marriage in no way affects current or future heterosexual marriages.
This is a no brainer. Any two people should be allowed to marry, regardless of sexuality. Besides, you can't really just change your sexual preference. Imagine if interracial marriage was illegal and people in love where not allowed to marry each other simply because they were born a certain way. Doesn't sound fair, does it?
revenantrisingFeb 14, 2012
Allow me to explain this. There are two forms of marriage in this country. The religious kind and the legal kind. When a gay couple tries to get a marriage license and they are denied then are discriminated against by their government because of orientation.
The religious aspect doesn't play a part. You can get married in this country regardless of race, creed, color, but for whatever reason NOT sexual orientation. Making gay marriage legal would not force churches to marry them. Not to mention that religious marriage are not legally binding contracts.
concusionFeb 15, 2012
and by what authority do you make these declarations? Marriage preceded civilization, and no state or government has the right to change that? Ever hear of divorce?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaFeb 14, 2012
Oh, this is partly about having sex. Some states, it is illegal to have sex with the anus. Some states it is legal for two people of the same gender to get married, but anal intercourse is still illegal. Some states, Like Washington, it is legal to get married and to have intercourse with an anus.
But then, i never said it was right or wrong, good or bad, for or against, just stated a simple fact.
To each his own.
mtownFeb 14, 2012
It is NOT illegal to have anal sex in any state. The last sodomy law involving anal sex was overturned by the supreme court in 2003.
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
@mtown, Can you cite that, it's still on the books in Texas, as well as having sex with animals and oral sex. It may not say anal sex explicitly, but is known widely to include this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
Frank... you seem to have a classic Freudian anal fixation....
Tell us about your relationship with your mother.
mtownFeb 15, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
^ is the one that repealed the Sodomy laws
"Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),[1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by proxy, invalidated sodomy laws in the thirteen other states where they remained in existence, thereby making same-sex sexual activity legal in every state and territory of the nation."
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/case.html
^ non-wiki source.
mtownFeb 15, 2012
I like how I keep getting buried for citing sources with facts. Like it or not, anal sex is legal anywhere in the US and the Supreme Court says so.
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
@gaia242, i would, but you might get frisky and jump me.
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
@mtown, i didn't, i am fixin to digg you up because i did not find the article you cited. the penal code i found from Texas, evidently, has not been updated.
kingfootFeb 14, 2012
So, a woman loves another woman and immediately her penis becomes covered in feces? Great logic. Your problem with gay rights, is only aimed at a small portion of the people covered by the new bill. You discriminatory fag.
aristotle0dudeFeb 14, 2012
The whole concept of gay rights or white rights or black rights or asian rights or male rights or female rights are the antithesis of what equality is all about.
We are all "humans" with "HUMAN" rights. Your sexuality is irrelevant and a personal matter. It should not afford you with any "rights".
Marriage is not a right just as driving a car is not a right. Both have specific legal requirements and require purchase of a "license". In the past marriage also required a record search and a blood test.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingfootFeb 14, 2012
So what you're saying is that as humans, marriage is now a right but a privilege and therefore you segregate.
kingfootFeb 14, 2012
And by that, I meant; marriage is NOT a right but a privilege and therefore you can segregate because of this.
Because not allowing 2 people to get legally married, when they meet all the requirements except their sexual orientation (which you just said is irrelevant), is segregation. Which, last I checked, is illegal here. Therefore it's unlawful to disallow marriage to a group of people because of sexuality.
bookantFeb 14, 2012
"The whole concept of gay rights or white rights or black rights or asian rights or male rights or female rights are the antithesis of what equality is all about."
You're absolutely right. But unfortunately, those of us who *actually* believe in equality are forced to talk about gay rights or white rights or black rights or male rights or female rights every time the biogts of the world try to deny entire groups of people their *human* rights because of the color of their skin, or what genitals they have, or which gender they are attracted to.
mtownFeb 14, 2012
I literally laughed out loud when I read this.
