NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover073007.htm

California wants to be a testicle-free state, and it has been, long before Arnie ever hit town.

“Proponents of the recently-tabled state assembly bill AB-1634, the so-called “California Healthy Pets Act”, which would require that most of the state’s dogs and cats over the age of 6 months be sterilized, claim that placing the image of an intact male dog on public property is harmful and sends the wrong message to California pet owners.

“It’s not an appropriate display, in a state that carries out three million euthanasias a year,” said Dan Nender, a 1634 supporter who filed suit in Sacramento Federal Court to have the monument altered.


Hmm. So this isn't some Christian fundies up in arms about the display of intact genitals... it looks like you don't need people like that to want to ban the display of genitals.

And from an advocate of banning the public display of dog genitals:

“We cannot have intact testicles on government property. As California government officials, at least the one’s on our side will attest to, Sacramento is a testicle-free zone,” said Dean A. Ayers, of Animals C.L.U.B. Freedom.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover073007.htm




Hmm. So this isn't some Christian fundies up in arms about the display of intact genitals... it looks like you don't need people like that to want to ban the display of genitals.

And from an advocate of banning the public display of dog genitals:

that is the most ridiculus thing i have ever heard. if you cant be mature enough to handle seeing the genitals of an animal, you have serious issues

Hmm. So this isn't some Christian fundies up in arms about the display of intact genitals... it looks like you don't need people like that to want to ban the display of genitals.


Solution: dogs with panties. More buck$ for textile compartment.

Um...ok then. Your link appears to have gotten this news from here (http://www.officialnewsagency.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=73), from www.officialnewsagency.com a "news" site that features other such headlines as "Bush to Criss Angel: Make Illegals Disappear" and, in their "about us" section, states:

Official News Agency is satire. No story we write should be taken seriously.

It's fucking fake.

Um...ok then. Your link appears to have gotten this news from here (http://www.officialnewsagency.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=73), from www.officialnewsagency.com a "news" site that features other such headlines as "Bush to Criss Angel: Make Illegals Disappear" and, in their "about us" section, states:

It's fucking fake.

Your first time today that you've bothered to google what I've posted.

You failed in the other thread because you didn't bother to look into the Pace University Koran story.

Um...ok then. Your link appears to have gotten this news from here (http://www.officialnewsagency.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=73), from www.officialnewsagency.com a "news" site that features other such headlines as "Bush to Criss Angel: Make Illegals Disappear" and, in their "about us" section, states:



It's fucking fake.

Hey, that just means its about as reliable as most of his sources.

Your first time today that you've bothered to google what I've posted.

You failed in the other thread because you didn't bother to look into the Pace University Koran story.

So you agree its fake?

Your first time today that you've bothered to google what I've posted.

You failed in the other thread because you didn't bother to look into the Pace University Koran story.

Google what you posted? The link to the fake news story was RIGHT THERE directly in the article YOU posted. I followed YOUR link.

The link you left out in your last post. I'm not going to go through the effort to research your damned postings, if you don't provide a source, i'm not going to go digging.

Luckly for you, THIS time you actually managed to provide a source. Unluckly for you that very source debunked the entire thing in about 10 seconds.

Seriously, I don't know what's more fucking pathetic. The Canadian Free Press for falling for it, or you for pushing it along.

Official News Agency:
The world's leading independent news source...on this site...

Bullcrap

Google what you posted? The link to the fake news story was RIGHT THERE directly in the article YOU posted. I followed YOUR link.

The link you left out in your last post. I'm not going to go through the effort to research your damned postings, if you don't provide a source, i'm not going to go digging.

Luckly for you, THIS time you actually managed to provide a source. Unluckly for you that very source debunked the entire thing in about 10 seconds.

I provided a source in the Pace University thread, and you didn't bother to read that either.

It seems like if I post a source, you kneejerk into saying it's fake.

When I give you a fake one, you actually bother to read...

Quite amusing.

I provided a source in the Pace University thread, and you didn't bother to read that either.

Sorry, fail. You didn't provide a link until AFTER you made your little comment about "vandalism".

Your OP contained no link or source name.

It seems like if I post a source, you kneejerk into saying it's fake.

When I give you a fake one, you actually bother to read...

Quite amusing.

Oh please, stop trying to push this off as a little experiment of yours to see if people would notice.

You fell for it, big time. Trying to back peddle and act like it was all on purpose just makes you look more pathetic.

If your principal argument is going to be based on a single post, and you aren't going to research the topic yourself in order to get an answer, you're pretty lame.

I bet you go into court like that - checking your briefs probably means looking in your pants to see if you wore underwear today.

If your principal argument is going to be based on a single post, and you aren't going to research the topic yourself in order to get an answer, you're pretty lame.

I bet you go into court like that - checking your briefs probably means looking in your pants to see if you wore underwear today.

I hope that wasn't direct to me.

This has been another edition of "RO Completely Misses The Point."

Thank you, and good night.

/thread

If your principal argument is going to be based on a single post, and you aren't going to research the topic yourself in order to get an answer, you're pretty lame.

Why the fuck should I spend MY time to fill the gaps in YOUR post? If you fail to properly substantiate YOUR position, how is that my problem?

This has been another edition of "RO Completely Misses The Point."

Thank you, and good night.

Quote for Truth!

It's fucking fake.
This has been another edition of "RO Completely Misses The Point."

Thank you, and good night.

If your principal argument is going to be based on a single post, and you aren't going to research the topic yourself in order to get an answer, you're pretty lame.
which pretty much sums up nigh on every single thread you've ever made under any of your guises: Basing your entire pov and/or argument on a single, usually unsubstantiated, internet article.
So your point here is .... ?

I bet you go into court like that - checking your briefs probably means looking in your pants to see if you wore underwear today.
oohhh....very witty. A right clever Oscar Wilde. Take you long to come up with such a pithy bon mot?

This has been another edition of "RO Completely Misses The Point."

Thank you, and good night.

It's getting to be quite an impressive amount of such threads.

Meh. Never much liked the looks of scrotums anyways, and most non-eunuch dogs look really ugly when they walk. Like they're trying to keep from neutering themselves with every step. Oh wait... :p

(*thanks God this thread is not about HUMAN testicles*)

(*thanks God this thread is not about HUMAN testicles*)

That would not benefit the Californian economy in the long run. :D