(06-05-2014 10:00 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:46 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:44 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 04:53 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 04:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Sure it does, because a law doesn't physically stop you from doing anything.

The police do...because it's against the law...again, not hard to follow.

Then why are so many laws broken?

Ask the police, law enforcement is their job...literally

YOU need to tell me why so many laws are broken if the police physically stop you from doing anything against the law.

No, I don't...law enforcement is not my responsibility...that's why police get paychecks.

(06-05-2014 10:01 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:57 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:55 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:36 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 08:07 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  You've lost. Move back to the topic.

I can't lose...pricipal is still gay...school still had gay pride week...and there's noting illegal about it.

As you enjoy sayin'...HOW BOUT THEM APPLES! (so silly.)

This particular post involves the law and law enforcement, and breaking the law because cops can't prevent every crime. Not the homo or pride crap at the school.

We're discussing the legality of a gay pride event at a public school...if you wish to start a thread on US Crime Rates and police response times...I'm not stopping you.

Nah bruh, we dabbled away from that 2 pages ago.

Then I'm done here.

Obama just made June the official gay pride month .... so yes it will be part of every child's public school life from now on. Private schools are booming and no one can figure out why.

(06-05-2014 10:04 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 10:01 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:57 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:55 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:36 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I can't lose...pricipal is still gay...school still had gay pride week...and there's noting illegal about it.

As you enjoy sayin'...HOW BOUT THEM APPLES! (so silly.)

This particular post involves the law and law enforcement, and breaking the law because cops can't prevent every crime. Not the homo or pride crap at the school.

We're discussing the legality of a gay pride event at a public school...if you wish to start a thread on US Crime Rates and police response times...I'm not stopping you.

Nah bruh, we dabbled away from that 2 pages ago.

Then I'm done here.

You sure are.

(06-05-2014 06:18 PM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  Obama just made June the official gay pride month .... so yes it will be part of every child's public school life from now on. Private schools are booming and no one can figure out why.

It was only a matter of time. Was hoping to maintain my 5 year olds innocence, but I guess I'm going to have to explain this gay thing to him before school can give him their version.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Better warn him its like cooties and to wash his hands and not wear any pastels, might catch it.

I love when people say they have no problem with gays in general but then say they have to protect their child's innocence, as if exposure to a gay is to see some kind of trashy hedonistic satanist that kills puppies.

I wonder if white people in the 60s werre worried about the innocence of their kids when black kids walked by?

(06-06-2014 05:46 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Better warn him its like cooties and to wash his hands and not wear any pastels, might catch it.

I love when people say they have no problem with gays in general but then say they have to protect their child's innocence, as if exposure to a gay is to see some kind of trashy hedonistic satanist that kills puppies.

I wonder if white people in the 60s werre worried about the innocence of their kids when black kids walked by?

You raise your kids in the construct of whatever social experiment you want, I'll raise mine traditionally.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(06-06-2014 05:53 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:46 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Better warn him its like cooties and to wash his hands and not wear any pastels, might catch it.

I love when people say they have no problem with gays in general but then say they have to protect their child's innocence, as if exposure to a gay is to see some kind of trashy hedonistic satanist that kills puppies.

I wonder if white people in the 60s werre worried about the innocence of their kids when black kids walked by?

You raise your kids in the construct of whatever social experiment you want, I'll raise mine traditionally.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

How 1960's of you.

(06-06-2014 09:48 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:53 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:46 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Better warn him its like cooties and to wash his hands and not wear any pastels, might catch it.

I love when people say they have no problem with gays in general but then say they have to protect their child's innocence, as if exposure to a gay is to see some kind of trashy hedonistic satanist that kills puppies.

I wonder if white people in the 60s werre worried about the innocence of their kids when black kids walked by?

You raise your kids in the construct of whatever social experiment you want, I'll raise mine traditionally.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

How 1960's of you.

So why are you in favor of exposing children to sexual lifestyles?

(06-05-2014 06:20 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 10:04 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 10:01 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:57 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 09:55 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  This particular post involves the law and law enforcement, and breaking the law because cops can't prevent every crime. Not the homo or pride crap at the school.

We're discussing the legality of a gay pride event at a public school...if you wish to start a thread on US Crime Rates and police response times...I'm not stopping you.

Nah bruh, we dabbled away from that 2 pages ago.

Then I'm done here.

You sure are.

Did you say something?

(06-06-2014 05:53 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:46 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Better warn him its like cooties and to wash his hands and not wear any pastels, might catch it.

I love when people say they have no problem with gays in general but then say they have to protect their child's innocence, as if exposure to a gay is to see some kind of trashy hedonistic satanist that kills puppies.