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
but those wymen can have some super hot scissoring!!!!
sbuckley00Feb 14, 2012
I feel sorry for you because all your comments get Dugg down to the core of the earth!!
aristotle0dudeFeb 14, 2012
I feel sorry for you because you seem to be incapable of thinking outside of your little box.
concusionFeb 15, 2012
you're thinking outside the box? You have the views of a 10th century monk, you're not exactly breaking new ground here.
elimgarakFeb 14, 2012
I feel sorry for you because you are a bigoted retard stuck on medieval rules passed down by worshipers of an imaginary magical man in the sky. You should consider moving to at least 20th century mentality.
You might also want to educate yourself about the health risks of vaginal sex:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse#Risks
STDs are one of the most critical health challenges facing the nation today. CDC estimates that there are 19 million new infections every year in the United States.
STDs cost the U.S. health care system $17 billion every year—and cost individuals even more in immediate and life-long health consequences.
Gonorrhea: While reported rates are at historically low levels, cases increased slightly from last year and more than 300,000 cases were reported in 2010. There are also signs from other CDC surveillance systems that the disease may become resistant to the only available treatment option.
Chlamydia: Case reports have been increasing steadily over the past 20 years, and in 2010, 1.3 million chlamydia cases were reported. While the increase is due to expanded screening efforts, and not to an actual increase in the number of people with chlamydia, a majority of infections still go undiagnosed. Less than half of sexually active young women are screened annually as recommended by CDC.
Syphilis: The overall syphilis rate decreased for the first time in a decade, and is down 1.6 percent since 2009. However, the rate among young black men has increased dramatically over the past five years (134 percent).
In addition all of these diseases are becoming resistant to antibiotics, and harder to treat then ever before.
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
aristotle0dude, some people you just have to be dealt with by baseball bats.
l
stevanoskiFeb 15, 2012
Violence, the first too in any Lefties tool bag.
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
Would you prefer it play a card from the Pro-lifer deck???? While I dont condone or advocate violence, if there was one less bigoted assh**e in the world, it would be a better place:-) Does that sound better, seveiboy?
I even dugg your comment, as an act of civility....
stevanoskiFeb 15, 2012
Duly noted and I even found one of your submissions to digg. I don't think murder is the solution to any problem, idiots or not.
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
Praise Jebus! We agree!
chilidogsFeb 16, 2012
Crying about how the mean words hurt your feelings doesn't make you any less wrong or stupid.
FrankLuskaFeb 14, 2012
Second of all, your a complete idiot. Your putting words and untrue facts into my mouth, no pun intended. While there may be people who do not engage in anal sex, the fact it is now legal, is all i stated.
People just love to read things into others words that are not there, this makes you an idiot, and i do feel sorry for you.
mtownFeb 14, 2012
Straight people can have anal sex too, just FYI.
aristotle0dudeFeb 14, 2012
Right, and it is equally gross and carries similar health risks.
kingfootFeb 14, 2012
WHO CARES.
The point of this is that if they CHOOSE to take this risk, they can. NO ONE CARES THAT YOU THINK IT'S GROSS.
FrankLuskaFeb 14, 2012
To a certain point, everyone should care, thanks to the Liberal mandate of forcing all people who can afford it, to pay for insurance. This will force higher premiums on those who do not have anal sex. Just as smoking did. No one should have unprotected sex, but we know some will. I don't believe this will become an epidemic, but having to pay for others health care when they engage in dangerous acts is not any smart person's idea of a free country.
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
off topic!!!!
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
@gaia242, why because you say so, you thing certain things are not intertwined? Well of course you do. everything must be separate in your mind.
kingfootFeb 18, 2012
Ok, then by that logic, We should ban gay marriage, drinking, smoking, driving, and going out in the sun without complete cover from the sun.
Heterosexual couples engage in anal sex as well.
Not to mention; Unless we suddenly became asexual and I didn't know, you kind of have to have unprotected sex to get pregnant and continue the human race. Which makes it the CHOICE of the individuals involved to have unprotected sex.
Anyways, I didn't say anything about taxes and health care. If all the homosexual people suddenly disappeared you would STILL have to pay for people being complete idiots and making dangerous choices.