I wonder if white people in the 60s werre worried about the innocence of their kids when black kids walked by?

You raise your kids in the construct of whatever social experiment you want, I'll raise mine traditionally.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

You're like that lightbulb commercial...

Do you still wash clothes by the crick while your oldest looks out for wolves?

(06-06-2014 10:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:48 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:53 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:46 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Better warn him its like cooties and to wash his hands and not wear any pastels, might catch it.

I love when people say they have no problem with gays in general but then say they have to protect their child's innocence, as if exposure to a gay is to see some kind of trashy hedonistic satanist that kills puppies.

I wonder if white people in the 60s werre worried about the innocence of their kids when black kids walked by?

You raise your kids in the construct of whatever social experiment you want, I'll raise mine traditionally.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

How 1960's of you.

So why are you in favor of exposing children to sexual lifestyles?

If by CHILDREN you mean HIGH SCHOOLERS in this case... I have no problem with them being exposed to both gay and straight relationships equally.

(06-06-2014 10:36 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:48 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:53 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:46 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Better warn him its like cooties and to wash his hands and not wear any pastels, might catch it.

I love when people say they have no problem with gays in general but then say they have to protect their child's innocence, as if exposure to a gay is to see some kind of trashy hedonistic satanist that kills puppies.

I wonder if white people in the 60s werre worried about the innocence of their kids when black kids walked by?

You raise your kids in the construct of whatever social experiment you want, I'll raise mine traditionally.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

How 1960's of you.

So why are you in favor of exposing children to sexual lifestyles?

If by CHILDREN you mean HIGH SCHOOLERS in this case... I have no problem with them being exposed to both gay and straight relationships equally.

So now high school kids are adults and should be exposed to sexual lifestyles?

Liberals really are trying to sexualize our children.

Pretty sick dude.

(06-06-2014 10:26 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:53 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:46 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Better warn him its like cooties and to wash his hands and not wear any pastels, might catch it.

I love when people say they have no problem with gays in general but then say they have to protect their child's innocence, as if exposure to a gay is to see some kind of trashy hedonistic satanist that kills puppies.

I wonder if white people in the 60s werre worried about the innocence of their kids when black kids walked by?

You raise your kids in the construct of whatever social experiment you want, I'll raise mine traditionally.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

You're like that lightbulb commercial...

Do you still wash clothes by the crick while your oldest looks out for wolves?

Racist.

(06-06-2014 10:26 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:53 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:46 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Better warn him its like cooties and to wash his hands and not wear any pastels, might catch it.

I love when people say they have no problem with gays in general but then say they have to protect their child's innocence, as if exposure to a gay is to see some kind of trashy hedonistic satanist that kills puppies.

I wonder if white people in the 60s werre worried about the innocence of their kids when black kids walked by?

You raise your kids in the construct of whatever social experiment you want, I'll raise mine traditionally.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

You're like that lightbulb commercial...

Do you still wash clothes by the crick while your oldest looks out for wolves?

What's a crick? Is that the same thing as a creek?

(06-06-2014 10:39 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:26 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:53 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:46 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Better warn him its like cooties and to wash his hands and not wear any pastels, might catch it.

I love when people say they have no problem with gays in general but then say they have to protect their child's innocence, as if exposure to a gay is to see some kind of trashy hedonistic satanist that kills puppies.

I wonder if white people in the 60s werre worried about the innocence of their kids when black kids walked by?

You raise your kids in the construct of whatever social experiment you want, I'll raise mine traditionally.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

You're like that lightbulb commercial...

Do you still wash clothes by the crick while your oldest looks out for wolves?

What's a crick? Is that the same thing as a creek?

I believe it's a southern variation of creek...

Crick is rural northern variation of creek. It's "creek" down south.

(06-06-2014 10:48 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Crick is rural northern variation of creek. It's "creek" down south.

There you have it...

(06-06-2014 10:49 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:48 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Crick is rural northern variation of creek. It's "creek" down south.

There you have it...

I only know this because my mother's family has a cabin in the Black Hills, SD and they all say "crick" up there. Drives me nuts.

Our dictionary, Webster's New World College, Fourth Edition, lists both creek and crick as acceptable pronunciations for creek. But we turned to the experts at the Dictionary of American Regional English in Madison for the regional breakdown.

"Creek is common everywhere but New England and the Northwest; crick is more common in the West, North Midland, and the North except for New England," Luanne von Schneidemesser, the dictionary's senior editor, wrote in an e-mail. "Both are common in Wisconsin."

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/lifestyle/31852214.html