This is a weak argument. Gay marriage will not affect health care and taxes for the worse of everyone. Not even indirectly.
elimgarakFeb 14, 2012
Your point being? Why do you care what consenting adults are doing in the privacy of their own homes? Do you want to legislate what happens in other people's bedrooms?
mikeoxbiggFeb 14, 2012
Isn't it awesome how irrelevant your opinion and that of people like you is becoming?
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
but not that most terminal of STI's.... pregnancy!
kingfootFeb 14, 2012
So I have to accept that you go to an empty building every sunday and talk to an invisible man in the sky, and discuss what he tells you, or rather, what he purportedly told others, but you can't accept that someone wants to be with someone whom you don't approve of?
Quit being a gentlemen.
aristotle0dudeFeb 14, 2012
Wow, so you know of a fact that churches are empty? Have you ever set foot in one? You also have an interesting concept of christianity. I challenge you to actually find out about what you hate. Perhaps you hate what you do not understand.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingfootFeb 14, 2012
I understand what church is. I understand what religion is. I understand what faith is. And I understand what human rights are.
I have been to church many times in my life. And because of what I have learned, I have chosen to have no religion. But that doesn't mean I don't have faith.
I think I'm right to assume that you found my comment outlandish. Ridiculous, and intolerant. Good. That was my point, and I think you got it.
Now remember how you reacted to my comment. Remember how you feel. And that's how every human who has ever been discriminated against has felt. Most of the time worse. That reaction, is exactly what I wanted you to feel so you can learn from it.
tl;dr I hope I made you offended. And I hope you can apply how you felt to begin empathizing with everyone who has had their lives ruined or upset because of people fighting against laws like this.
elimgarakFeb 14, 2012
Yup. Been to church. Nobody there. Pretty pictures on the walls plus some torture porn - that's about it.
FrankLuskaFeb 14, 2012
Same to you: You know, for someone who is tolerant of gay rights, your sure intolerant of ones religious rights. What's the difference?
elimgarakFeb 14, 2012
I am not intolerant of people's religious rights. Worship whatever magical being you want to. As long as it doesn't impact me or the rights of other human beings that don't share your religious views, why should I care?
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
@elimgarak, Look, we are all supposed to be free to do what we want as long as no harm to others occur.
Until the left and right stop trying to force their views onto others, we will never be free, nor will we have rights we are supposed to have.
The political system is not perfect, nothing is, if the state you live in does not allow Gay marriage, you have two choices, vote people in to change the law, or move to a state that does allow it. This is the way it was setup, purposely, to make things hard to change. So many have abused the system, and the people are to blame for letting that abuse occur.
Unless you come up with a better way that all can agree on, you have to work within the system. But trying to impose ones views by law on another only gets you retaliation.
mtownFeb 15, 2012
"Look, we are all supposed to be free to do what we want as long as no harm to others occur."
Allowing gays to marry will not harm anybody else.
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
@mtown, never said it would, and i agree with you, choice, religious marriage or government marriage, until everybody agrees on what marriage is ...........
FrankLuskaFeb 14, 2012
You know, for someone who is tolerant of gay rights, your sure intolerant of ones religious rights. What's the difference?
kingfootFeb 14, 2012
Here's what the religious people don't understand;
We attack you because you attack anyone who makes a decision that doesn't fit into your belief. I am completely tolerant of religious views, and one's faith. I am intolerant of hypocrites and people who try to force their belief and faith onto other people.
By asking for this to not pass, or be changed now that it has, is trying to force your belief onto the legal system which affects everyone.
Church and state are separate. Simple as that. So complaining that a new law violates your beliefs and therefore should be redacted, means jack s**t. We founded this country for EVERYONE. Not just people who have faith. For freedom, no matter who you are. We liberated ourselves from the British, and offered liberation to anyone else who felt they could no longer be oppressed. We give everyone the freedom to believe what you want, and do what they want. But you can't give everyone else the freedom to love whom they want and be with whom they want like everyone else? Getting 'Married' carries more legal implications than a domestic partnership in most states (a few states offer the same legal benefits of being married). Which means, for the sake of the law, that it is unlawful because it leaves out a specific group of people.
You're a hypocrite for fighting this law because of your religious beliefs. If you had a valid argument, you'd use that. Instead you lean on "because god said it was bad" which is a logical fallacy. God has nothing to do with the law. And this is legal marriage. Not holy marriage. They are 2 different things.
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
Your not attacking me, i don't believe in a so called God. I am not tolerant of someone pushing their beliefs onto another, this is why i Despise both major parties.
"Church and state are separate." Well we all know that the federal government and states are not to endorse one religion over another, and the people are supposed to be free to choose or not believe in religion. Unfortunately, we have the Right praying to religion to save America, at the same time doing the devils work. The Left wants the Catholic vote, but goes against most all religions and the right to do as they see fit. Again, doing the devils work if you will.
Thanks for calling me a hypocrite, i have never fought any such law, nor have i been for it or against it. In my mind, a law is not needed because, constitutionally, it was never illegal to begin with. Yes, some states may have made it illegal, but this should have struck down by the Supreme Court. That is is the fault of presidents and congress for appointing non centrist, non constitutionalists to the bench, in other words, the parties that have been power, Democrats and Republicans.
The only way to cure the problem is to take government out of the equation, or fully in, neither side will be happy, but centrist independents like me will be happiest when government is out of of everyone's life.
kingfootFeb 15, 2012
It was aimed at religious folk and you brought it out. It wasn't against you specifically. It was almost an anecdote to highlight for the people who don't understand why people like me end up butting heads with people like them.
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
My misunderstanding, "We attack you because you attack anyone" was directed at me.
sbuckley00Feb 14, 2012
Troll Alert!! Or just a very dumb person, who knows which.
aristotle0dudeFeb 14, 2012
Hey, thanks for giving us the heads up. It is refreshing to see someone give an advanced notice but you really should not be so hard on yourself. I don't' think you are dumb but just a bit ignorant from a lack of knowledge and understanding of what you fear and rally against.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sbuckley00Feb 14, 2012
you are such a complete douche bag (i thought about using bag or not and thought it fit nicely.)
FrankLuskaFeb 14, 2012
If it's you calling them out, it's probably you that is the offending one.
sbuckley00Feb 14, 2012
Seriously, your logic is that of a 10 year old boy. If you are not 10 years old then you should be ashamed and have your brain checked for Tumors.
FrankLuskaFeb 14, 2012
At least most 10 year old's have better intellect than your 1 year feeble mind.
concusionFeb 15, 2012
coming from the guy who just made a mature vagina joke
bonerbonerFeb 14, 2012
Take a look at FrankLuska's comment history and attempts at story submission here on Digg...
FrankLuskaFeb 14, 2012
And just what does that show? may i ask.
FrankLuskaFeb 18, 2012
Didn't think you had the guts to reply, Just like a liberal. make a utterly stupid comment and then run and hide.
GeorgeTheDemocratFeb 18, 2012
He is surely not a Liberal, just a wimp who opposes others views.
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
And the award to Biggest Douche in the Universe goes to ....FrankLuska for his per trail of a dumbs**t with his comment that "Washington state ok's sex with the anus, next on the agenda, ban sex with vaginas."
FrankLuskaFeb 15, 2012
You are such a wonderful person, to change the meaning of someones statements to suit your needs,
Oh, this digg down occurred @ 12:47 CST, just so you won't be blaming others.
irinbenishmaFeb 14, 2012
Really nice post. I suggest please share this post in digg alternative http://www.leakrr.com it will reach another 1000's of people.
kaegroFeb 14, 2012
buried and reported.
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
free free free ...... we do provide best advertisement of your property of free in the internent. visit our site for more info http://www.delhiproperty.orgComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
free free free ...... we do provide best advertisement of your property of free in the internent. visit our site for more info http://www.delhiproperty.orgComment is buried, click here to see the rest.